Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-12-08
THE SEVER CONTRACTORS
Except 10 The Mayors Criticisms
and Conclusions,
And Wake n Lengthy Countsr-sinte-
ment. Ioriincd by Figures. aud
Giving Tuii Information OF the
Trouble.


tiiIf5r Dsscrci Ncrg
For the teueht Of the public ard
taxpayem generally ami IN Justice ~
ourseives We dunrc to call your atteu.
lion TO tue misleading auJ CIRQUE.
ms abatement made In the mayOr's
veto to tue resolution OF the Council ~
atom work upOn the gravity sewer
Tho Mas or IL evidently misinlormei
ar has not given thr subject much
Thought. He met citcl the Council 10
rafagfsph eel" OF the contract aud
avs IL provides for the manner and
rgiuts 6ut the circumstance uuJer
which the work may DO taken out VI
tbp hauda OF the contractors anu
finished ny the city. This reference
h. indicating, o. that Paragraph, n,
only feiefa 70 where the contractors
have failed aud are unable unu un-
willing 10 furnish the urCCsiafy ma.
trrial anu sufficient force 10 complete
the work within a stipulated time auu
does not apply 90 tuis care, where the
contractors nave proceeded more tapiu.
ly vita tho work than the city was pro.
fafcd ~ turkish right VI way ana meet
tue payments tor
The Mayer refers 10 paragraph 10 Of
the contract, which pf0viu,s that OIL
work shall tu done Ia suCtill D OF not
more than 1000 feet. THIS 10 not pfnc
ticablp, 90 n would tnku ak Year,
under this method 20 construct the
sewer. This has teen construed by the
city engineer ~ only safeguard 20
o. not 10 have the principal streets oil
the city nll torn up at the same time,
and IL governed by paragraph 20, Of
Instructions to bidders, anu Paragraph
- OF the contract, wuich Province
that the city engineer shall be tue sole
Interpreter Of the tfur intent aud
meaning " the specifications aul con.
tract, Rnd his decision shail bu nnui
aud conclusive to all parties. These
points have all been pasHcd upon by
the city engineer az the WORK pro.
gfrised, aud are OF record.
Thirdly, the Mayor rricrs 20 para.
graph -, which provides that estimate,
shall not be- given Tor less than the
compile length OF one HrriiOa, aud
then states that only 800 feet
had been completed, amounting
20 so, 0jG, tho only sum due
the CDu,AciufF, and that tue
city hos plii them In cash about
slOs, 900, which h Incorrect The facts
are, that paragraph % o. the contract
provides fora partial estimate on nil
The work done during the month,
whether II IL completed or u.t,sl llng
Oh one section has ttuu completed.
For Instance, on some HuCtlout, there
Is over $4,000 worth IT grading ~ be
done before the construction uf the
fowrr can b. commence ara II two
sections have teen graded during the
month, nul ont section and u fac.
tional section nave been completed sO
lug aH there Do unp completed sec
ton for the month We afe entitled To
an estimate on all VI she work zone,
aad tuu cry engineer AMI board uf
public works have 70 passed upUn it
Mr. Dofemus may have his iaults, Tut
HE seve'rHt critic would not accuse
him Of giving contractors premature
esiimatcs, thereby deirauding the city.
Tho records OF theboaf Of putlic wOfts
are authority, and are not imaginary
figures. The records shows that We
are entitled 10 and have been given
estimates by the city engineer, Hp.
proved by the board Of public worke, 10
the amount OF $751;, 0i6iB, exclusive OF
the work done in November, instead Oi
ssB,g53 10 tho Mayor claimy. o thr
sluS,OOO which the Mayor states We
have had ia cash, We have received
Just 81, 500, The balance has all been
IN warranis, subject 10 a discount OF
from D % Il cents on the dollar
which amounts 10 n ioss II
about 81 200 10 the contract.
ors. The difference between carrying
on work for payments In cash anu pay.
IN wArIanIf, anu then no, know.
lug whcn you will get the warrants, a.
has been our experience, can scarcely
DO appreciated by uue not doing busi.
ness Ia this way. For example, the city
u paying $3.50 por barrel Tor cement
IN quantity aud ill per thousand Tor
hHck, when the same can be- purchAhUd
for $3.50 per barrel aud 3S.25 per thou.
sand brick cash, a difference OF over 20
Per cent. This T. more than n cOntfaC.
Tor expects 10 make on "A large contract.
Ihlsmay DO for the city, but II WON'T
DO for contractor whcn his contract
calls Tor cash. Moreover, We entered
into this contract IN good faith with |
The understanding that 100000 In |
bonds had been set aside for the pay |
mont OF this work, which have buUu |
nssd for other puTposeF, while We are |
Left unpaij.
~ wv AlAhN w hllAAAA ANi y AAANhHfH ]
there was Sil ,79Ss 81 due " on partial !
tsiimatts, betluvs tie retained IrT- |
centage OF 81, 052, with the city w to |
iln limit Of debt aud unable ~ issue ua |
any warrants, 10 ray nothing OF paying |
m Ia cash, Hs the contract provides. |
Our attorneys udvitel ~ W was un. |
safe 10 continue, but In the face Of this !
Tue mayor says go on, Since We have |
rtOrprd work We nave received s2O,- |
hsa.sa Ia warrants and due bills re-.
celyable Tor taxes only, With tho un'
ueislan ling that this council INTENDED !
10 release us, on this amount We l0st |
over $1,000 in discounts, anu Ia proof VI |
lhis assertion We refer 81 gu 10 MI Fred |
Antlbach, who purchased u us lO 300 |
worth AZ OK cents. The balance was !
sold In small lots at 85 cents. This !
hlud Of payment was accepted ON con- |
uillon that the contract would DO can |
ctlcd, aud Tor the further reason that |
the city was practically bankrupt IN |
order 10 make an nmiCAulo settlement !
and not carry II Into the courts. A. 10 |
lhn Justice OF Hucn treatment, we leave |
Tue public ~ decide. Respectfully
a. h. Hon ON,
ELIAS NORRIS.
Nail I.nka fNtlg n. IkNN