Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-08

Alderman Dnrtor said lac had some
awnings TO build soon and he was in
favor of permitting the repairs in this
cuse. The report of the committee was
adopted and the awning may be re
paired.
The fire committee reported that Il
had not collected Mrs. Jennings board
bill from Larry Herbert and it reported
back the papers, which were filed.
The sumo committee reported against
the claim Of j. II. Craig
The street and alley committee stood
pat on IT'S report on the bids for the
North street sewer and Mr.. Vincents
petition was shelyed
a. j. Hayes was awarded the contract
for building the Elm street sewer mt 90
cents per foot, the city furnishing the
pipe. The Walter A. Wood company Is
To puy for 100 feet of this sewer.
The new waterworks contract here
came up as unfinished business. The re-
port of the special committee was called
up aud was re-rend. The report rec
commended the payment of $4,000, part
OF the I'D per cent withheld under the
contract.
The city attorney was asked to fur,
nisll the council with q construction of
the contract by special resolution
His report was submitted last night
and is very full document. He nd
dressed n series of questions TO the city
engineer, Engineer Halves, and Superin.
tcndcnt Scoble, asking for information
rs 10 the completion Of the works and
also u series of questions TO City Audi
tor tombstone.
The questions refer TO the completion OF
the work, what Is yet to be d0ae, what
amount Of money is due or unpaid has u
test been madeI If not, why not
II no test has been made, what amount
of money would be necessary to b. re-
tanned to make reparsi etc.
Captain Scoble's answers generally
are, the engineer in charge Of construction
Us the proper person 10 answer this ques-
ton or do not know
Engineers Halves and Kerr differ
widely in their answers. the former gene
orally holding that the contractors had
complied with their contract SO far as the
construction part Of it goes, that 10 test
has been because OF the Holley Manufuc-
turing company's delay in putting in the
pumps.
The city engineer held that the contract
had not been complied with because
no final test has been nor could be made
until the pumps were IN. aud hence no
one could say If the work was all right
or not.
The city attorneys report also called
attention TO the facts that the city had
no record OF the time the plans were
turned over TO the contractors and that
generally he got no such answers 10 lis
queries as to matters of fact as would
enable him TO form q conclusion as TO
what the facts were He characterized
the answers of the city engineer as
cyasiye and nonelusive aud as the city
engineers decision was final the city
attorney declined on this inexact evil
dence, 10 take upon himself the burden
Of deciding a question of facts that being
the province of another department OF
tue city government. His fnal conclu-
sion Is that when the work was done nc
cording 10 the plans and specifications,
the city engineer should be compelled 10
accept the work and make the payments
due. That "A the matler OF forfeiture he
hnd no evidence upon which to base an
idea even, and this was the case with
regard TO the cost Of making repairs to
the pipe line.
Mr.; Hawley held that the work was
completed ana therefore he was entitled
70 his pay
lie read several letters bearing on the
question Of delay. showing thar the de-
lays were All of the city's making OF
que 20 the Carnegie strike. Mr. Hawley
seoA ABOUT ten minutes 10 read the e1-
tracts and explain them aud he had the
attention Of four or Ave aldermen, the