The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-05-29

| MIR. Sampson and others spoke in the
same vein. The matter was laid =. over
until 3 p. M, and the council took re-
cess.
Afternoon Session.
The council reassem bled at 2 p. m.
with Mr.. iced in the chair, and took up
the protest against opening jackson
street to Los Angeles street. 1t was de-
cided to continue the hearing until next
Monday, and the matter OF the appeal
OF the property owners on Washington
street against the payment for cement
curb on the ground that the work waa
of an inferior quality, was taken up.
Mr. Chenoworth, the original con-
tractor, was sworn, and testified that
the work was done by Clark & Niemsn,
the sub-contractors, and that he had no
knowledge AZ to the quantity or quality
of the materials used.
Mr.. +. Nieman was sworn and testi-
| fed that the work was done under the
direction OF Mr. Jno. s Clark, who was
sworn and testified: II had personal
charge of the work ON Washington
street; | had two gangs of i've men
! working, one on each side. There was
an inspector there and the cement was
close account of the amount of cement
used between Central avenue and San
Pedro street, the specifications as to
cement work we're complied with strictly
to the letter, we used one barrel OF
cement on every 20 TO % feet; l could
not say how much cement was used in
all on the Washington street curbing, as
the bills were mixed in with other &C.
| counts.
INSPECTOR HYLAND's STATEMENT.
Hylsnd, the inspector on the work
was sworn: I inspected this worK and
saw that the material was properly
mixed and that the work was done
| have memoranda of each days work
on the street; kept the whole amount
of the cement used, but could not say
how much was used in the curbing; l
cannot say how many feet OF curbing
were laid in the whole job.
The witness then examined his memo
randum book and found an account of
6l44 feet OF the curbing, and that 273
barrels OF cement had been used in the
work, and then continued: Il consider
that tirst-class work was done on this
curbing in every particular"
Mr.. |. j. Griffith was then sworn and
submitted the following statement in
his behalf:
MR.. GRIFFITH's STATEMENT.
Having filed protest on behalf of
the Briswalter Land and Water compa-
nv against the acceptance of the curbing
on Washington street between San Pc
dro street and Central avenue, 1 wish
to present for your consideration brief
statement of the facts in the case in
support thereof.
The Briswalter Land and Water COM
pany is the owner of the entire frontage
on the south side of Washington street
between the street and avenue named,
and the curbing thereon was com pleted in
the latter part of 1898 and from the ex-
cellent quality OF the gravel used in the
construction thereof, and from assur-
ances made by the contractors who per-
formed the work, | was OF the opinion
that a good piece of work had been done,
fully up to the specifications in every
detail, and continued in that opinion up
to the 9th instant, at which time l
learned that parties owning frontage on
the north side OF the street under con-
sideration had been compromised with
by the contractor in settlement for
some l01a cents per lineal foot less than
the contract price, and in addition
thereto, 10 per cent off for caeh.
thereupon called upon Mr.. Frank Chen.
oworth, the original contractor for the
work, and asked him if frst-class work
had been dore and ii would be allowed
tho same rebate and discount which
others had received. He replied that
he WAS unable to answer my question,
but that be would get the slb-contractor
sek l.
rultation in the matter. That afternoon
Messrs. Chenowortn, Martz & Nieman
called at my office, as per agreement,
and in course OF the conversation Mr..
Nieman stated that compromises had
been made with owners OF property on
the north aide of the street, ss above
stated, and in some cases "a much as 15
per cent had been deducted for cash.
Messrs. Chenoworth and Martz corrobor-
ated this statement. Mr.. Nlemap fur.
Their stated that the reason why these
compromises were made. was that while
the work ON the south side of the street
was good in every respect, that on the
north side was not so good and, also, that
the property owners on the north side
we're making strong objections to the
work and could be silenced by compro-
mise on the price.
then filed the protest named and
proceeded to investigate the work on the
south side OF the street, with the result
that found the facing in many places
not to be of the required thickness, that
It WAS an easy matter TO break the curb
.ng with pick in any place and tear il
out: that in the curDing on the south
side, from San Pedro street to Central
avenue, 800 cracks appeared, and further
that ali analysis of piece of the curb,
made and certified to by well known
assayers, shows that the ratio of cement
was part to IL 6parts OF gravel, instead
OF to i. as required by specifications.
When the committee of the council
visited the work, MIR. Nsman explained
the presence of the cracks by claiming
that they were caused by the use of too
much cement, but l submit that il is a
self evident proposition that they were
caused by the use OF an Inadequate guam
'tity OF cement. Had sufficient guam
tity been used the cracks would not have
appeared neither would it have been
possible to tear the curbing to pieces
with pick, easily, as is the case, and
the analysis conciusively demonstrates
that the specifications were ignored in
The work.