The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-19

ness and Mr.. Fisher went to the board
anona one w ms1'e efye gut il 50 far as known no
"Did any money ever come to your de-
partment for work of that kind?' asked Mr..
NO, SIR replied Mr.. Trusler.
Mr.. Trusler said he regarded Mr.. Fisher
asa competent man for the position.
Mr.. Young next asked that some member
of the Board of Works take the stand.
Mr.. Wildman and Mr.. Kramer allowed Mr..
Meyer to answer the Mr.. Meyer
was asked regarding the forfeiture of Con-
tractor Dobson's bond for the street clean
ing of district four. and the granting Of
the contract to Fuehring Brothers 1t Is a
strange fact that MEMBERS of the board
make poor witnesses. They can make
statements in writing explaining matters.
but when on the stand are regarded as
failures and the impression given is that
they are trying to dodge the questions
asked.
DO you know the difference between the
bid of Mr.. Dobson and Fuehling Brothers."
asked Mr.. Young.
II do not answered Mr.. Meyer.
Did you not know at the time you let
the contract to Fuehring Brothers, after
Mr.. Dobson had failed to comply with the
Maybe we did. 1t is altogether likely"
difference of A,250?'
No, / can't say we did,"
do you not know that Mr.. Dobson is
now working as a subcontractor for Feuhr-
II do not"
Couldn't Feuhring Bros. very easily
have afforded to pay Dobson to Withdraw
Perhaps they could"
Of the $500 certified check, which the
board, gives its side of the street sweeping
explanation. and he said 1t had been rep
resented to him that Dobson was a poor
man who could not give the necessary
turn the check. 1t did not occur to him
then that there might be an understand
ing between Dobson and Feuhring Bros.
He was not sure about the difference in the
contracts. He thought the city engineer
had tabulated the amounts, and he was
or the opinion that there was not such a
diference as Mr.. Young stated. He thought
the board had compared all bids before let
ting them.
The Following statement, presented by the
and sprinkling matter much better than
they have been able to explain as witnesses
before the committee.
The net cost Of sprinkling ~ miles of
street In 1893 was $64, $40. G, and in 1894 the
cost of 91.3 miles was $49, 019. As; a difference
cost per mile es in 1888. 8 s7s sl 81 pa and ioSr SAY Aye - in
1894. In 1894 there were cleaned 31.33 miles
Of streets at a cost of $40, 266. 81. while in 1893
4q4lo, q difference, with an allowance for
t the eS diference in the number of miles, of
f irons The in fl favor svI0r Of Of 1899, which, deducted
year, gives a net saving to the property
owners of $5,141.7S.
At the conclusion of the meeting Contrac-
tor Deering, of the firm Of Deering & Wild
er, arose and stated that he wished to make
a statement. He declined to be sworn. He
SAID all cement sidewalks laid within the
past year were laid contrary to specifca-
tons. He said it was impossible for a
contractor to lay cement at ten cents a foot
as the material cost him that much. He
said City Engineer Brown was all right
but he didn't understand the cement bust
ness. Mr.. Deering asked a chance to DEM
o%nstrate to the committee that what he
said was true. He will be given a hearing
Monday morning.