The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-03
FAULTY CATCH BASINS
GIVES EVIDENCE BE-
FORE THE LOCAL LExOW.
Ger Brown Claims He Has Saved
Lots of Money.

street sewer eaten basin. Excepting a
statement submitted by City Engineer
Brown in regard to the years work in his
department. this was the most important
testimony.
William Burk, a brcklayer, who was
employed in the building of those catch
basins, was placed the stand. He said
he had built one catch basin with a four
inch wall, when the specifications call for
nne-inch walls. This was done, he said,
on the order of Derk DeRuter, of the
Acme Paving and Construction Company,
which company had the contract for the
work. 1t was built at a time when there
was no inspector there and was covered up
without being seen by inspector. He
said he saw others, on the same sewer,
which were built In the same way, and some
of them were laid without the use of
mortar, but were afterward cemented on
the inside. He said some were built with
out any brick at all on the bottom. He did
not think the inspector has passed any bad
material on this job, nor did any bad ma
terial get into it.
Mr.. Brown was then placed on the stand
and "a great deal of the testimony. given
by the other witnesses, was gone over and
explanations required. Most of it of
an unimportant character, being simply a
repetition of what has already been said.
He explained the benefits to the city aris-
ing from his trips to Kokomo and Louis
vile. He said that by going to a cement
mill and seeing just what kind of material
was being used and how it was being
handled, he could understand just where
to look for defects and could more readily
test the material offered, thus saving con-
siderable of his time. The same facts were
true of his visit to Kokomo. The trip of
Mr.. Miliender, the cedar block inspector
who went to Tennessee, he explained in the
same way. He said he had recommended
that an inspector be sent there at the ex-
pense or the city, but as the paving company
which had the contract offered to pay the
said the work could be done in much less
time down there, besides giving the in
speetor an opportunity to select the very
cement walks he said he had advised the
Board of Works that some of the con-
and that on such jobs he placed inspectors,
even though other work had to be neg
ieeted; He said that IN some, cases a con
actual cost and still allow the contractor
70 make profit. In sucn cases as the
North Illinois-street walks there were a
large number of private contracts which
couid pc secured by the contractor upon
when ne could make good profit. On this
street large number of people wanted the
walk extended to the curb and others want
ed walks built into the yards. These were
a DrOfjf
even though he did not make anything on
the city contract. He estimated the actual
COS cost OF cement walk, built according to
tsne city specifications, at IL cents a square
at 101a cents.
Some time ago Mr. Brown was asked to
prepare a statement, showing the number
OF contracts under construction on the first
say OIL eacn month, and the number of in
sIeetors available for the work. He SUBJ
rmi.seu mat report. which also contained a
n aSLna1et t OF other matters, as follows, and
asked tnat 1t be placed in evidence:
You have doubtless recognized that but
=, CLASS OF facts have been brought out
IN TINS investigation which seems to throw
any cloud upon the conduct of the engineers
once, the fact that streets have not been
eleaned up as rapidly and thoroughly as
pieted and ad'ef f,s sewer contracts are COM
ana that there are some thin spots in
cement walks; I propose to show, beyond a
uoupt, that the engineers Office is not re-
sponsibie for these matters but has done
tne work given 1t to do with a most made
6 qua. force at one-fifth to one-tenth the
money appropriated and has been refused
what has been asked for as absolutely
necessary. and estimates for next year were
cut down before presentation to the Coun-
ell. | will compare this years work with
the last two years:
Work, Work Engineer- Per
1892 ....... 1888, 422 s2o,0o5 "a
1879 1879 ........... 1,SoS,5ao 1874 Is
L.
work than last year at less than per
cent. more cost for engineering and have
done nearly $50 per cent. more work, than
in 1892 for per cent. more cost for en-
gineering. If the cost of inspectors is
omitted, as is necessary to compare with
some citiess the cost Of engineering proper
the last year is $l4289 or only OF per cent.
of the contract price of the work DONE 1
have at hand the last reports from a num-
Der of cities with which to compare our own
city. The following list includes inspectors
in the cost of the engineering:
Cost of Per
Work. engineering. cent.
Kansas City,. $50 1876 $40 49, 81 6.1
Duluth, 93...... 413963.12 33,91295 81
Duluth, "a. 5496 &c IS, 1861 40
Concord, N. H.. 27,323.36 3,4O697 ia
1.-The following do not include inspectors
in the cost of engineering:
Cost of Per
Work. engineering. cent.
Grand Rapids. $3.50, 764.21 $9,043.S8 "a
Cincinnati .......2, 2S2 1893. 08 SO0SO.l1 30
Louisville ....... 414,099.14 27.43l.72 SO
1T will be seen that engineering costs
other cities from four to eighteen times
as much as it does Indianapolis and
none of the cities pay an excessive amount
for engineering, unless, possibly, st. Louis
for its sewers
ITO show what work our inspectors are
obliged to cover, / present the following
table, prepared in answer to Mr.. Merritts
question. Contracts in process of construc-
ton at times stated We're as follows: