The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-06

The city council committee on sew
ers met last night for the purpose OF
considering the claims for extras put
in by the gravity sewer contractors
The entire evening was spent in dis
cussing the first item. on the bill, and
at that rate of going it will take
months to get through the entire list
In addition to the members of the COM
mittee there were present Chairman Of
the Board of Public Works Doremuss
City Engineer Young. Attorney P. L.
Williams, representing the sewer con-
tractors: Engineers Shelton and KeI-
sey. and the sewer contractors them
selves.
The proceedings consisted in argu-
ments to the committee by Mr.. Dore-
mus and Mr. Young against the allow
ance Of the claim and by Mr. Williams
and the contractors in favor Of it
Item No. L on the list of extras was
for shortage in measurements of ex-
cavatiOn, 6,072.7 cubic yards of earth at
40 cents per cubic yard, $2,975.62.
Mr.. Williams. on behalf of the sewer
contractors. stated that the amount
claimed was for excavation done and
necessary for the conveyance of the
water which accumulated in the trench
gued that under the terms Of the con-
tract this was clearly an extra Tor the
contract provided that the contractors
should be paid for all grading. includ-
ing excavation and all such work as
was necessary in laying the founda-
tons. This excavation was done to
drain off the water and it had not
been included in the city engineers
estimate.
MeSSrS YOuup- and nOror,711e IN Lo
half of the city. argued that the intent
and meaning of the contract was that
the contract was that the city should
supply the drain pipe for carrying off
the water. and that the contractors
should lay it and that the laying in
Guided the excavation, filling in and
everything else in that connection. ana
that all the excavation the centrac-
tors were entitled to payment for was
the actual width of the sewer and no
more, and that the clause in the con-
tract to the effect that the contractors
were to be paid for grading, excava-
ton. etc. did not apply to the exca-
walton of the laterals to carry off the
water
On these two propositions the Rrgu-
ments were made pro and con, and at
1890 the committee adjourned to meet
again tonight, the suppositiOn being
that they had got all the information
possible on specification / and would
proceed with the other items on the
bill
At the close. in order to refute the
statement that they had not settled
with A. Holt & Sons. sub-contractors.
the contractors handed in receipt for
s5.O67.65. given in full discharge of all
claims against them by Holt.
The city council some time ago with
held $97S.02 from the contractors for
the reason that 1t was supposed they
had not settled with Mcdonald an
other sub-cOntractor. The contractors
produced a receipt showing that Ne
Donald had been paid. and asked the
committee to recommend to the coun-
Gil that they be paid the amount kept
back
The total bill of extras sent in foots
up S2S.429.2S. but the contractors. for
a prompt settlement, offered to accept
$4,000. They consider this a very gen
erOus proposition and aver that in do
ing so they are losing money, but
rather than that the matter should go
into protracted litigation will settle on
that basis. especially as by a mistake
the council had been told the extras
would not foot UP to more than that
sum-