Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-01-29

to the question, said thAt the bond
furnished by this contractors iurnisbo1
tho city no protection whatever. 81
submitted a new bond 10 Mr.. vii.
Hams" said he, "and he stated that he
would SEQ me later about the matter.
lilo hasn't come around yet, but one OF
the contractors came to see mo aud
promised that he AMI HE attorneys
would meet me on Monday. They
| didn't come, however, notwithstand-
ing the fact that | was here waiting
tor their appearance, l suppose they
thought ID would be best 10 consult
with members OF the Council, think.
Ing, perhaps, that they couli work
them much easier than they could
work me. AZ you well know, sew
efhl Of the contractors are non.Tesi-
dents and a. soon Nc they get their
money they Will skip out, ami leave
Us In the lufch, u the bond IL not up 10
requirements. We would have to
commences suit against the contractors
TO determine their ability under the
contract, and the chances are
that they would DO of where
services could not be made on them,
thus necessilaiing proceedings against
tbs bondsmen."
Romnsy said tha, a. a member OIL
the special committee 10 which the
mat VI had been referred, he had
given II full and thorough cOnsidsra.
ton. Tue claims, In his opinion,
were legitimate, AMI II mis- opinion ~
business man was worth anything, hO
believed tho bond was ample security
to protect the city rom all Ices.
O'Moafa took exceptions TO q portion
OF Judge Mckay'e statement, wherein
he intimAied that counsel for the con.
tractors might be able TO "wofk" the
Council, but couldn't "work" him.
He thought the bond was tuili eicnt
and should be approved.
Htewaft, In supporting the city AZ
totnty, thought that 0fiiclaPs views on
the matter were worthy Of oontiiesa-
tlon, and should DO given some weight
by the Council.
WILLIAMS RRPLIKs 10 MCKAY.
Attorney Farley l.. williams then
tocited that The bond had been drawn
up ia accordance with the exacllons Of
the Council, aud had only been 70.
ierfed TO Judge Mckay for his ap.
ptoval a. 20 form. "But he wants to
20 further than thRt,n SAID Mr. Will
liams. He has drawn up boud which
he, himself thinks would be about the
right thing anu asks Us TO sign that. In
doing ~ tie has usufped the pOSer VI
the Counri."
MIR. Williams then referred 10 Judge
McKAy'a "woTklng0 remarks. He re-
CARED the statement OF the city attof-
ney a. 81 iutult 10 the Intelligence Of
the Council, and resented II a. such AZ
lar ~ II had reference 10 himself
Attorney Williams then asket that
the Council approve tho bond, and
nuggested that the receipt which they
would DO asked TO sign, be as follow:
"Roceived ON the foregoing account
the sum Of fSl, O0l.S5 errors ami omis-
sions excepted; II being expressly uH.
derstoJd that tue undof-ignod are not
hereby preoluded from claiming anu
prosecuting In the courts or otherwise
any further claims they may have on
aocount OF the construction OF The
gravity sewer or the work done hnd
supplies and material furnished In con.
necIlOn herewith"
bond APPROVED.
Dale moved that tho bond ~ iurn.
lshed by the contractors be approved
ana the amount pAiu. Carried, all
members voting aye except Stewart,
who voted no; LIS Prohon absent.
THE RECEIPT.
O'MsAra offered the following rs 10
the receipt;
Resolved, That tho auditor Ia hereby
instructed to accept receipt tor tho Aui.
cunt paid, but this receipt Is not Intended
to bar the contractors from any claim
they may have In the way Of extras not
yol presented.
Stewart offered an amendment, pro.
vidlng that the receipt DO as follows,
which carried; "Recelved sSl, OOl ,85
40 per final estimate"
Appropriations aggregatlng 81, 1862 9b
were allowed, and An Adjournment
taken fof one week.