The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-06-15
THE EXTRA sPRINKLING CON-
TRACT.


Mayor GIendinning has vetoed the
/ sprinkiing contract with Heath and to-
night the city council viii Dass upon
the question OF sustaining the veto or
the contract 1t is very important
matter, more important than the peo-
/ pie generally realize. What are his
/ honor's reasons for returning the con-
tract to the council without his ap-
prevail? He states them as follows:
I return TO your honorable body,
without approval. the sprinkling con
tract entered into with john T. Heath,
which was adopted by the council on
the Sth inst, fos the following reasons;
J. H. Griffin in submitting his bid Tor
street sprinkling May 1S 1896, states
specifically that he will Sprinkle dls-
tricts l. ,. ; and >. viz: One year con
tract SLID per month; TWO years, Sl'o.S
per month: three years, ST. All
other blocks that may be sprinkled
$2.45 per block per week for time actu-
ally sprinkled. II regular size, others
prOpcrtiOnately the same.
In view of the above bid and its ac-
ceptance by the city. | am of the opin-
ion that when the city determines that
it win have extra sprinkling done in
any year while this contract is in force
such extra work belongs TO J. H Crit
fin and the letting of it to other parties
is a violation of the spirit and intent
Of the contract between the city and
J. Il. Griffin.
The mayor says the spirit and in
tent of the contract between the city
and ]. h Griffin" were that he should
have the sprinkling of all other blocks
not included in his contract. Not II
C,-sns., q rr,-o1l - l,a
extra sprinkling at $2.45 a block if the
contract for doing it was let to him;
and the city agreed to pay him that
price if ii let it to him. That was the
spirit and intent of the contract. and
nothing more.
Before the Heath contract was
passed by the city council it was sub
mitted to Judge Mckay. the city at
torney, and he said there was nothing
in it that conflicted with the Griffin
contract. Had there been any spirit
and intent" contrary to this, surely
Judge Mckay would have so advised
when the extra sprinkling contract was
submitted to him. So much for spirit
and intent"
There is involved in this extra
sprinkling contract a matter of several
thousand dollars. If the Heath con-
tract is sustained by the city council,
the people save this amount If the
mayors veto is sustained and Griffin
gets it, the people lose it. Some figures
will best show this saving or loss as the
council shall decide:
73 blocks, Heath. 81 900
73 blocks, Griffin. 1000
Difference 1870. .......S 50, 100
VIII the city council vote to save
this 50 100 10 the people or to give it TO
Mr. Griffin?
This is not all. The council commit
tee on sprfnkling has decided to recon-
mend to the council the-sprinkling OF
some eighty blocks in addition to the
seventy-three. Say that the additional
number of blocks TO be sarinl1led is
seventy-three, this viii make a total
of one hundred and forty-six. Let fig
ures again speak:
146 blocks, Heath. 500
146 blocks, Griffin. & GOO
Difference .... 81. 200
VIII the city council vote to save this
$4,000 or viii it vote to squander it2
for to pay $4,000 for exactly the same
thing that can be had for So, 500 is to
squander $4,000.
Already the people are possessed of
the idea that the sprinkling contract is
tainted with fraud and corruption: but
whether or not it is, for the city coun-
ell to wantonly throw away nearly
$4,000 Of the peoples money would be
for the council to deepen that impress
sion.