Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-02-10

tested in the proceedings OF the City
Council last light, and members were
slow in gathering.
BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
President Marbury and six members
were present. No spectators appeared
without the bar.
A resolution appropriating S6OO Tor
crawling and grading Columbus street
from Queen to the old canal Dasin'
came up as unfinished business, it haV-
ing come in from the lower board. The
action of the latter was concurred IN.
No business originated in the Board
of Aldermen, and all the matters sent
in from the Common Council were con-
Cured in without debate.
COMMON COUNCIL.
AS usual the councilmen were slow
in assembling.
The committee on streets submitted
a report of the cost of paving King
street and advised that vitrifed brick
pavement be laid down on King street
from Fairfax to Henry street.
Mr.. Burke explained that the est.
mates of the engineer were for vitlided
brick laid in concrete. The figures
were those published in the GAZETTE
yesterday, i. e. $4,000 for the entire
work. The report divided the work
into three sections-from Union to
Fairfax, from Fairfax to Henry and
from Henry to West.
The following is the report: Union to
West street 13 squares; $4,000 square
yards paving, $33 $50: 1850 feet of curb
ing, 81 653; total, $39,313 OF this amount
the electric railroad should pay $9,OSS;
city and property owners, 500, 225, the city
paying two thirds of this, and the property
owners 50, TAP Fairfax to Henry street;
II, 100 square yards vitrified brick at S1.SO
per foot 519,9S0; 300 feet 6.inch curb
ing at &c cents per foot, 81, S3S; total,
S22 OF this amount the electric rail-
road should pay $685.; city and property
owners to be divided above stated, ST.
423 Pitt to Alfred street; four squares,
$500 square yards, S11, 466 Of this
amount the railroad company would pay
81 ,3S6, and the city and property owners
So, 766.
In answer to an inquiry of Mr.. Greene,
Mr.. Burke explained that the com,
mittee had advised the repaving Of only
that portion of King street which either
had been severed or could be severed
by means of adjoining alleys so that
when the pavement was once laid it
need not be disturbed.
Mr.. Cation asked if the cost of paw
ing with granite rubble was compared
with vtriiied brick.
Mr.. Burke answered that vitri6ed
brick and granite rubble would be about
the same in cost.
Mr.. Uhler said that it was evident
, that the property owners, under the
plans proposed, would have to pay half
the cost, $4,000 out of $4,000. He
thought this should De corrected.
The chair stated that in offering the
resolution his idea was that the amount
to be paid by the railroad company
should be deducted from the cost and
the property owners pay their share OF
the remainder.
Mr.. Greene and the chair asked that
no action be taken at this meeting and
figures might be revised.
The committee on public property re-
ported in favor of leasing again to w
A. Smoot & Co. certain lot on Union
street adjoining the fish wharf.
Mr.. Cation presented substitute,
which provided that an inquiry as to
what part of the fish wharf should be
rented annually, &C., should be made
before any new leases were agreed upon.
Mr.. Strider explained that mass OF
fertilizer had been left on this lot after
the recent fire, which deteriorated
when exposed to the elements, and
Messrs. w. A. Smoot & Co. did not
wish to put building there until the
new lease should be made.
After further debate the substitute
was adopted.
A report of the engineer on method
of providing drainage for the new Hy.
draulion engine house and the making
of sewers on Patrick and Cameron
streets to connect with the Henry street
sewer was submitted and referred TO the
committee on streets.
The Virginia Title Company submit
ted proposal to sell the city q CON-
plete plat book of each square and the
proposal was referred to the joint COM
mittee on streets and finance.
Mr.. Burke presented State law
under which cities could make improve.
ments and asked that it be referred TO
the committee on general laws to as
certain if a city law could not be adopt
ed to comply with its provisions.
This was done and Council adjourned.