The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-06-14
ABOUT THE BRIDGE.
The County Does Not Pay for the
False Work and is Amply Pro-
tected Says the Contrac-
tors Attorney.
To the Editor 81 NE state journal:

tors Attorney.
To the Editor of The State Journal:
As the attorney for Messrs. Keepers
and Thatcher, bridge contractors, and
being well acquainted with the facts,
wish to correct some miSunderSt landings
concerning the new bridge, for which
the Journal reporter, with no intention,
believe, to be other than fair and just,
is in part responsible. Hence, 1 ask
you to give the following statement as
conspicuous place as possible in your
columns.
First-Has the board of county COM
miSsiOners made ample provisions to
secure the county against loss in the
construction of the bridge?
The board holds a bond signed by
Keepers and Thatcher and by one of the
ted States for $25, 900 conditioned upon
the faithful performance of the con-
tract by Keepers and Thatcher. This
bond is on file in the office of the county
clerk.
The board also holds a bond in the
amount of $125,0O0, signed by the same
parties, conditioned upon the payment
of all labor and material bills by Keep
ers and Thatcher. This bond is on file,
as is provided by the statute, in the Of
flee of the clerk of the district court
Both these bonds are legally signed
and executed, and are in full force and
effect.
In addition to these two bonds, the
commissioners withhold from each and
every estimate IS per cent of the esti-
mate, which IS per cent will be retained
by the board until the bridge is finally
the board has in its hands money al
ready earned by the contractors
amounting to S14. 432 As.
It would seem that 1854, 432 46 is a,~suf-
fcient guaranty to the taxpayers of
Shawnee county that the bridge will be
completed according to contract.
Second-Were the commissioners de-
relict in allowing an estimate for the
false work lumber?
When the construction of the bridge
was begun, Mr.. HincI1ley, superinten-
dent on the part of the county, pre-
pared schedule of items upon which
monthly estimates would be allowed.
The sum of these items aggregated
the contract price for which the bridge
this schedule was for false work and
material, and the amount to be allowed
for that item was SIG 232.S7. This
schedule was accepted by the contract
ors, and relying upon it, they ordered
and paid for all the lumber to be used
in constructing the false work When
this lumber was delivered and piled up
upon the river bank. an estimate was
made according to the schedule. The
board then asked the opinion of the
county attorney as to its liability upon
that estimate. Mr.. JetmOre not only
gave his opinion in writing, but he
was also present at the session of the
board when the reasons why the es-
Inmates should be allowed were pre-
scented, and he stated verbally to the
board after hearing those reasons, that
while the board could not be legally
forced to allow the estimates, there were
strong equities in the case, and that
the board could allow it if they thought
they ought to do SO IN conscience. The
reasons urged were that Messrs. Keep
ers and Thatcher would not have or
dered all the lumber at one time, but
would have purchased it as it was used
in the bridge had it not been for the
adoption of the schedule of items upon
which estimates were allowed; that re-
lying upon that schedule they had put