The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-05-05
DRAINAGE CONTRACT SETTLED
CONTRACTORS TO RECEIVE S31, 900
As PAYMENT IN FULL.

tract, SIS, 0OO-AIdermen Gucken-
heimer, Duncan and Well Opposed
the COmprOmise-Mr. ROurISe Ac-
cepted the Settlement for the Con-
tractors.
The City Council held another midnight
session last night. The caucus lasted until
1910 o'clock and Council adjourned in the
usual manner by taking recess subject
TO the call of the chair shortly before mid
night. The clock struck 12 before the
lights were extinguished in the Exchange.
The Council had considerable important
business before it which, as usual, was
considered in caucus. The house drain
age matter, which was considered at
length. was not settled there and was
further discussed in open meeting. The
result was a compromise which was ac-
cepted by the house drainage contractors,
the sum agreed upon being $3lO00. This
compromise was agreed upon in caucus,
Chairman Owens of the drainage commit
tee, and one or two others favored paying
the contractors $4,000, the value of the
work to the city as estimated by the su-
pervising engineer, Mr.. Chapman, while
others thought that the contractors should
receive only the amount which they were
entitled to at the contract price, SIS, 500.
The compromise was reached by ma
jority vote, several of the aldermen being
unwilling to pay more than the contract
price. All the members of Council were
present, with the exception of Alderman
Hamilton, who has not yet recovered from
his recent illness.
The question came up on a resolution Of
fered by Alderman Owens that the city
pay Rourke, Mitchell & Delaney SS1. 900 as
settlement in full for all work done by
them under the house drainage contract,
10 per cent of this amount to be reserved
and so much as may be necessary thereof
to be used in defraying the cost of repairs
10 pavements, docks and other public
works damaged by the contractors in the
progress of their work
Alderman Charlton moved to refer the
resolution to the committee of the whole.
Alderman Owens urged immediate action.
The matter had been before the committee
and the caucus since March 9, and had
been fully discussed, he said. There was
nothing to be gained by further discussion.
1t was necessary that prompt action be
lelASll anu LO liIIle lOSl IN securing a new
contract under which the work will be
resumed this fall. Mayor Meldrim an
nounced that under the rules it would
require a vote of three-fourths of the
members present to act upon the resolu-
tion as it provided for the expenditure
of sum of money. He put the question
as TO how MANY were ready to act at once.
On show of hands, the vote stood eight
out of eleven.
three-fourths vote, until Mayor Meldrim
figured out that the vote was quarter of
an alderman short, three-fourth of II be.
ing 8A Alderman Well figured it out as
u S-11 per cent. The shortage being dis
covered, the question was about to go over
for the lack of a quarter of an alderman.
The dissenting aldermen were not in ia
vor of further delay, however, their object
being merely to demonstrate their position.
Alderman Guckenheimer, accordingly,
changed his vote from negative to affirma-
tive, making out of II in favor of imme-
date action.
Alderman Guckenheimer then moved to
amend the resolution by inserting SIS, sos. CT
in place of $4,000 wherever the figures oe-
CURED throughout the report, this being
the amount to which the contractors were
entitled by the contract price, The price
named in the resolution, Alderman Guck-
enheimer said, was some 81, 800 in excess of
the amount to which the contractors were
entitled under the contract If the city
should accept the contract now under CON
sideration he said, the city would be a
loser by The amount OF $4,000, this being
the difference in the cost Of the work by
the two bids
alderman Owens made the point that
the city had no bid under consideration
After some discussion of this point, Alder
man Guckenheimer amended his state
ment by saying that if the contract sug-
sested by certain aldermen should be ac-
copied the additional cost % the city would
be $4,000. He made the further point that
under the present contract the work was
10 be paid for at the rate oi 10 per cent.
year, whereas by the settlement pro-
posed, the city would have to pay $S1 900
next February. AS under the proposed
new contract the city would have to ar
range for the payment of portion in cash
next year, say $4,000, this would make a
total of $4,000 in cash to be provided for
the work next year, instead of $4,000. the
sum estimated to be necessary under, the
present contract. Under the settlement
proposed, he said, the contractors would
receive notes for a payment in one wear.
whereas it was stipulated in the contract
that the cost of the work should be spread
over ten years. He contended thar the
DOdtl u d&utINittl Udn no regal right 10
pay the contractors more than the stipu-
lated price for their work under the con
tract.
Alderman We'll wanted to know IL the
city would get credit in it's next contract
for the estimated value of the work. or
whether it would simply be credited with
the contract price of the work. AS the
latter was more likely to be the case. he
thought the city would be acting literally
to pay the present contractors $4,000 to
get out.
Alderman Duncan inquired If the con-
tract should be completed al the contract
price of S191 co., and the engineer should
say to the city that the work was worth
$500, 900, would Council pay the contractors
the latter figure
Alderman Krouskoff said that he want
ed TO give the contractors what was right
He was sorry, he said, that he would rot
have a chance TO vote on the original prop
osiuon to pay the contractors $38. 900. the
estimated value of the work to the city.
Alderman Charlton said that people
who accepted city contracts and then en-
deavored to break down the citys credit
were not entitled to much consideration
at the hands of Council. He was willing.
hOWeVpf. n Nrofa For tho ro,orr1,,,t~z -.