Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1898-04-27


tied up with contract but had moth
ing to bind the contractors to fulfill
its conditions. The State would have
been IN fine condition if the contract.
ors had refused to execute bond af.
ter the contract was signed. Nobody
with business sense makes a contrac.
in that way.
The specifications in this case were
evidently furnished by the contract.
ors themselves. This was hardly nec-
escary, it would seem, in view of the
fact that the State had on it's payroll
an architect, superintendent and a
civil engineer, each of whom was
drawing a comfortable salary. These
specifications show on their face that
no representative of the State pre-
pared them. One clause provides that
the ballast for this top dressing must
be laid satisfactorily to the contract
ors. Who would let a contract to a
firm to do work and permit the firm to
specify that preliminary work should
be done satisfactorily to them, and
thereby sign away power to direct
that it be done as would best serve the
interests of the party for whom the
work was being done?
State Architect Holland estimated
that in this top dressing there would
be 12,615 square yards; this under the
contract should be four inches thick,
making u total of 37,845 cubic feet or
1,401 cubic yards instead of 1871, as
was estimated. 1t is possible that in
this case he was allowing margin
to compensate for the ordinary extrav-
agance of contractors.
The total cost was So, ,469, $468 hav-
ing been allowed for sample piece of
work which had been done previous to
the letting of the contract. AS the
whole job only called for 1,4O1 cubic
yards of material, this made the total
cost reach 1904 per cubic yard. To
this should be added a reasona Bile
amount as this jobs proportion of the
expense of the State in retaining on
the payrolls an architect, a superin-
tendent and a civil engineer. Com
petent contractors figure that the work
could have been done at profit for
S1.40 per cubic yard. The material
used was common bank gravel, which
could have been secured from the
Neosho river without any expense ex-
cept that of loading and the freight
bill for its shipment. This material
is at least as good, and is generally re-
garded as better than that which was
used.
Payments began on this contract
early. On the day that the bond was
approved, August 4, 1896, 81, $50 was
ordered paid to these contractors. The
approval of the bond on this date
seems to have been an afterthought,
as the Executive Councils record
shows, on the top of page IL, that this
allowance of 81, $50 was made, and
then down at the bottom, the next to
the last entry at this meeting, the ap-
prova1 of the bond is noted. If the
record was made in the order that the
various orders were made then the
payment of 81, $50 was actually direct
ed before the bond was approved. At
any rate, it was made on the same
day. The money was paid out on war
rant No. 7S15, six days before the con-
tract provides that the work should
commence.
Before this, however, other pay
ments had been made. This company
had come to Topeka and put in SAM
pie of the drive 3Ox25O feet. The
State accepted this and paid $46O for
it. In this sample there we're ninety
three cubic yards and the amount paid
would therefore amount to but $4.e6
per cubic yard. If this work could be
done for this amount on so small a
scale, why should job fourteen times
as large cost $6.04 per cubic yard, or
$1.08 more?
The payment of the $500 above mem
toned was authorized May 10, 1896,
but it was not paid until July 1. The
following fiscal years appropriation
was available then and earlier presen-
tation would probably have resulted
in the warrant being stamped "Not
paid for want of funds"
Then on July %, five days before the
bond was filed and twelve days before
the contract provided that work should
commence warrant No. 1865 for $3.50
was drawn.
Other payments were made on the
following warrants in the amounts
and on the dates named: August 10,
No. 1851, s., 500; September ?, No S164,
$2,5O2; September 10, No. 1915, $3.50;
September 10, No. 1916, $3.50. One
hundred and ninety-eight dollars was
withheld to repair any defects which
might appear.
The allowance of the last two claims
above is worthy of brief mention. On
September 10 the Executive Council
allowed $1,000 to this firm, but it was
paid as will be noted in two warrants.
What earthly excuse there could be
for dividing a claim payable to one
party on a certain date into two
vouchers and warrants is not apparent.
In o1den times the Jews used to OBJ