The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-12-16
THEY WERE NOT WELL TAKEN.
THAT IS WHAT COUNCIL SAYS OF
DRAINAGE CHARGES.

/ ton DisaIIOwed - investigation
Develops some Faulty Work Ac-
cOrding to Some Witnesses-Mr.
! suCdcn Not Surprised at the Action
of Council.
! If the long-drawn-out house drainage
investigation, which has been pending be-
fore the City Council for months, and TO
which much of the boards time has been
directed, has succeeded in accomplishing
anything, the impression upon a majority
OF me aldermen is by no means vivid.
1t ended about u o'clock last night with
a motion by Alderman Davis that the COM
plant of the local engineers had not been
well taken which was amended by Alder
man Charlton to the effect that the prayer
in the petition be denied.
Last nights session was devoted almost
entirely 10 the house drainage and Bun
street gravel complaints, which have been
before Council some time. The desire Of
the board was an early disposition of both
matters, and with this in view, the adj
journed meeting was held. Mayor Mel
drjm stated at the outset that it was de
sired to get the matters off the Councils
hands, and that they would be pushed as
rapidly as possible to this end.
While tie Bull street complaint was the
first considered, the house drainage inves-
tgaton consumed by far the more time.
1t was called up about $3.50 o'clock, and
continued until a late hour. A number OF
witnesses were examined, among them
Supervising Engineer Chapman, City En-
gineer Vim, Foreman Nichols, Mr.. L. A.
Mccarthy and Engineer Percy Sugden,
who was the only petitioner present to
represent that side of the case. For a
considerable time the ques tloning of each
of the Witnesses continued, during which
the aldermen made numerous inquiries
about the condition of the work. its
progress, substantial character, whether
according to specifications, and various
other things pertaining to the points az
issue.
Alderman Owens resumed the investiga-
ton by cross examining Engineer Sugden,
who testified al the last meeting when
the house drainage charges were consid-
cred. In his previous statement, Mr.. Sug-
den said he filed the petition on the as
sumption that new engineers and inspect
ors We're TO be appointed. When asked as
to why he assumed this, he stated he
had seen an interview with city officials
in the papers. A number of other ques-
tons were asked Mr.. Sugden in regard to
his former testimony.
was this complaint made in your own
interest or the city's INTEREST,"" Alderman
Davis asked.
AT the time 1t was a combined inter
est.'
What do you mean by combined inter
est?"
4 complained Of the two things; my
individual interests, as well as that Of the
city at large"
Foreman Nichols, who is engaged in the
drainage work as an employe of the con-
tractors, made a statement which sup
ported a charge the petitioners made to
the effect a drainage pipe had been run
through the brick storm water sewer a.
Drayton and Wayne streets, or close by
that vicinity. When asked about 1t Fore
man Nichols stated he was on the work
at the time and that he passed a six-inch
drain pipe through the brick sewer. 1t
was charged this was not good engineer
ing, and would cause a choking up of the
sewer. The foreman said he had discuss
ed the matter with Mr.. Chapman and
thought it would not have been advisable
to have run the pipe through, had it been
a sanitary sewer. But as it was for storm
water alone, he considered the work all
right. He said there would probably be
no choking.
When later asked his opinion about pass
ing the drain through the sewer pipe, City
Engineer VIM said he believed it could
have been successfully done in some 9TH
er way.
Mr. L. A. Mccarthy had been summoned
10 testify as 10 certain statements attri-
buted to him by Mr.. Sugden. In several
particulars he bore out the petitioners in
their accusations, saying he had seen
what ne considered careless work in the
York street lane, which passes his store.
The pipe had not been, apparently,
Wen joined in places. he said thereby al
lowing water to seep through. He had
q been called, however. to answer as TO ac-
cusations that drain pipes had been
crushed at Abercorn street and Perry
street lane and also al Guckenheimer's
store on the Bay. In both cases he said
he had found the pipes torn up, supposed
ly by the house drainage contractors, but
he could not say positively.
City Engineer Winn was the next TO
/ talk. and he 100, had not been very well
! impressed with certain parts of the work,
| and had called attention to it. One fault
/ was in the brick sewer on Randolph
/ street. where he saw hole through which
| water was pouring. He called the at
| tenuon of The foreman to the fact how
/ ever, and il was probably remedied. Col,
| Winn made this statement when cross-eX-
amined by Mr.. Sueden. After having pre-
viously stated he did not recall having
seen any defective work in that part OF
the system complained of, Col. VIM was
| asked what he meant by a statement in
| his annual report to the Mayor in 1897
in which he recommended that supervis-
ors should be appointed 20 see that there
are no running together of the old and
| new drainage systems. He replied that
| il was for the same reason he had an in
spector now at the quarantine wharf to
see that things went on right there. Il
was not because he feared anything would
not be properly done, however.
Are you of opinion the house drainage
work completed in 1897 is Of the best char
acter?" Col. VIM was asked
~ am not altogether satisfied with II
| along Liberty street" he continued. THE
street has given away in several places
causing damage to the asphalt paving
| and my opinion is il is due to the drain