The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-07-22
TO RAISE A WHARF.
FindIay & JohnstOn's Claim For Dam
ages Against the City.


aIent-Alderman Rounds Mikes the
Geography of the Celestial Kingdom
and the Land of the BIest.
When the new Tukey's bridge was built
the approach on the Portland side was
ra ised about sevenssfeet. This left the coal
wharf of Findlay & Johnson, which had
been few inches above the grade Of the
street, seven feet below it and necessitated
hauling the coal teams up sharp incline
to reach the street. The wharf was built
ABOUT four years ago. The matter of ad-
justing the damage to the property has
never been settled and yesterday came be-
fore the mayor and aldermen on the
petition of the owners, who were repre-
sented by Judge George f. Gould as
counsel. The meeting was attended by
all the members Of the board with the ex-
ception of Aldermen Sprague and Dow.
In presenting the case. Judge Gould
said that the city solicitor had admitted
the validity of the title Of the petitioners
and the fact tnat they were entitled to
damages. The question to be considered
then was as to the amount of damages.
He believed that the petitioners had a
claim for consequential damages but the
city solicitor did not share this opinion.
Whatever might be the fact in this
particular the consequential damages
would be waived. The petitioners asked
that one or two things be done, either
that the city raise the wharf SO that it
would be in the same relative position to
the present bridge as it was to the old;
or that the city allow a sum of money
sufficient to enable the petitioners to con-
tract with responsible parties to do the
work. Judge Gould said he understood
that the commissioner Of public works
had said he could raise the wharf by
drawing and redriving the present piles
On that point Judge Gould asked num-
ber of questions of Mr.. W. Il. Bennett,
the bridge builder. Bennett did not think
it the best way to do the work. He then
read an estimate he had prepared for re-
building the wharf. 1t was as follows:
Wharf, Sc, a75. so
Replacing Sheds 1900. 90
Shears, 200. 90
SS,475. so
Members of the board asked II lot of
questions about wharf building, the
possibility of driving piles through
solid fill, etc.
Mr.. James L. Johnston, one of the
petitioners, told the board that Libby &
Wescott, wharf builders, had made the
following estimates OF the cost of rebuild
ing the wharf:
Wharf, Sc, 600 90
Removing sheds, 1,2O0.0 90
New sheds, 525. 90
Office, 100. 90
Johnston shed, $500
Shears, 300. 90
Total, S., 90
Mr.. Johnston said that so far as he
knew the makers of these bids had no
knowledge that more than one set of bids
was being prepared. AS to drawing and
redriving the piles Mr.. Johnston said
that when the wharf was built mistake
was made which made it necessary to re-
drive a number of piles He found that
many were broken in the process. The
present wharf is practically filled with
soil, sleepers, timbers and rocks. The fill
is held in place by bulkhead.
The mayor asked the purpose of this
line OF questioning and Judge Gould said
it was because Alderman Rounds had
asked about the fill.
The mayor said he didn't see what this
had to do with tie case.
Alderman Rounds said that ne did, If
this solid fill was there all that was
necessary to do was to put on four or five
feet more earth or stone. Twasn't neces-
sary to go way down to heaven. A
laugh caused the alderman to reconsider
this statement and say China.
Judge Gould said the bulkhead wonld
be shown to be insufficient to hold the in
creased weight.
Alderman Rounds Veil if they haven't
got any wharf we don't want to build
them any new one.
Then Alderman Mannix asked if the
raising over the solid fill couldn't be done
by frightening the timbers and Mr.. Ben
nett said that it could and that this
would considerably reduce the expense of
rebuilding.
Mr.. Johnston in answer to City Solicitor
Morrill, said that the wharf had cost over
$1,000. In answer to Alderman Lamson
he said it was assessed for $500.
Then Alderman Rounds asked Mr..
Johnston what he would take in settle
ment of his claim This led to confer
ence between the petitioners and their at
torney at the conclusion of which Judge
Gould said be was authorized to say that
his clients would accept $75CO but they
much preferred that the city should do
the work.
Alderman Rounds thought that the
offer to take $500 was equivalent to d
claim for bonus as it had been shown
that the cost of reconstruction would be
le:sened by heightening the solid fillsand
the wharf, which cost about $4,000 original
", was now four years old, the average
life of Milling being 20 years.