The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-11-07
WANTS A NEW CONTRACT.
HOUSE DRAINAGE COMMITTEE DIFF
FERs WITH ENGINEER CHAPMAN.

Mr.. Chapman Holds That His Con-
tract Is stin Good, NOtwithstand-
ing the Action of the Drainage
Charlottesville Has Not Found
the Job of Supervising Engineer n
Very Profitable One So Far-The
Point Undecided as Yet-The
Drainage Committee VIII Recon-
mend That the City Carry ON the
Work.
The special drainage committee of City
Council met yesterday and discussed house
drainage affairs at some length. The
most interesting matter before the com
mittee was the question of the engineering
supervision of the work 1t being practi-
cally agreed that the further prosecution
Of the work shall be conducted by the city.
The committee wants to make a new
deal with Engineer w. II. Chapman, to
which the latter is not disposed to agree.
At present the engineer receives 10 per
cent upon the gross costs of the work as
remuneration for the services. AT least
these were the terms upon which
the supervision OF the work by
Miles & Bradt was conducted.
Now that Miles & Brandt have abandoned
their work and declared their contract
with the city illegal, the committee is
Of the opinion that the contract with En-
gineer Chapman's firm is void and so
holds
Mr.. Chapman declines to accede to this
view of the matter. His firm has con-
tract for the supervision of the construct
ion Of the house drainage system and as
this is a separate contract from that Of
Miles & Bradt he does not see why mis-
contract should be affected by their action.
There is no disposition on the part of the
committee to dispense with Mr. Chapmans
services, nor have they seen any reason to
find fault with his work, but they think
1t time for a new deal all around. 1t is
sald that thea committee is perfectly will
ing to enter into new arrangement with
the engineer, but on different terms.
The contract first made by the city with
the firm of Waring, Chapman & Farqu-
har provided that the firm should prepare
the plans for the work and supervise the
construction of the system. For the latter
they Were to receive 7 per cent. upon the
cost Of the work. to be paid monthly, and
in case less than 100000 worth of work
was done the first year they were to re-
ceive S1,0D for furnishing the plans. AS
considerably less than 100000 worth of
work was accomplished the first year the
firm received 81 900 for its plans and per
cent. upon the work After Rourke &
Mitchell were allowed to give up their
contract and the city entered into the
contract with Miles & Bradt, under the
last administration, the compensation of
the engineers was increased to 10 per cent.
Mr.. Chapman contended that as his firm
had been at large expense in preparing
the plans under which the work is now
being conducted, and that the complica-
tions with the contractors have so delayed
the work as to prevent the engineers from
realizing what they had a right to expect
that 1t would be unjust to the firm to re-
woke the contract at this time, aside from
its legal rights in the matter He sub
mtted a statement showing that the firm
lost about $3.50 on the first years work
and realized a profit of $500 on the sec
ond years work. so that ii has not gained
anything by the work here. During the
first year il was necessary to maintain
considerable force of engineers, draughts-
men and clerks, as well as inspectors,
while the surveys were being made and
plans prepared.
The meeting adjourned without any con-
clusion being reached as to this matter.
The committee discussed with Mr.. Chap
man the matter of repairs to paving rem
dered necessary by the work of the con-
tractors Some of the necessary repairs,
Mr.. Chapman pointed out, were the re-
suits Of the work done by Rourke & Mitch
ell, while the new telephone company was
responsible for other damages. The en-
gneer was evidently not inclined 10 put
anything upon the contractors for which
they could not be held directly response
bic.
Mr.. Chapman, when asked about the dis
cussion before the committee, simply said
that he considered his contract with the
city a valid one. and that he saw no rea-
son why II should be affected by action of
the contractors.