The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-05-13
ABOUT STREET SPRINKLING
THE MATTER DISCUSS ED By CITY
ZENS LAST NIGHT,

At the Hearing Held by u Special Com
mittee - General Opinion Favored
Sprtnkling of All tho Streets and Gem.
eral Taxation to Pay for It-Some OF
the Suggestions Made.
! The special committee of the court Of
common council to which was referred
the petition of Joseph r. Manning and
of the chamber of commerce for street
sprinkling, held public hearing in
room IA city hall last night. A large
number of citizens were present, as
We're also some city officials, including
Mayor FarnsWorth and Director Beech
er of the department of public works.
After the meeting had been called to
order Chairman Chillirgworth invited
the mayor to speak upon the petition,
but his honor said that he wished to
hear what citizens had to say rather
than speak Director B :echer was II .Xt
invited to speak He thought that the
city should do the street sprinkling and
purchase the necessary apparatus, but
hire horses as the horses would be
needed only through the summer He
thought that the city could sprinkle all
the streets for 100000 per year. He
said that he thought that to sprinkle
the streets three times a day was too
much, as too much water was bad for
the streets and caused the top dressing
to wear out more quickly that it other
wise would.
In answer to a question asked by
Patrick Kent, a citizen who appeared
Mr.. Beecher said that there We're about
fifty miles of paved streets in the city.
In reply to a question by Chairman
Chillingworth he said that he did not
think that over wettins of the streets
resulted in a money damage of $40, 000
a year to the city because of repairs to
streets made necessary thereby. He
would not want to put himself on rec
ord as saying how much damage was
caused, but he knew that over-wetting
did damage the streets to a consider
able extent. He favored sprnkling al
the streets of the city under a general
taxation.
Representative James p. Bree was
D1tStlll anu thHidllltu lllt Dlil llpW It-
fore the general assembly to provide
for street sprinkling in all the cities of
the state, and said that it was being
held back now in order that provision
for the sprinkling Of the streets of
boroughts might be inserted. He stat
ed that the bill provided that the cities
might let out the sprinkling by contract
and that it also contained an implied
provision that cities might do their own
springling If such was desired.
Mr. Chillingworth asked Mr.. Beecher
if he could give the committee any
light as to where money could be OBJ
tanned for street sprinkling this year.
Mr.. Beecher replied that he could not,
and said that there was no money for
it in his department, although he was
not posted concerning the finances of
other departments Instead of having
any money in his department to use
for street sprinkling he thought that
the department might need more mon
ey before the end of the year.
Anthony Carroll said that the city
was so tied up because of contracts
made between the New Haven Street
Sprinkling company and the street
that 1t could not use the car
tracks for the running Of troly sprink-
lers and could not use the water plugs
placed between the tracks to supply
such sprinklers He said that the mat
ter was so tied up in consequence Of
this contract that 1t would cost the city
double if 1t attempted to do the sprink-
ling. He charged that Chairman Chill
lingworth of the committee had been
in the making of that con-
tract and said, He is therefore not a
proper person to act as chairman of
this committee Mr.. Chi lngworth did
not reply to this charge. Mr. Beecher
stated that he had no doubt from talks
which he had with gentlemen clo:e to
the street railway companies that ar
could be made by the city
With the street railroad companies
the companies would sprinkle |
1ot only the eighteen feet which they |
are required to, but also the entire |
width of the streets in which there are |
racks.
Mr.. Chillingworth read a statement |
which he said he had secured from the |
,ity engineer. He then read from the |
statement that She total cost for street |
;prinkling in 1898 was about $4,000, S. |
1877 more than was received from as |
easements. He said that for the year !
sos the assessments on property own
RS was SIS, $50 and on the street rail- |
Dad companies, $2,176. The total 'front.'
,ee on streets sprinkled was 472,S12 feet,
md the average cost per front foot was
81 cents, and that the rate on streets
m which there We're car tracks reduced
he general average. On streets with
nut tracks the general average cost
vas Az cents per front foot
Councilman J. j Walsh couldn't see
Why the city had to let a sprinklng
ontract one year for S27, 900 and anoth-
r year for $24 900 He thought that
he city should do the eprlnkling in
tead of allowing some contractor to
atten on it. ]. L. Matthews thought
hat there should be no 'scrimination
n sprinking streets, but that all streets
hould be sprinkled and that the street
ailway companies should be compelled
o sprinkle all the streets over which
heir tracks are laid.
John T. Manson appeared in favor of
he petition of the Chamber of Com
1erce, and thought that the bill now
efore the general assembly could be
lade to take effect Immediately on its
assage and signing, and that If it was
0 provided it would settle the question
4l..,