The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-03
CONTRACT FOR
DREDGING LAKE
MERRITT VOID
Big Improvements to
Cease.
A CARELESS AGREEMENT
MONEY MAY BE USED FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
Contractors Have Done a Lot of Good
Work for Which They May
Not Receive Any
Pay.
MONEY MAY BE USED FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
Oakland Office San Francisco Call,
QnG Rrna dMaV Nav 9


908 Broadway, May 2.
The contract awarded by the late Board
of Public Works is null and void and the
large improvements recently commenced
are necessarily stopped. Judge Ellsworth
gave a decision this morning in the action
brought by f. w. Rupert against Con-
tractor 0. P. Johnson, and declared that
for many reasons the contract IS in
valid.
In discussing the case, Judge Ellsworth
said that there are many intricate points
Of law involved in the suit, but few of
them are all that is necessary to decide
il. The city charter says, SAID the
court, that the contract must specify at
what time the work is to commence ana
be finished. In this contract there are
two provisions as to time; one states that
the work must be finished by June 81;
the other that the work must be COM
pleted within one year from the letting
of the contracts. The Board OF PUBIC
Works seems to have reserved to itself
the matter of determining at what date
the work is to be finished. This IS in con-
traventiOn of the charter. The contract
states that the work must be finished by
June 80, if the amount of cubic yards
dredged from the lake does not exceed
50 600. There IS no provision made II the
number of cubic yards exceed this
amount. In my judgment the contract
fixes neither time nor amount, nor does
il say that the work has to be done &C
cOrding to specifications.
In the contract there were more Specl-
fications than there were in the adver-
tised proposals. | see no escape from
these conditions. In the proposals there
is no provision for a gate at the Twelfth
street dam. In the contract this proVl-
sion for a gate is a very important item.
l will not pass upon any other questions,
for these convince me that the contract
is void, and it is so ordered"
Much disappointment Is expressed by
those who secured the commencement of
the improvements around Lake Merritt.
Dow have not yet decided whether TO ap-
peal the case or not
The dredging ceased week ago, as
there was a doubt regarding the pay
ment for work done. The contractor has
built an expensive dredger in the lake,
has constructed over a thousand feet of
bulkhead of heavy timbers and has
of mud from the lake. He has received
one payment of $4,000 and has earned
about $4,000, in addition to the expense
of probably SIS 900 for building the
dredger.
City Attorney Dow says that the money
appropriated for the work will remain in
tact, as another contract will be let. 1t
does not follow, however, that the same
contractor will get the work. But as the
dredger and retaining vans are necessary
for the completion of the work, COntrac-
tor Peterson will probably be paid some
how.
City Treasurer Gilpin declares that the
these 5000 at the dispose of the other
funds after June 30. Under the law all
moneys not earned in the several funds
by the end of the fiscal year can be
transferred by the Council TO any other
fund.