Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-04-13

the matter OF the form OF contract and
| specifications which viii come before
you this evening for approval desire
to submit the following statement In
answer to the attorneys report and the
statements OF the chairman and attor-
ney which have been published In the
papers:
This contract was changed and rec
commended without giving me an oppor
tunity to be heard. After II was pre-
sented 20 the City Council | tried to
get the contract and find out what
changes had been made, and although
1t was matter that directly concerned
my department, | was told that | could
not see IL until Tuesday afternoon when
It was TO be approved that evening |
did not get copy until the night be-
fore the Council meeting and 1t was
then too late to take the matter up.
All important city contracts for the
past eleven years have been drawn by
the engineering department, It has
been the custom heretofore TO draw
contracts that would protect the city
And 1t IL q well known fact that this
has been done, so far as II Is possible to
do so In contract.
In the matter of the Gunner Jennings
contract which has been referred 10 by
the attorney, the ruling in this case
that a notice to make repairs which
was sent separately, one signed by the
board and the other by the engineer.
was not a sufficient notice, and that It
should have been one notice signed by
both did not affect the fesult. The city
attorney claimed that this ruling was
an error, and furthermore in discussing
this matter with me during the trial
and subsequently regarding the advisa.
bility OF appealing the case did not at
tach any Importance 10 the notice. and
stated that jury having no
knowledge Of such matters would con-
slider the pavement In fair
ly good condition and would only
allow the city as much as In their judg-
ment was necessary 10 repair Il, which
they did, 81, 10000. And also for the
reason that one Of the city's witnesses
had admitted that the pavement COM
pared favorably with payements In
other cities; he thought Il advisable to
compromise the case, This was nearly
a year ago, and II II was an important
matter why did he not call attention
to II before?
The attorney says the engineer will
continue to make specifications. There
Is nothing in the contract to that ef-
feet, and the specifications submitted
are changed. Numerous changes have
been made in these specifications. The
specification for cast iron pipe has been
changed as cOntended for by contrae-
tors. He also says that the inspection
Of the work will still be under the en-
glneer There is nothing In the con-
tra % =. I.t l.
absolutely no authority under the con-
tract and that is exactly what the con-
ractors have been fighting for In this
city for years.
The engineer does not have technical
direction Of the work as stated. While
the law gives the board authority TO
supervise the work II does not contem-
plate that all authority shall be taken
from the engineer as has been done.
and no such construction has ever been
placed upon II before. II Is simply car
rying out the plan OF the chairman and
others who are trying to take all au-
thority away from the engineer.
Could contract be more absurd le-
gally or otherwise than the one under
consideration? A contract for munich
pal work with no provision for eng-
neering supervision. A contract under
which the engineer has no authority
hut which requires him to certify to
the work An honest opinion Of such
a contract would be that It would not
protect the city.
II is very hard to get work done prop
arly under rigid contract, and
any one who has had expert
ence In such matters knows that
\ contract alone WIN not protect the
'ty unless the work IL in the hands
Il men who will see that Il Is enforced
Does any one think for a minute that
the clty's interest win be protected un-
Ter this contract when the authority Is
eft solely with the board and without
engineering supervision Such n thlns
's unheard Of here or In any other city.
The evil consequences which he saws
No desires TO avoid would more likely
result IL the suggested changes are
made
At the beginning Of this admlnistra-
'lon I submitted the form of contract
20 the city attorney for approval. so
hat Il could not be said later that the
'ontract had not been approved by him
ue unQualinedly approved II, saying in
hls letter, ut amply protects the city
n every respect" None OF the alleged
antiquities were pointed out and no
'qult found with Il az that time
The cause OF the difficulty Is over
matters where the board and engineer
oct independently, as in the matter Of
inspectlon. the contracts provide that
either the board or the engineer can re-
iect defective work or materials. Sup
oose the CITY engineer rejects defective
work. how does the city suffer-
Regarding the reference 10 the lack
~ harmony between the board and the
'nglneer. I win say that the engineer
not responsible for this and there
1as been no recent trouble until this
matter came UP. took no part in IT