The Topeka state journal., 1902-05-06


square yard for asphalt, or 81. SO for
renewal of both asphalt and concrete.
The reason for this unfortunate action
was that there were only two bids sub
mitted. one from J. Bradley. and one
from the Barber company. Bradley'S /
bid was $1.65 and 81 Is respectively for
the work to be done. There was nothing
left for the council to do apparently
but give the contract TO the Barber con
cern. which has just concluded a five
year contract in a very unsatisfactory
manner.
1t was a surprising thing that there
were not more bids on the work, and it
looks as though there was something
radically wrong with the specification
as has been claimed throughout by the
natural rock asphalt men. The natural
rock asphalt concerns, who claim to be
antitrust, allege that the specifications
were drawn up on the lines approved
by the Barber company, and that natur-
al rock asphalt was practically barred.
In spite of the fact that copies of the
specifications were sent to asphalt paw
ing concerns all over the country, there
We're. practically no bids except from To-
cal concerns.
its asphalt repairs is higher than whatf
Kansas City pays the Barber company.
The bulk of the repairing is simply in
cutting out the worn asphalt to the
concrete and this work is done in Kan
sas City for $3.50 per square yard, in
stead of $1-58.
SIDEWALK CONTRACT LET
Ramsey & Ramsey We're last night
awarded the contract for building all
the sidewalks in town of d width of
feet or over. at a price of 5 97-100 cents
per square foot. The contract for build
ing walks OF less than feet in width
went to John Ritchie. at 4-10 cents.
= tt Less 6 #.
John Rftchie ............5 9S-100 40
Morse & Winans .-....-6 Y
Ramsey & Ramsey .--.--.5 94-1o0 Il
SAY BONDS ARE INVALID.
The State Savings bank, through
William Macferran, announced last
night that it would refuse to take the
s42 900 worth of pavement bonds
which have been authorized to pay
for the pavement allowed tins year.
The bonds were purchased several
months ago by the bank over several
other bidders.
Mr. Macferran claims that the whole
S42, coo OF bonds is invalidated by q
technical error in the East Fourth
street bonds. About $4,000 out of the
S42 900 are directly in error, but it is
claimed that this error invalidates all
the bonds provided for in the ordi-
nance
city Attorney Spencer thinks that the
bond issue is valid as it stands, and
the council passed the bond ordinance
last night without change.
Mr.. Macferran says: Our attorneys
advise US that the East Fourth street
bonds are invalid because the Santa
Fe railroad was regarded as "a nom
resident property holder. We are ad-
vised that the Santa F'e is a resident
property holder and should have signed
the petition. Without the Santa Fe the
petition for paving is not signed by
majority of the resident property own
ers. We believe that a cloud is cast
on the bonds, which would interfere
with their sale in case We should de-
sire to sell them. / do not want any
to n fs7lr III rot ant "a
bonds We want these bonds and all
the rest of the improvement bonds of
the city of Topeka we can get. / be-
lfeve that the council should have au-
thorized the Fourth street bonds in a
separate ordinance. and thus avoided
casting any taint on the remaining
bonds I also believe that the Fourth
street bonds can be made valid by
simply getting up new petition and
having the Santa Fe railway sign it. As
it is. I think the pavement is invalid,
and can be stopped by any property
owner on that street who desires to
bring an injunction
The history of the Fourth street
pavement petition shows that it met
with less opposition than any petition
presented to the council this year. The
people were almost all in favor of the
pavement The Santa F'e road favored
it, and has already paid in cash its full
share of the cost. But owing to the
fact that the city officials regarded the
Santa Fe as a nonresident it was not
deemed necessary to get its signature
on the petition.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR APRIL.
The appropriation ordinance for April
carried $24 651.72, of which $11 27S a
was from the general revenue and gem
eral Improvement funds. The city
has not money enough on hand to pay
these bills, and will have to borrow
from the banks. The appropriations
are as follows:
General revenue flnd....... s.. .721. .27
Fire department fund -.....-... 22S4.77
Police department fund ..-..... 1892. 43
General Improvement fund.-. 4239 %
PaVing fund .--..,--.-.-.--... Az
Sewer fund .............. 6SS.78
Total .-...-,.. ..-..-.........-.s s24 s5l.72
TURNED DOWN ICE TRUST
The Mutual Ice company threw a
harpoon into the Peoples Ice company
known as the ice trust, last night BY
unanimous vote the city council re-
versed the committee and awarded the
city's ice contract to the Mutual at
rate of $4.75 per ton. The Peoples
company bid s4.75 per ton. and the
committee decided to give it the best
half of the contract The Topeka Ice
company bid 81 so for the same work.
But the council showed its apprecia-
ton of the work of the Mutual Ice
company by giving it the whole con-
tract.
TELEPHONE FRANCHISE.
The application for a franchise fer
the Kansas Long Distance Telephone
and Telegraph company was reported
back to the council adversely. The
council voted unanimously to sustain
the committee, but the vote was with
drawn at Councilman Tincher's re-
quest, and the proposed franchise re-
felred back to the committee. Coun-
Gilman Tlncher stated that the attorney
for the telephone company had been
promised another hearing before the
committee before the final vote on the
ordinance
SOME REJECTED CLAIMS.
The claim of the Topeka Free Dis
pensary for S25 was referred to the
whole council. Councilman Bergundthal
stated that the dispensary has moved
from its old location and that it never
has made any report to the council.
City Physician Judd said that the dis
pensary was reported TO be still doing