Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-09
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
Question as to Responsibility Of Con-
tractors in Question of Sewers.

A difference of opinion has arisen between
the District authorities and the officials Of
the New York Continental Jewell Filtration
Company, contractors for the LIST street tun-
mel to the union station, relative to the
companys liability for the cost of lowering
sewers and water mains. which neces
sary in order to permit the construction of
the tunnel crossing the intersection of New
Jersey avenue and street southeast. The
question at issue involves the sum of about
$1,000.
From the official papers in the case 1t APP
pears that the filtration company deposited
with the District $S.7S1, to cover the cost
of lowering sewers and water mains in con-
nection with the tunnel work. These
changes were to be made by the District
and the difference between the cost of the
work and tine amount deposited was to be
turned over to the company. Auditor Car
riSon's accounts show that the work cost
$79S1.02. leaving a balance of SI99.9S to be
returned to the construction company.
Attorney James III. Hayden, on behalf of
the tunnel construction company, takes is
sue with the District authorities on this
question of amount of rebate and claims
that the construction company has been
charged for work for which 1t is not liable.
He claims that the cost of the work proper
ly chargeable to the tunnel contractor
amounted to only S1,599.36. and the rebate
due the company on the deposits is
S7,1S1.:56. The attorney for the construction
company claims that the District charged
for changes made outside the railroad COM
pany's right of way, and that the filtration
company should be charged only with the
cost of changes made within the right of
way. He quotes section of the terminal
act in support of his argument.
Supt. d. E. McComb of the sewer depart
ment reports that the sewer and water
main changes were made solely to permit
the construction of the tunnel.
Engineer Commissioner Biddle declares
So he. gttiA
with respect to this charge. are correct, and
he does not agree with the attorney that
the company is liable only for the work per-
formed within the railread companys right
of way because the changes within that
limit necesSitated changes outside the line
of the railroad.
THE Commissioners. says Colonel Bid
die mote Mr.. Haydens argument that
section of the terminal act directs that
the railroad company shall pay only for
work done within the limits of its right of
way. While this is true as that section
applies 1t does not apply to the work done
under the deposits of lowering sewers and
water mains for the company at its re
quest, through the New York Continental
Jewell Filtration Company, In order to per-
NIT the construction of its works under the
act.
I'm order that the sewer might be low
cred within the right of way of the rail-
road company it was necessary as an en-
gineering construction that the grade of the
sewers should be changed for some distance
outside of the right of way The only
changes within the purview OF section y.
where the District of Columbia was re-
Quired to bear the cost outside of the rail-
road companys right of way. were changes
In the grades of streets necessitated by the
elimination of grace crossings. There was
no such change in the grade Of the street
which required the sewer changes under
consideration, therefore, these changes were
required solely. to permit the construction
of the tunnel"
Colonel Biddle says that the railroad COM
pany evidently understood the matter in
this light, as is indicated In letter from
MT. William H. Brown, chief engineer of
the Pennsylvania railroad, who said that
1.-THE company's contractor, or the company.
will have to be at the whole expense of
taking care of the passenger railways,
sewers, water pipes. etc, or anything else
they meet during the construction of our
improvements at Washington, ID. c..
The construction company will be inform
ed of the position the Commissioners take
in the matter.