The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-02-02
City Engineer Criticised
 Sharply in Debate.
Charged That He Made Estimates on Work at Adams and Bain- bridge Streets to Suit
 Opinions of Officials.

| The Montgomery City Council last night defeated the ordinance for lowering l the grade and permanently improving Adams and Bainbridge Streets at their intersection. The ordinance was killed after if had had every prospect Of pass age .s At previous meeting of the Council the Aldermen had gone on record as favor ing the important improvement. The project, although 1t had encountered se- rious opposition, had apparently the nee essary votes with one or two to spare. It was finally defeated, however, by vote of six ayes to eight nays.
 The debate which attended the consid- | eration of the ordinance was extremely warm and an unusual incident attended l the taking of the last vote. Alderman Leopold Strauss had in the debate an- nounced that he stood for the improve ments as soon>as an amendment had been adopted limiting the cost to A,o0O. He voted against the ordinance, however. and rose to a question of. personal privi- lege. He had, he said. fully intended to | support the project for the improvements and he had stated 'his intention to- do so on the floor, but during the debate he had l asked the Alderman from Ward 4, MT: Roenner. a civil sduestion and he had heard an Alderman prompt him in way which was spSfsopalfy offensive.
 | s%Fffe remark made by the Alderman" ! said MT. Strauss, was personally of I fensive to me and I exercise my right
 now, as a member of the Council. to Ichange my mind and vote as I please" | Ford Was storm Center.
 City Engineer D. W. tord was the
 storm center of the exciting debate upon the ordinance. The friends of the i'm provements charged that MT. Fords es- inmates were erroneous and that Il pri- lvate contractor had offered to do the work for 5000 less than the amount called for
 in the estimates of the City Engineer.
 Alderman A. Roemer, Chairman of the
 Committee on Streets. said that he was not authorized to make public the name of the maker of the estimate. The City Engineer found defenders in the Aldermen who were opposed to. the ordinance V. They said that it was not right that a. city official should have his acts szqliestioned and; disputed by an anonymous person. and Alderman Roemer + was asked for the same of the maker of the bid. He replied that. he was not at liberty to dfvulge it. ----
 The ordinance came up under the head of new business. Alderman Roemer made a strong argument for the work submit ting a number of estimates as to the
 work and fortfying his arguments with an array of figures. The city had, he said.
 been paying between $25,00O aid $SO,000 a
 year in so-called street improvements and
 there was practically nothing to show fo:
 these years of work. There were no per-
 manent street improvements to show for
 the work of the street force.
 Inconsistent Estimates.
 He declared that City Engineer Ford
 had furnished him with estimates as to
 the cost of the work in which the total
 figures were $,s7517 The City Engineer,
 he declared. had then furnished Alderman
 Teague with figures estimating the cost
 at $9.S22.H. He asked why was there such
 a discrepancy in the figures.
 Alderman Roemer said that he had re-