Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-10-25

have to pay for 1t. Mr.. Dunn had adj
mitted to him that the paving was not
good and he could not see how the city
could accept it under the circufn-
stances In fact he thought that the
council was honor bound not TO accept
1T until the contractors had maze ~
right and according to contract IN
every particular. He did not consider
that the council had erred in not stop
ping the work sooner, for 1T was not
before the council to reject or accept
until the work was completed. III the
| members of the council thought they
were responsible In u way, he believed
| the duty of those members TO pay Tor
the work themselves. At any rate, the
property owners who have to pay for
| 1T. must get what they pay Tor.
Van Law Speaks.
City Solicitor Van Law took the floor
for n moment. and in an almost unpfe-
cedented moment advised the council
to reject the paving. He stated that
he did not wish to influence the discre-
tionary power of any member but he
felt 1t his duty at this time to speak.
Two members had talked with the con-
/, tractors themselves and 1T was an ad-
| mitted fact that the paving was not ac-
cording to contract. There was moth
| ing left, therefore, for the council to do,
but to reject the work, and insist upon
it's completion In exact accordance with
the specifications.
ON the vote on Mr.. Kreutzers resolu-
ton. which was then called for by
Councilman Webster, acting as presl-
dent pro. tenn, In the absence of the
mayor every member voted aye.
The Engineers Report.
The report of City Engineer Bremner
on the work as 1t now stands, which
was read before the Kreutzer resolution
was introduced. is az follows:
40 the Honorable Mayor and City
Council: beg leave to submit sup
Elementary report on the condition or
the South First avenue paving, as
completed by Ely & Dunn
"Fhe contractors removed large
number OF the broken brick which were
referred to in my former report, and
replaced them by others.
mo attempt has been made to even
I'D and make smooth the rough and
wavy surface which Is not In accord
ance with the specifications.
They were directed to put In new
/ cement filler which they attempted to
do by first washing out the old, but
/ they failed to get the old filler out so
the new could be effective and made OF
any value, so the result Is the filler. as
/ it now stands, is equally as poor as at
first. The brick are not cemented to-
gether solid and strong. so as to make
a first class job as called for IN the
| specifications and the contract.
IT am OF the opinion, after a careful
/ investigation, taat the only way this
! can be remedieo is to take UP the
brick. clean and relay them, and again
put In the cement filler in the proper
manner by an expert who knows how
] to do 1t. In doing this much of the
roughness Of the surface can be taken
out by beveling and tamping the sand
cushion.
"wILLIAM BREMNER.
"City engineer.
''By G. A. BAUGHMAN.
Assistant"
The Legal Advice.
Upon the request of the judiciary
committee, thru Chairman Abbott, City
Solicitor Van Law, with the assistance
| of Boardman, Aldrich & Lawrence, as
authorized by the committee, prepared
an opinion which was concurred in and
signed by the attorneys in question
and presented to the council The
opinion was divided into answers to
seven different propositions, the sub
stance of which is as follows:
| /. Until the contractors shall have
] substantially complied with the terms
| of their contract in the construction
Of the improvement, they can not de-
mand of the city, or compel an accep-
lance OF the improvement by the city.
I 2. An acceptance Of the improve
ment by the city would estop the city
| from complaining of any defects Of the
| improvement now apparent, and such
defects could not be subsequently urg-
ed against an action for the recovery
of the cost of the improvement.
| 8. A special assessment on the
AUDITING property for the cost of the
| Improvement, assuming that the con-
tract therefor has not been substan-
TALLY complied with, could be COM
pletely defeated by the property own
i rs against whose property such as
sessment had been made.
4. Inc presence Oh Ill inspector OF
engineer on the improvement during
I it's construction, or any waiver as to
the requirements of the specifications
by them made, or made by any member
of the city council as an Individual,
does not preclude defeat or impair the
power Of the council to refuse an ac-
ceptance of the improvement at this
Continued On Eighth Page.)