The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1905-09-27
No Effort TO Stop Tearing Zip
OF Streets.
Although the City Solicitor Reports
That the Street Contract Is
Invalid
RECALLS BOND REPUTATION.

uninterrupted, despite the claim os
the city solicitor that the contract Is
void because of technicality. A.
large force of men Is at work, and
deep bitches were first excavated for
The storm water sewers, and the gray
ell has been skinned of the whole
street from gutter to gutter to a con
desirable depth for the concrete
foundation and brick paving.
The streets belong to the city and
the people. and the city's allowing
them to be torn mp without a single
objection. makes the city liable for
Tie cost of the work. II is claimed by
some.
"What is the objection to btu.
lthic materlal?" President G. r. Da-
Davis. of the board OF aldermen was
asked today.
Well" he replied. "the only OBJ
lection that | know of is on account
of the Broadway job. Mr.. Ingram,
president OF the company. knows
that il is bad job. and frankly ad-
mits It is, and says IL is because he
was forced to undertake Il in cold
weather. The city has never been
asked to accept or pay dollar on
he street and has not accepted or
pad dollar on 1t, and Mr.. Ingram
says il will not until he gives the
city first-class job, which he in
tends to do if he has to tear up the
work and do it over from Fifth to
Ninth streets.
''As near as the boards have been
able to learn from trips to other
cities and inquiries from officials in
other places, bltulithic is as good ma
tsrial for the money as can be found
and has advantages that neither brick
nor asphalt possesses, \ think in view
of what information we have from
other cities. and the fact that the
contractors admit Broadway Is not a
good job. that the people should not
take the Broadway work as sample,
and try to Judge bitulithic by It,"
Alderman Davis, in response to a
question why the city was allowing
the work on Kentucky avenue TO pro-
coed II the contract is void, replied
That's just what | was wondering. ="
Ii does not seem TO be generally
believed that the contract IS void
or will be held void. as the city made
II in good faith. its representatives
signed II, allowed the streets TO be
torn up under its provisions, and the
city has never attempted to stop
work underit.
1t is possible that a few technlei
points of the law have been over
looked. but the courts do not always
decide cases on technicallties, but
often do it on common sense, reason
and fairness.
This was demonstrated in the case
of the city railroad bonds. The law
was not strictly adhered to in voting
the bonds. This was plain. The city
issued the bonds, however. got the
railroad, and paid interest on th'
bonds for ten years. A democratic
administration and council then at
tempted to repudiate the bonds on a
technically. and the federal couri
decided that techn.cality or no tech.
nicality, the city received the bene-
fits for which the bonds were voted
paid the interest. and could not es-
cape its own part of the liability
The city in the end had to pay the
defaultcd interest as well as com
pound interest, and the public ha,
not yet ceased to feel the effects OF II
The present city solicitor is mem
Der of one of the firms that won the
bond suit against the city, too, and
should know just what the technical
tiles on which the city attempted 10
repudlats an honest debt, amounted
TO in the United States court, ID tina;
case.
This last street contract seems to
be pretty much along the same line,
Accredited Representatives of the CITY
advertised for BIDS for the work, Sc
lected the material. awarded the con-
tract. the city passed the ordinances
It deemed necessary, and Its own at
torney drew up the contract.
SO far as known, everything was
satisfactory to the city. The con
tractors sublet part of the work. and
the city allowed the subcontractors
to go TO work and tear up the streets
and proceed TO carry out the provis-
ions OF contract some are now try
ing 10 contend is Illegal. Even after