The Topeka state journal., 1905-09-08
FIxIT Up AT ONCE
WaterwOrks Trustees AuthOriZ-
ed to Spend $4,000.
This Will Be Used in Improving
Plant.
TO EXTEND THE MAINS
The Fifth Ward Will Get More
Water.
Two New Boilers Are to Be
Purchased.

The board of waterworks trustees
was authorized by action of the city
council last night to exDend upwards
of $4,000 in improvements and better
ments of the plant in accordance with
the recommendations which the board
has unanimously agreed should be
made as soon as possible. A portion
of this amount which will be expended
e already available.
The city council approved and
adopted the recommendations of the
board of trustees with regard to maxi
ing certain needed improvements in
the plant, including the purchase of
two additional boilers of zoo horse
power each, twenty-five Cook strainers
or driven well points. the removal of
the choke at Fifth and West streets
and the extension of mains into the
Fifth ward. addition to the boiler
room and increasing the height of the
stack.
The estimated cost is as follows:
Addition to pipe line to remove
choke, $5,637.74.
Purchase of twenty-five Cook strain
ers, S3.116.74-
$3.50.
boilers, $4,000.
Addition to boiler room not given.
Extension of mains in, the Firth
ward, estimate not given.
Before the extensions can be made
into the Fifth ward. however. 10 per
cent of the cost of the extensions will
have to be assured the city and equal
to the amount of annual water rental
by the patrons in the district where
extensions are to be made.
By making these contemplated i'm
provements the most pressing needs of
the plant will have been taken care of.
Better fire protection and an increased
these improvements will have been
made.
No Forfeit From Bridge Company.
The $500 forfeit which the city
threatened to collect against the Marsh
Bridge company as a penalty for ex-
ceeding the time limit of July l for the
construction of the two north spans of
the Melan arch bridge will not be ex-
acted. The city council so decided last
evening. The forfeit which the con-
tract specified gave the city the au-
thOrity to collect SIC. per day for every
day exceeding July 1, the time set for
the completion of the contract. The
claims and accounts committee. to
whom the matter had been referred,
reported against eXacting the forfeit
but in favor of 1921, the salary of the
city inspector for extra time.
Councilman Swendson in opposing
the report of the committee said: 81
am SURPRISED at the action of the COM
mittee in making this sort of a report.
What are the considerations to waive
this right to exact a forfeit from the
company, to give them the benefit of
waving this forfeit. I cannot under
stand. move that the motion be
amended that the Marsh Bridge com
pany be paid the amount of the con-
tract less than the $500. the amount
of the forfeit
Councilman L. A. Ryder. chairman
OF the claims and accounts committee
winch made the report, said: 81 agree
with every word of Mr.. Swendson I
considered at some length the ad-
Vlsab1ilty OF presenting a minority re-
port, but l thought that I would Let
the council settle it. 1 have heard If
said that the city has never held ont
Tor a forfeit in all its history If that
Is true, 1t is high time that we were
doing something to make our con-
tracts honored and observed. They
say that they did good work. Why.
Dless you, that is what we exDected
II there IS any credit to be attached to
that sort of thing it should go to the
city engineer. They said when the
contract was let that thew had ali ~
machinery necessary and if thev didn't
they could secure it. There has baan
oelay TO tne residents of the north side
11I anu 10 tne rallroad companies. I be-
scted.'' "e eA-
1 understand there is some sort of =,
counter claim which the Marsh Bridge
company expects to bring up if the citv
brings up its forfeit. 1 would like ~
know what this is said Counciin,su n
-.Nipps. Id Il
Il have said it at a former time and
repeat it again. said City Engineer
McCabe, that there is no item in tba
claim of the Marsh Bridge connsnv
with but one exception which 7 baI1e
approved. The one item of s15.85 is cor
rect and was for retaining walls which
ordered built. The remainder Of tbe
claim is not correct" u 'ie
councilman Horn rose to defend bie
action as member of the claims ana
accounts committee. Il am a rnembeT
OF the committee which made that re-
port" said he. TITS true that THIS bridoe
company got S1.4O0 more than the low
est contractor and from this standnoint
II seems they should receive a forfeit
but 1t was the councils fault that thev
got the $1,400 more than the lower hid
der. 1t wasn't the bridge companv's
II didn't seem exactly fair to hold them
UP Tor the whole amount. when thew
couldn't think that the city has beer
damaged by the delay, though it NAV