The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-22
1T CAME HIGH.
Figures ON Sixth Ward Sewer
Are Completed.
City Paid Nearly Four ThOus-
and Too Much.
UP TO MR.. M'CABE.
Officials Hold Former City
Engineer Responsible.
No Formal Action Taken by
the Authorities.

Completed measurements of short
ages in the lineal amount Of sewer laid
as compared with the amount paid for,
show that the city lost So, 794.56 on the
Sixth ward sewer, according to figures
submitted by the sewer COMMITTEES OF
the council which has been inveStigat-
ing conditions.
The committee upon its first figures
believed hat the shortage would
amount to 81, 1856 80, but the revised fig
ureS as checked over today from field
notes indicate, say the commit
tee, that in reality amount to SO. 794.56
This, however. does not take in any
account of over charges for rock or
earth excavation OIL faulty construction
of that may exist.
For the past ten days a force from
the office of the city engineer has been
going over the laterals Of the Sixth
ward and checking up the actual length
of the various sized laterals. The field
notes have been completed and turned
in and today the committee on sewers
spent the forenoon in making ompar1
sons of the field notes with the data
shown on the plat Of the completed
sewer. This plat was made right after
the completion of the sewer and is sup
posed to show the exactly as it is
completed, giving the exact length of
h various laterals. The plat was
made at the time James McCabe for
mer city engineer, was in office.
The field notes checked closely with
the distance given on the plat with the
exception of not to exceed some half
dozen The with
the exception of n measurement did
not then vary much from that given iii
the plat and will not affect materially
the total amount of apparent excess
payment, on the sewer.
From the figures which will be sub
mitted by the committee to the coun-
Gil it will be shown hat the contrac-
tors on the Sixth ward sewer. Hanley
and Richie, were overpaid on every
sized lateral with the probable ex-
ception Of the thirty inch tile sewer.
The biggest discrepancy according to
the report is that in the construction
of the 12 inch laterals where 1888
feet were paid for but not construct
ed. This amount is equivalent to
s1,16S.6S. The following are the data
feet of S-inch sewer paid for, 17,07S.2
laid, excess paid for 1905 feet; 432
feet of 10-inch sewer paid for, 21S.1
constructed, excess paid for, 213-s
feet; 4,682.1 of 12-inch sewer paid for
3,7sS.2 feet laid. 973-9 excess paid for;
6,O44.4 feet of 15-inch sewer paid for,
5,S54.2 feet constructed, 1902 feet
excess sewer paid for; 2,442.4 feet or
constructed, xcess paid for, 1868
feet; e61.2 feet of 81 inch sewer paid
for, 1911 feet constructed, lIO.1 rect
excess paid for; 1,694.1 feet of "a inch
sewer paid for, 1904 feet construct
ed. excess sewer paid for. 81 feet;
3,677 feet of 81 inch sewer paid for
3.56O.s feet constructed, excess sewer
paid for, 1852 feet; 673.4 feet OF 80
inch tile sewer paid for, some dis
mute of the exact lineal length of sew.
er constructed but will be close to that
paid for; 1866 feet of 80 inch two
ring brick sewer. 1851 feet con-
structed, excess paid for s6.3 feet.
The s inch sewer cost 81 cents a
So tha ovnaGS naVm6nt cIalme0
amounts to $4,000; 10 inch sewer, 81
cents per foot, $18S.23; IL inch sew
er. s1.2O per foot. $1,16S.68; Is inch
sewer. s1.32 per foot, s251.06; ~ men
sewer s2.32 per foot, $360.22: "a inch
sewer. 1910 per foot, $2S4.27; u inch
sewer, 1910, $394.6S; 80 inch two
ring brick sewer, 1884 per foot,
s305.50. :,
deducted for this amount is always
deducted by the city to cover N
cheering incidentals and the con-
tractor never receives this four per
cent. The above figures indicate a
shortage to the city TO 90
794.56 or almost $4,000.
investigations will now be carried
on to discover If the were
constructed according to contract ana
~ the city paid for rock and earth ex-
.cayations in excess of what it actually
should have paid.
"It doesn't look to me as if McCabe
could get out of this" said one of the
of the council committee on
sewers. Here is the plat that was
constructed under his supervision and
here is the estimate which he re-
turned as being final on February LIST
of 1906, there is a variation between
the plat and the final TINA
'"The total cost of the sewer less the
4 per cent for engineering amounts to
s~T5,S72."