The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-07-24
THE SEWERAGE gANGLE.
The Sewerage Commission is Split OH
Question OF Contract With Ensi-
neer Lsons-Points OF Difference
Aired Before City Council.

The sewerage question seems to be
one that is loaded with difficulties.
nisund contentious and
unfortunate contracts. Those whose
memories run so far, will recall the
long drawn ont and at times acrimo-
nious discussion that attended the ini-
tiai effort to have made a sewerage
survey of the city for the purpose OF
arriving at the approximate cost OF
system Of sewerage. This conten-
Hon was finally settled for the time
by the employment Of Mr.. ]. L.
Ludlow, who made survey OF the
city some four or dve years ago, and
made maps and prepared plans for a
complete system Of sewerage for the
city. His estimate Of the cost OF the
proposed system was, If the writer's
raenory is not at fault, s56,0O0 for
aboat II miles Of sewerage. For this
work Mr.. Ludlow was paid s1oo'
which sum it was agreed should be
deducted from his commission in the
event that he should be employed TO
supervise the construction OF the sys-
TEN. This ended the sewerage mat
ter for the time.
The complications that arose over
tne employment of Mr.. G. c. Wilson
as sewerage engineer, and Mr.. Luo-
lows contention that he had con-
tract with the city when the sewerage
auestion was revived a few months ago
are of too recent occurrence and are
toe fresh in the public mind to neces-
state review.
When this trouble was adjusted
and everything started afresh with
sha new sewerage commission, COM
posed of three members Of City Coun-
ell and four citizens, it was hoped
that there would be plain sailing and
that Sumter would soon be provided
with an up-to-date sewerage system
Developments, however, show that
trouble dogs the footsteps Of the
present sewerage commission, as II
had those who had previously been
charged with the management Of the
underdtaking. When sewerage
commission organized the drst step
was to select an engineer Appliea-
tons were received from a large num-
Der OF sewerage engineers-ffteen or
more. They submitted various prop
ositions for planning and superintend-
ing the construction Of the sewerage
system. ranging from per cent. to
10 per cent on the cost Of the sys-
tenn.
The various propositions were con-
siderea and that of Mr.. ". W. Lyons.
being the lowest, viz 5 per cent, and
it appearing to be the most advan-
tageous to the city, was accepted and
he was elected sewerage engineer,
contingent upon his submission OF
acceptable plans. This action was
taken by the unanimous vote of the
commission, after satisfying them
selves by thorough investigation OF
Mr.. Lyons record as an engineer and
the inspection OF sewerage work done
under his supervision. Up to this
point everything had been smooth
sailing.
mo difference Of opinion arose un-
I'll time to draw the contract be-
tween the commission and Mr.. Lyons
There were several points upon which
there was difference of opinion, the
chief of which was the condition that
Mr.. Lyons made that the swerage sys-
tenn be completed within seven
months, and that in the event Of
longer time being required to COM
plete it that he should receive s2o0
per month after the expiration Of the
seven months, in addition to the 5 per
cent. commission on the total cost OF
the system. The whole matter was
discussed at great length, Mr.. Lyons
being present, and it was finally de-
cided to appoint a committee to draw
a contract to be submitted to the full
commission for approval. On this
committee Messrs. H. c. Haynsworth
and Perry Moses, Jr., were appointed
and Clerk c. NJ. Hurst was directed to
assist the committee in the prepara-
ton Of the contract. = ee,rm Of con-
tract was prepared by Mr.. Hurst and
submitted to Messrs. Haynsworth and
Moses. Mr.. Moses objected to the
incorporation in the contract Of the
seven months time limit and the $500
q. month additional compensation af-
ter seven months to Engineer Lyons,
on the ground that he had offered to
plan and supervise the construction
OF the system for fiat commission OF
5 per cent. and that upon this under
standing he had been selected in pref
erence to others. When the contract
was submitted to the full commission
it met with the approval Of five mem
bers, Mr.. J. P. Booth alone taking the
same view of the matter as Mr.. Moses.
Messrs. Moses and Booth declined to
sign the contract and have continued
to refuse to yield to the majority
= 10 wa