The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-03-27
4 SEWERAGE TANGLE.
sKSG1NEER LUDLOW CLAIMS TO
HAVE CONTRACT WITH CITY.
q superauity of Supervising Engi-
neers Proves Embarrassing and the
Final Outcome May Be Even More
. Serious-City Threatened With
Sait.

So Final Outcome May Be Even More
Serious-City Threatened With
Sait.
The Commissioners Of Public
works and the City Council are in an
noying and serious tangle with Mr.. J.
Ludlow, of Winston-Salem, \. c.,
over the contract for the supervision
OF the construction of the sewerage
system.
The facts of the case are as fol-
lows:
In the spring of 1908 It was decided
by the City Council then in Office to
have sewerage survey Of the city
made for the purpose of ascertaining
The cost of a sewerage system. A
committee, consisting Of Alderman G.
~. Dick and D. ]. Chandler and DR..
S. G. Baker, of the Board Of Health,
was authorized to employ an engineer
TO make the survey, prepare maps
and plans and make an estimate OF
the approximate cost Of sewerage
system. This committee in the exer-
rise of this delegated authority en-
gagged Mr.. Ludlow, who had recently
manned and supervised the construc-
hon of the sewerage system in Co
mmbia. and who had a wide expert
ance in that class Of work, to make
the survey. Mr.. Ludlow made the sur
yey. prepared the maps and plans and
presented an estimate OF the approx
mate cost OF the proposed system. For
This work the committee contracted
10 pay him the sum Of $3.50, which
was duly paid on order Of council up
m the completion Of the survey. It
was further understood that when the
system should be constructed, that in
the event of the employment Of Mr..
Ludlow as the supervising engineer,
fais $3.50 paid him for the survey
should be deducted from the amount
TO be paid as commission for super
vision.
In pursuance of this understanding
.cf the matter, the commissioners OF
uublic works, thinking that the city
was under no obligation to employ
ar. Ludlow to supervise the construc-
aion OF the sewerage system which
he had planned, if they could make
n more advantageous contract with
some other competent engineer, en-
xagsd Mr.. c. c. Wilson as supervising
engineer, he having offered to do the
work for a less commission on the
cost than Mr.. Ludlow.
A few days after the engagement OF
Mr. Wilson was approved by City
Council. Mr.. Ludlow notified council
that he had a contract to supervise
the construction of the sewerage sys-
tenn and would insist upon the con-
tract being carried out by City Coun-
I'll AS result Of this correspond
ence Mr.. Ludlow came to the city
yesterday and a special meeting Of
council, at which the commissioners
of public works were present, was
held to confer with Mr. Ludlow.
Mr.. Ludlow produced the contract
zpoEs which he bases his claim. The
contract was signed by the special
sewerage committee above. referred
to. consisting of Aldermen Dick ano
Chandler and DR.. S. c. Baker, of the
beard OF health It was not signed,
however, by The mayor and clerk.
The contract, # valid, certainly sus-
tains Mr.. Ludlow's claims. He pro-
Soses to stard on the contract, and
in the event fthe commissioners Of
public works and council declining to
admit its legality and binding force,
he will, it is said, enter suit in the
Federal courts against the city.
At the meeting Tuesday afternoon
no action was taken and no decision
has been arrived at, but the question
raised is serious one and it is re-
reiving the most careful considera-
tion. There are several points in
golyed in the matter, any one Of
which permits a wide difference Of
opinion. It is qestion as to whether
or not the special committee had au-
thority to enter into a contract. 1t is
also a question as to whether City
Council would have had authority to
enter into a coJ.eract Of the nature Of
the alleged contract with Mr. Lud-
low, in view Of the provisions Of the
act of 1902 providing for the election
Of commissioners Of public works and
enumerating the powers and duties
of the same.
D;srepar6ino the legal r.,s-stionS of