The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-04

gineer allowed estimates for this part
of the work on the same basis as
though sewer No. "a had been dug TO
the original depth.
TT is also claimed that these changes
in the plan of the sewer made neces-
sary the construction of six extra
manholes and seven catch basins, ana
claim has been put in to the city Tor
this extra work, and the committee on
ways and means desire to know wheth-
er it should be allowed and paid under
all the circumstances of the case"
Grade was raised four feet about
point indicated in charges and rcck
was discovered, by reopening the
trench. at an elevation of 1872 above
invert of manhole. The charge is cor
rect in the statement that it compell-
ed change in the plan of the sewer
from south to north, in alley between
connect this lateral with sewer dis
trict No a. In this connection there
are several short laterals In "A that
connect with IA; namely: Alley east OF
Monroe on 18th lateral running south
connecting with IA; alley west of kan
sas avenue on 18th lateral running
south connecting with it.
As to whether compenSationS Tor
extra manholes and catch basins
should be allowed is a question outside
of my province.
NO. 4. 1t is also claimed that the
plan of sewer No. "a across Douthitt
street in the alley between Western
avenue and Polk street was changed
so that no sewer was constructed
there, although included in the plans
and specifications and in the con-
tract"
Is correct as stated.
mo 5. 1t is claimed that sewer NO.
"a varies in depth from the plans and
specifications on Seventeenth street,
between Kansas avenue and Quincy
street, and that the discrepancy from
the profile can easily be ascertafned by
measuring in the manhole at the alley
on Seventeenth street between Kansas
avenue and Quincy street"
Is correct as stated.
mo. 6. 1t is claimed that sewer
No. "a as constructed is not as deep
as called for by the plans and specifl-
cations on Seventeenth street, between
Harrison and Van Buren, streets, and
that this change in the plans can be
ascertained by taking measurements
at the manholes there"
Is correct as stated. In explanation
of the raises mentioned in charges
Nos 4-5-6. am informed by Mr.
Gilmore and others that large
amount of rock was encountered at
these places.
mo. Z. 1t is claimed that there
were 1886 lineal feet of As inch, ring
brick sewer built when the engineers
estimate calls for 3340 lineal feet,
making a discrepancy of 81 hneal
feet"
The actual number of feet of As
inch ring brick sewer as shown on
final estimate is recorded in the field
notes and was verified by actual meas
urement.
mo. s. It is claimed that the entire
sewer, as constructed, was shallower
in depth than called for in the profile,
and that these differences over the en-
tire length of the sewer amounted, in
earth excavation, to S3,700, which
work was paid for by the city but left
undone by the contractor and the city
engineer. In figuring the cost of ex-
cavation, the contractor states that he
and the engineer figured the earth ex-
cavated as soc per cubic yard. (See
testimony, page 271.")
No appreciate change in average
cut as demonstrated in the foregoing,
was made. 1t is apparent therefore
that the charge that $1,000 was saved
to the contractor, or any appreciable
sum whatever. by alleged raise in
grade is absolutely without founda-
ton.
NO 9. Mr.. McCabe, the city en-
gineer, claims that all differences of
any consequence between the profile
and the sewer as actually constructed