The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-09-13

way that ne could not have failed &c
comprehend the value of its answer
the street numbers of the houses
whose cellars could not be drained
being given to him by the city attor
ney. He went to those houses and
took the elevations, or pretended to
do so, but made no mention of his
findings in his report, thus leaving
unanswered the most vital question
as relates to the efficiency of the
Isewer
In the second place Mr. Ellis labor
ed long and learnedly to disprove by
mathematical demonstration the
charge of Gilmore that the lower por-
ton of the main sewer, where it
Joins into sewer No. IA, was construc-
ted 18 inches above the original pro-
file, Notwithstanding the fact that
field notes in the office of the city
engineer show that the bottom of the
main as constructed is higher than
the original profile indicates Now,
since the engineers estimate of the
cost of construction and the contract
ors' bids were made on the depth to
be cut as shown by the original pro-
file, it follows that whatever less cut
was made for any cause in the con-
struction of this main than indicated
in the original profile resulted in
| corresponding less amount of exca-
vation at the bottom of the sewer,
and hence less work for the contract
ors than they undertook to DO There
fore, it is clear that Ellis demonstra-
! ton is faulty and mis- conclusion ilIog-
ical and erroneous.
In the third place, Mr.. Ellis admit
ted the charge of Gilmore that the
sewer was constructed at other points
at an elevation above that indicated
by the original profile, running from
several inches to several feet over a
large portion of the distance covered
by the sewer, including the two foot
rise in the alley between Harrison
street and Topeka avenue near Sew
enteenth street, which continued the
whole length of the main from that
point, and all laterals north and west,
and further including the additional
four-feet rise on Huntington avenue
at the alley between Polk and Tyler
street, making the elevation of the
sewer at that point as constructed
six feet above the bottom indicated
by the original profile and extending
this elevation with increase, embrac-
ing all mains and laterals west, north
west and southwest, a distance of
1000 feet from the last named point |
and 5000 feet from the first named |
point; and still he states that there |
was no appreciable deviation in the |
amount of excavation done as the |
sewer was constructed from what
would have been done had the sewer |
been constructed all along at the ele- |
vation SHOWN on the original profile
a conclusion so preposterous as to |
make his whole report ridiculoEs, un-
worthy of any confidence whatever, |
and showing him devoid of any sense |
of honor or pride of reputation.
Finally, after compiimenting with |
much JUNCTION nearly everybody in |
any way connected with the investi- |
cation, and having admitted all but |
one charge made by Gilmore relating |
to the misconstruction of the sewer, |
Ellis winds up with a statement to |
the effect that in all his wide expe |
rience in sewer construction he had |
never seen a sewer of like extent so
nearly built according to the original |
plans and profiles nor so efficient as
the Fifth Ward sewer; and then in I
suits the people in the district whose
cellars cannot be drained by compH- |
menting the taxpayers-those paying
for this botcned and misco1structed /
sewer-upon their getting such an ex-
cellent sewer for so small cost
thus adding a climax to his efforts |
to divert attention from the zeal is
sue and lead to conclusions the facts
would not warrant.
1t is clear to all who have given his
report any attention aad have any
knowledge of the facts underlying
this whole matter that in securing
the services of this man Ellis to make
an investigation on the questions in
controversy as relates to the con
str1ction of this sewer, the then may
or and the special committee were
shamefully imposed upon, and that
the action of the then mayor in re-
instating James F. McCabe and W. E.
King, city engineer and assistant,
then under suspension, while the
matter was still in the hands of the
sewer committee for further investi-
cation, basing such action directly
or indirectly upon the Ellis report.
was premature.
C. G. BLAKELEY,
E. MONTGOMERY,
c. H. KUTZ,
|