Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1908-04-06
CITY ENGINEER HAS
SOMETHING TO SAY
D n SEWE R
RESENTS UNCALLED FOR
ATTACK BY MR. FIELD
Answered Questions About the
Sewer Plans in -Four Days In
stead of Three Weeks As
Charged and Answered in
Full

Dear Sill ~ Win regret lHUl !
find II necessary TO apply to you for
SPACE to correctly place before tho
ipcople Of Albuquerque certain data
which the city engineering depart
mont was requested TO furnish to ~.
Nell Is Field and TO which Mr. field
'''fTFF' Hde extended reference IN his speech
/ IN the Elks' ~t'oiitti on Saturday. eve
ping
4 engineering form although not with a
special view to Citing It to the re-
/ qulrementa Of one learned in the law;
/ and had It been studied by any one
with elementary, technical, or mathe-
matical knowledge II would not have
appeared IN such distorted form as
Mr.. Field sought 10 give II TO the peo-
pie on Saturday night
Mr. Field IN his speech stated that
il required this office threc weeks to
lHnswcr the questions which he pro-
pounded
I ON satisfied that the gentleman
had no deliberate Intention OF mis-
stating tho facts although he certain
~ did 50. as he himself VIII admit
should this matter be called to his at
tention On the 9th Of March Mr.
Field sent us q list of questions to be
answered by this department The
questions were put Ia such a way a.
10 require the re-arrangement Of IN, |
data used by mo in making my roe
port 10 tho city council
ON TINE l7th Of MARCH WE |
WE'RE INFORMED BY TELE- |
PHONE FROM SOME ONE IN MIR. !
~ ELD'S OFFICE THAT THE DATA /
WAS NOT REQUIRED
Mr. Fields questions were in our
possession just -four days from the
time he sent them to rs until he no
tined us that he didn't want the In
formation
Later on the 2Gth Of March. We
were again notified that Mr. Field
Nnntcd the information he had re-
questcd us 10 give him on March 13th.
We then completed arranging the data
necessary to answer his questions and
gave II 10 him ON Monday March
30th, so that tho answers were IN his
hands Just four days from the time
he made his request
! have gone into this matter IN de-
tai merely because the gentleman
made the statement that II required us
three weeks TO answer his questions
But he said nothing whatever about
he time which elapsed between March
fth, when he Withdrew his request
and March 26th, when he renewed Il
The gentleman called attention to
he disparity In cost per mile OF the
system ~ planned by the engineering
department.. saying that the cost
ranged from $5,0S0 per mile TO 1885,
BOO per mile and that we didn't seem
% know what II would cost
We desire 10 call attention To The
act that Mr. Fold reud bis question
N FULL but he did not read our am
'wcr In fun, merely skimming over It
,g above stated
The answer this department gave
% Mr. Field gave Tie different sizes
q pine the cost per mile OF an eight |
nch pipe being $5,0S0 And It then i
rave the cost Of different sizes Of pipe 4
let mile up 10 the main outlet sewer y
With q size Of 13Xt0SX52 inches, which q
ost $4,000 per mile. The gentleman d
tated 70 me that ne would treat me G
Airly IN using the Information which !
ehpcriully furnished him, but I sub. @
nit 20 candid public that he failed G
bsolutely to Keep his word as Is a
hoWn by his gurhled statement of my +
nsWcr TO the question propounde I
~ him, as shown above a
Now as TO the 10 per cent addl- 4
lohHl, which the gentleman SO Sc. .
trrlN ridleuled II he viii consult Il
lac eminent author on sewerage, A ln
'roscott Fplwcll he viii find that this y
uthor recommends from 10 to 100
'or cent additional FOR contingencies I
tra for such work as we contemplate
uing This office added + per cent
9 the estimated cost aud i'm view OF l
ut recent experience In similar work
lrre IA The city We dnd that the
mount rs mono too large
OF course Mr. Field is entitled to
IIs own opinion regarding the addl.
ion OF 10 per cent for pcidcntals, but
Ia must excuse as If we take Tho opIu