The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-04-28

impossihtifty 70 90 through all the
processes necessary to . bond issue OF
the proposed size. within the time
suGgested and before the letting OF the
paving contracts BY reading from
the section Of the Municipal Code,
however. applying on this point. Pres
ident 0unter seemed 20 show that By
dflixent work this issue could be per-
fected before any great delay In LETT
ting the contracts and that therefore
tho objection should not be cousid-
cred.
On the resolution AZ. finaliy present
ed by Mr.. Virgin. calling for bids not
later than May II noon. on an issue of
$125s0e0 At 5 and 9 per cent. separately.
all voted unanimously for 1t.
Work To BE Fisaneed.
{ The work to be financed In this way
Is the paving Of the following streets:
East Jen Davis avenue from Perry to
Court streets; High street from Law
renee to Hull: s. Lawrence street from
High to Jef Davis avenue: Bibb street
from Motion to Goldth waite: s. Perry
street from Washington to the city
limits. and Clayton street from Hol-
comb to ~0o1dthwaite. And there was
also included the paving OF sidewalks
on streets as follows: K. WiIkersop
from Bibb to Goidthwaite; Grady street
from Cleveland avenue to Mobile
street; Oak street from Hull to Elm:
4. Bainbrfdge from Columbus to Ran
doiph. and Motion street from Bib to
Bell
The following contractors had their
bids opened for the pavement of some
or all OF theS streets named: r. -
Blome and Company. Mineral Rubber
Company Southern Paving and Con-
struction Company. Southern Bitulith-
10 Company.
The Bitulithic concern submitted
iettcr with the bids to the effect that
tho comparatively low bid on Perry
street was due to favorable circum-
stances on that thoroughfare and 1t
was stipulated that in the event the
council should award all the work to
the bidder. 1t should be done on the
basis of Perry street. There was a
strong effort, seconded by Alderman
sullivan. to throw out this letter. on
the theory that It made conditional
bid and therefore was improper. Mr..
Moritz was Of like opinion. as was
Alderman johnson. But IL was finally
voted that the letter should accom-
pany the bids to the committee. All
bids were referred to the committee
on street and sidewalk paving and
bonds.
The bidders on paving sidewalks
proved to be ByronSouder and Com
pany: Shafers and Chapman and ]. y.
Conniff and Company. There were bids
opened from Abraham Bros. Hodgson
and Harmon and Jim Mitchell on the
work of graveling or grading Forest
avenue from Highland avenue to the
city limits and Cleveland avenue to
Mobile street. There were also re-
ferred to the committee on street and
sidewalk paving.
During the debate on whether the
bids on street paving should be open.
ed the hint was thrown out by some of
the aldermen that some of the bidders
had submitted their figures on a mis-
understanding that they were to be
paid in bonds and not in cash. If they
had known that cash was to be paid.
1t was argued, their bids would have
been considerably lower. Therefore it
was held they should be given anoth-
er opportunity to bid. But 1t was
pointed out by Aldermen Kennedy and
Sullivan that cash was specified in the
estimates Of the city engineer and the
oversight of such a stipulation was the
fault of the respective bidders On
such a showing all efforts were killed.
which tried to postpone the opening
Of the bids. or their rejection.
Reverse Position.
1t developed during the debate on
paving bids, that the property owners
on Jeff Davis avenue from Perry to
Court streets had reversed their posi-
tion and had presented a protest
against the improvements This was
an illegal protest, but through the
efforts OF Alderman Parish, the bids
for the work were referred to the COM
mittee. with the recommendation that
the bids be rejected. Therefore. IT is
pretty sure that this work will be post
poned indefinitely.
A protest from Coosa street property
owners against the paving of certain
sidewalks thereon. was sustained when
a communication was read at the OPEN
ing of the session from the mayor. The
walk lies between Bibb and Court
streets.
The opinion of the city attorney on
the right of the Montgomery Light
and Water Power Company to charge
rent for gas meters was communicated
to the council and referred to the COM
mittee on judiciary This opinion de-
niles the right to charge meter rent.
A communication from the mayor
was also received and filed. quoting an
agreement with the Montgomery
Transfer Company. that the latter
should pay the regular licenses re-