The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-10-15


fatt, whom 1t will be remembered
had offered to do the work at a cer-
tain reduced rate, for them to sign.
but that he had not heard from them
until the day before, when Mr.. Rich
ardson, the agent Of Mr.. Berghaus.
mad written him inquiring why he
had not heard from Major Lee. Mr..
Lee had then called him up over the
'phono and after finding out that the
revised contract that he had sent had
not been received, he had prepared
another contract exactly like the
first. and sent 1t to Berghaus & Mof-
fatt. He had not heard from them
yet. but he expected to hear at any
time. As council could not act in
this matter until Borghaus & Moffatt
were heard from the matter was
dropped until the next meeting.
In regard to the work on the sep
tic tank. Mr.. Lee stated that he had
written to several of the former bid
ders who seemed to want the con-
crete work and that he had received
bids from four of them. He said that
the bid Of Mr.. w. A. Weathers, of
this city, was the cheapest for the
septic tank. but that the bid Of the
Charleston Engineering and Con-
tracing company was the cheapest
for both the septic tank and the
curbing.
Mr.. Booth. the chairman of the
committee on public works, then re-
ported that he had looked into the
matter and he advised that the bid
Of the Charleston Engineering and
Contracting company be accepted.
Mayor Jennings wanted to know II
the bid Of Mr.. Weathers for the sep
tic tank was the cheapest and the
bid for the curbing work by the
Charleston Engineering and Con
tracing company was the cheapest,
why the two could not be separated.
Mr.. Mccormack. who was present
on behalf Of the Charleston Engi-
neering and Contracting company,
said that the work on the ,curbing
alone was not enough to bring him
up here, and he would not accept
the curbing by itself. Mr.. Lee then
said that he thought that the bid
was reasonable and that he advised
that 1t be accepted. A motion was
then made to this effect on condition
that he company put mp bond for
the work to be done properly.
Major Lee arranged with Mr.. Nc
Cormack for the contract to be sign
ed at once.
Mr.. McKeiver then stated that as
all bids were rejected, except
that of Berghaus and Moffatt. he
moved that the $50 security put up
at the time the bids were made be
returned to the contractors at once.
The bid as finally received was for
the building Of the septic tank, for
the laying Of the curbing on Church
street and Hampton avenue, and also
for laying paving on Hampton ave-
nue., the amount being $3,132: $2.-
$50 for the septic tank; $50 for the
paving and 1892 for the curbing.
Council then took up the matter
of adopting the license ordinance
which was read and adopted, with
few changes from the original sche-
dule which had been prepared by
the committee.
The rates for licenses were so ar
ranged that there would be no dis
elimination. or as little as possible.
and so fixed as to give a home man
the advantage. If possible, over any
outside competitor. In most cases
the licenses were raised considerably
over previous years, so that the city
would be able to raise more revenue
from the licenses. In cases where it
was 10 the advantage Of the city to
lower the license it was done, though
this occurred but rarely in the or
dinance.
The committee who were appoint
ed TO revise the license ordinance re-
ported that in coming to their de-
cisions they had consulted the license
ordinances of various cities Of this
and other States. and that they had
done what they thought best for the
city in every case. Great credit is
due them for their zeal and indus
try in preparing the new license rates.
This committee consisted of Messrs.
Jennings, McKeiver. Wilder and
Rhame, who were assisted by City
Clerk Hurst. and City Attorney
Strauss.
In going over the ordinance each
item was read and discussed separ-