The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-04-30

the questions involved are of q legal
nature, no action was taken and it
was decided to refer these matters to
the city attorney for an opinion.
Mr.. I. c. Strauss was nominated
for city attorney at a salary of $50
per annum. There were no other
nominations and he was unanimous
ly elected.
The management of the street
gangs was discussed, but as there was
not sufficient information at hand
no action was taken. Mr.. Booth.
chairman of the public works COM
mittee, said the street work and
other work under the direction of
the street commissioner was a big Job
and he had not become familiar with
it so as to be able to make any
recommendations, but expected to do
so at the next meeting.
Mr.. McKeiver expressed what he
said was merely an offhand opinion,
that all city work should be under
the direction Of the city engineer, and
that the street commissioners should
take his orders from the city engi-
neer.
The election of city officials was
postponed until the next meeting,
and the clerk was directed to ad-
vertise for two weeks in the Daily
Item that applications would be re-
ceived until the next regular meet
ing.
Mr.. Glenn. chairman Of the fire
department committee, presented the
following requests from the chief Of
the fire department.: That six lock-
ers Nor the use Of the fireman be
built in the new fire engine house,
that two rooms for drivers be built
no provision having been made in the
plans for these necessary conven-
fences. Also for six coats, three 6
gallon fire extinguishers, six iron
beds. six sets bedsprings, six mat
tresses Referred back to fire depart
ment committee with power to act,
The purchase Of an automobile fire
engine was discussed, but as no de-
finite information was available it
was decided to consider this matter
at a future date, the committee to
obtain all possible information in the
meanwhile.
The bill Of Mr.. G. F. Epperson for
the payment of the amount he had
| expended in putting down a con-
crete sidewalk in front Of his place
of business on Main street was the
cause Of lively discussion. Mr.. Ep-
person put down this pavement un-
der contract with the city by which
ht was TO pay for it and when the
city was in funds he would receive
from the city q refund of one-half
the cost Of the work, the other one
half to be at his own expense. The
city sometime ago paid him the one
/
he be paid the other half, the re-
quest being based on the ground that
the city Is putting down similar side
walks In front Of other property at
no expense to the owners. After
the matter had been threshed out at
some length 1t was put to a vote and
the bill was refused payment, Coun-
Gil taking the position that M. Epper-
son built the sidewalk under a con-
tract with the city and that the city
had discharged its part Of the con-
tract, that Mr.. Epperson was only
one OK a number of citizens who had
built sidewalks under similar con.
ditions when it suited their conven-
| ience to do so, this work having been
| going on for a number of years, and
that IL Mr.. Epperson's bill should be
paid 1t would be but just that all 9TH
ers who had built sidewalks under
these conditions should also be paid.
The manner in which bills against
the city shall be audited was discus.
sed for nearly an hour and after three
or four motions had been made one
OF which was pasesd and reconsider
ed. the whole question was settled by
the adoption Of two motions.
! First, that all bills shall be refer
red to the chairmen Of the respective
committees for whose departments
the purchases were made before be-
Ing turned over to the finance COM
mittee for payment.
! Second, that the chairmen Of the
respective committees shall be au-
thorized to make purchases of sup
| piles and articles neednd hntwnon