St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1911-06-02

The sewer situation Is assuming
grave proportions. Some one is
going to be stung-but who' Shall
II be the contractor or the engineer
or the councilmen or the cityp The
property owners, IN no inconsider-
able proportion, have publicly de.
clared that they shall not pay their
assessments until they have positive
assurance that the sewer has been
laid according to the letter of the
specifications. From the evidence
adduccd this has not been done
tar from il. Therefore a generous
portion at least must be dug up
aud laid down properly. But who
shall bear the eXpensel The con.
tractor will no doubt attempt TO
prove that he had the permission OF
the engineer TO lay the sewer in the
manner in which II has been laid.
Moreover, the city records will at
test that the city engineer has
passed upon the manner OF laying
aud pronounced Il good in the main
and further. the council accepted
this written report. A city inspec'
tor has been on the Job most OF the
time, aud, working under the di
Tection OF the engineer, he, too, has
permitted these irregularities to
continue. While the contractor is
supposed TO follow the specifications
IN regard to detail the engineer has
power TO permit digressions to some
degree, Has this permission, which
must be given in writing. been OBJ
tanned ? II SO. matters are more
complex. II not, the stingiug sen
sation will not unlikely descend up
on the contractor Is the engin'
eer's skirts clearl Upon his own
confession he altered the bid after
II had been made public, which
should have made il worthless. lie
accepted the work OF the same con
tractor on Philadelphia and Bur
lington street sewers, and Il is said
that no deviation has been made Ia
laying these sewers over that in
vogue on the Maple street sewer.
Taking the engineer attitude as
criterion, the contractor, in making
up his bid Tor the Maple street sew,
CT, had a right to expect the same
treatment on the new work, So
confident was the contractor that
he would receive the Maple street |
contract that he began hauling the |
pipe along the route a day OF two
before the contract was awarded by |
the council. Did he have inside |
information, OF did he know that he
could rely upon the engineer to
make the figures right that he had
omitted, either Intentionally or neg
lectiully9 Has the engineer done
his full duty toward the city of St,
Johns in regard to the sewer' Has
he made special effort TO secure a
sewer system for St, Johns that was
above reproach II he has, why the
strenuous objection and refusal to
payl Is he not competent to enforce
a compliance with the specifications
on the part of the contractor, or is
he aiding the contractor at the eN-
pense of the city1 These are imper-
tinent questions perhaps, but they
are just, The people want to know
and why shouldn' theyl We hope
that he can show clean
pair OF hands ON the sewer PROPOSE
ton. Are the councilmen liable
Have they tacitly endorsed the en-
gineers report when he said the
work was pleasing to him2 No
Objections were made when it was
presented, and while accepting it
as a public document, its spirit
was not concurred in and the coun-
cilmen were far from being in sym
pathy with its purport, Is the city
liable for cost of relayingl Yes
il neither the contractor or the en-
gineer or the councilmen are, But
which shall il bel
n