The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-03-20
INSPECTION OF PUBLIC WORK.

]
been hot from time to time in the Off
cialdom OF this city for many years,
has broken out again IN acute form.
We refer to the inspection OF public
work. City Engineer Blossom has re-
signed his position, giving as the rea-
son more lucrative opportunity of
employment elsewhere. But it is un-
derstood that the prime incentive
whereby his official discomfort was
manifested, arose from the fact that
the inspection Of public work was kept
away from his office.
The position is very plain and
straightforward one, and is emphatic
ally in favor Of the City Engineer from
first to last We have always main
tanned that the City Engineer should
have the appointment and control of
inspectors, for the very simple reason
thet the City Engineer draws up the
specifications for public work, provides
the maps and plats for the same, and
in his office are the only guides where
by the inspection can properly be done.
II has often been the case in this city
that inspectors Of public work do not
in fact inspect at all according to the
plans and specifications in the City
Engineer s office upon which the bid
for the work was awarded to the con-
tractor The inspector inspects in a
general way. bat without specific
knowledge which the City Engineer
naturally expects 10 have applied. The
result is trouble all the time, friction
between those who actually do the
work and the City Engineer, because
the CITY Engineer sees from time to
time that the specifications are not
lived up TO, and under the present di-
vision Of the city's authority there is
no way for the City Engineer to help
himself when things 20 wrong with the
inspection. for the inspection is done
through another department, over
which he has no control.
One would quite naturally suppose
that, the City Engineer s department
being also in the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner who has charge of the
street paving. sidewalk making, aud
seweriug, there would be no question
whatever but that the Commissioner
in charge both of the City Engineer s
work relating to these matters and OF
the actual doing of the work. would
require that the work should be done
under the inspection of the CITY En-
gineer, This for the very natural rea-
son that the City Engineer, as stated,
draws UP the specifications, has the
contract and is in command of the
skilled requirements necessary to see
that the specifications are fully com.
Piled with.
IL rs not, then, question of doing
work in the best manner that separates
the inspection from the City Engineer
office, since this separation is made in
spite of the common supervision of both.
the same authority having in charge the
street paving, sidewalk making and
making Of sewers. But since il is certain
that the two being under the same juris
diction the City Engineer would natural
" and properly be given the inspection
Of the work and be held accountable for
it being done according 10 specifica.
tious, the only reasonable thing is 10
have the CITY Engineer do the inspect.
ing, since there is not any conflict
in jurisdiction. 1t being not ques-
tion Of jurisdiction. and not a practical
application of the contract and of the
expert requirements necessary TO carry
out that contract, there is no question
at all from the point OF skilled REQUIRE
ment, of the fact that the City Engineer
ought 10 have control OF the iuspec
tion, appointing the inspectors upon
due proof of their competence, and fur
nishiug those inspectors with the nee.
essary data, from the specifications
and contract, 10 enable them to enforce
proper compliance with the contract.
For the city 10 do as it does now, and
has been doing right along, to let con.
tracts through one department and have
its inspection done by the same de-
partment without regard to the off
eialdom which has the contract. and
has all the necessary data TO insure
compliance Herewith, l. to disconneer