The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1916-09-27

for additional foundations. He said
ii looked to him as if the oil engine
was certainly "an experiment" He
thought that the De La Vergne COM
pany should be willing to pay for the
foundation also, as long as the COM
pany was so willing to put in the
large engine.
Mr.. lHenney told council that it was
but proper that the contractor should
be paid for an extra cost on the
foundations, and said that if the con-
tractor wished council to approve the
action of the engineers in accepting
the change of engines it was nothing
but right that the contractor should
have the approval of council. Mr..
Henney said that his firm had acted
in the matter in accordance with the
authority given them in contract and
specifications.
The second matter disposed of con-
cerned the foundation for the water
tower. Mr.. Thompson contended that
his contract did not call for the con-
struction of this foundation. Col. Bur
ford, for the contractor, contended
that there was nothing in the con-
tract and nothing in the specifications
referring to the foundation for the
tower, and that all other foundations
were referred to. Mr.. Henney pointed
out that the engineers were given au-
thority to interpret the plans and
specifications, and said that the foun-
dation for the tower was plainly
shown on the plans for the plant. Mr..
Henney said that when the water
tower item was eliminated from Mr..
Thompson's contract, and given to the
r. D. Cole company of Newman, Ga,
the Cole contract was for the tower
"above the foundation" which left the
foundation in Mr.. Thompson's con-
tract.
Col. Burford contended that the en-
gineers could not act as a judicial
tribunal; could not decide what was
in Mr.. Thompson's contract and what
was not in it. Col. Burford said that
his client had not come before council
to make a fight against that body OF
against the engineers, but simply tc
point out the disadvantage under
which the contractor labored because
of the difference of opinion as te
whether the water tower foundations
were part of the contract or not
Col. Burford said that Mr.. Thompson
would be satisfied to have council sup
pert the engineers contention, ane
j give instructions to have the worl
proceed; that Mr.. Thompson would q
ahead with the work under protest
claiming that the foundation was no
in the contract, and asking for a set
tlement later.
i There was a discussion with regart
to certain conversations that tool
place at the time the contract for tn
light and water plant was awarded
, among members of the council, tn
, city attorney and the contractor. MI
i Thompson contended that in thes
) conversations it was agreed that tn
/ tower foundations were not to be
: part of his contract. Mr.. Henney sal
: that conversations had nothing to d
: with it, that the written agreement
7 should be the guide in the matter. III
| said that he could not do otherwis
i than advise council to insist on MI
e Thompson's putting in the founda
j ton, either this, or that the city hav
e the foundation put in and charge
] against the contractor. Mr.. Henne
: said that council should be guided b
e the advice of the city attorney, an
y that council would be safe in doing 81
r Mr.. Henney a few minutes before ha
had conversation with Frederic
It Hooker, city attorney.
s Council instructed the engineer
r. have work on the tower foundatio
a start at once, according to the eng
e neer's Interpretation, which was tn;
e the foundation constitute a part I
Y Mr.. Thompson's contract. Mr.. Thoml
e son said that he would start work in
l. mediately. He said he thought Il
y whole matter merely an honest di