Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-07-22

DELAYS SEWER
CONSTRUCTION
Fifty-Sixth Street Improve
ment Held Up by Dispute
Over Crossing Canal.

That construction of the S2SO,O00 Fifty
Sixth street and Westfield Road main
sewer, sanitary outlet for practically all
of the city lying north of Fifty Second
street, is being held up by a controversy
over the manner in which it shall cross
the canal at Fifty Sixth street was dis
closed today.
Merle n A. Walker, attorney for the
Sheehan Construction Company, which
has the sewer contract, came before the
board of public works In a conference
attended by B. ]. I. Jeup. engineer for
the indianapolis Water Company, ana
criticised the board ror railing to effect
an agreement with the water company
as to the manner in which the sewer
is to cross the canal before the contract
vas let.
CALLS FORsUsE
OF SEGMENT BLoCK.
The contract calls for the use OF seq
ment block, throughout the length of
the drain, Mr.. Walker said The water
company contends that sewage Will seep
into the canal and further pollute the
city's drinking water from such pipe
and stands out for iron pipe In the sec
ton which passes under the canal. The
board of works is said to favor solid
concrete pipe.
Mr.. Walker said his client will not
deviate from the contract unless extra
compensation is allowed.
Meanwhile work on the sewer has been
stopped, not only because Of the dis
agreement over the kind Of material to be
used. but also as to the method Of put
ting it under the canal bed. The con
tractor contends that he will have TO
IaTE A. L
dam and build the sewer to the cen
ter, then move the dam to the other half
and complete the crossing. The water
company, according to Mr. Walker, de-
clines to permit any blockade which viii
not leave a free channel OF approx
mately thirty feet.
HOLIDAYS VIEW OF
MARYLAND STREET JOB.
Belief that contractors have refused to
bid upon the resurfacing Of Maryland
street from Illinois to Pennsylvania street
With asphalt over tie old brick surface
because such a JoD viii be about five
times as cheap as to tear up the bricks and
lay an entirely new base and surface was
expressed by J. s. Holiday. president Of
w. j. Holiday & Company. one of the
property owners to be assessed. He to-
gether with several business men with
buildings along the street were before
the board.
Several days ago the board advertised
for bids for resurfacing the section OF
Maryland street but no contractor sub
mitted a proposal for the asphalt over
brick type OK pavement, which practically
all If the property Ownprs desire. The
board said that contractors do not care
to bid on this type because they must
guarantee It for five years and are not
sure it viii last City Civil Engineer
Frank C. Lngenfelter expressed himself
in favor Of putting in an entirely new
street
You can readily understand that these
contractors do not want to spoil a good
thing" said Mr.. Holiday. II quite under
stand why a contractor would not want
an innovation OF this kind to come In II
would cost the contractors millions OF
dollars a year in business.
II spent slOO myself last year filing up
holes IN brick pavements taht | had been
trying for FIVE year sto get the board OF
works to I'll and 7 found the use Of as
phalt over brick satisfactory"
PRIVATE CONTRACTING
PROPOSAL DENIED.
Mr. Holiday suggested that the prop
erty owners be permitted to privately
hire a contractor and put asphalt over
the bricks If no contractor would publicly
bid upon such a job. but the board re-
fused Irving W. Lemaux, sitting as
matter win be taken under adyisement