The Duluth rip-saw. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1917-19??, 1924-10-25

that TeSort De ndQ 10 the court re-
cords In the case previously men.
toned, Foley Bros. VS.. st. Louis
county. The action brought by the
contractors on the Fond du Lac.
Wrenshall road should be carefully
and conseientiousIy studied by all
concerned.
The Fond du Lac-Wrenshall road
Is not a state highway, but one de-
signed by r. w. Acton, county road
engineer, and constructed under his
supervision. As Mr.. Acton also has
charge OF the design of state roads
in st. Louis county and supervises
their construction, it is a fair in
ference that faults in plans and
specifications in the former also may
be found in the latter.
| Messrs. Foley Bros. sued st. Louis
county in support of their claim that
about 10000 cubic Yards of ex-
cavated material, classed as "earth"
, by engineer Acton, should, under
a proper Interpretation of the spec
ifications, be classed os crock" and
be paid correspondingly higher
price. Judge Fesler sustained Foley
Bros. in their contention and he, in
turn, was sustained by the supreme
court. AS result of the trial and
court decision, $20,000.00 was
awarded Messrs. Foley Bros. over
and above the final estimate pre-
pared by the county road engineer.
/ To the superficial observer, it
might appear that the benevolent
old bailiwick of st. Louis county
once more has been made the prey
| of a piratical crew and, too, in
spite of the vigilance of a trust
worthy public official in the person
of the exclusive county road en-
gineer.
If st. Louis county's board of
commissioners should be inclined to
| accept this superficial view of the
case, in wholes or. in part, this Great
Family Journal would warn them in
advance that, IN giving this phase
Of the controversy any consideration
at all, they are barking up the
wrong tree, or down the wrong hole.
The character of the complainants
and the motives actuating our mo-
dern Horatius at the Bridge are en-
tirely beside the question. Messrs.
Foley Bros. contention that, in this
particular instance, earth was
"rock' was bSsed upon their inter-
pretations OF the specifications as
already stated, and not upon a mere
technicality.
As a sidelisht on the disappear
ance Of no tnconsiderabIe portion
Of st. Louis eounty's bond issue in
the sum OF $500, 100000, these spe-
Icifications. should prove illuminat-
ing. The clause defining "loose
rock" is as follows: ..
loose rock shall include all
slate, shale or other rock which can
not be plowed with a ten-inch road
plow and a four-horse team, but
which can be quarried or loosened
with pick without blasting; -
70 also all detached rock or bould-
ers measuring not more than one
half cubic yard each.''
The state specification contains
this complementary clause:
"In order to claim classification
as loose rock or "solid rock" the
engineer shall be notified prior to
the excavation Of such material SO
that proper measurements may be
taken to determine the quantity of
material under each classification"
Messrs. Foley Bros. claimed that
q certain material excavated in one
of their cuts was "hardpan" which
complied with the test require
ments Of loose rock, inasmuch as it
could not be plowed with a ten
inch road plow and four-horse
team. Having substantiated their
claim to the satisfaction of the court
they may be permitted to pass out
of the picture.
The vital features Of the fore
going specifications, as may readily
be seen, are the physical test of
the ten-inch road pillow and four
horse team, and the requirement of
measurements to determine the
quantity of .aterial.
Of the materials enumerated, slate
and sha1e are EeAsily tested and not
difficult to measure, since they &C.
cur in strata or lodges. But "other
rock" and detached rock or bould-
ers," of less than one-half cubic
yard each, are different problems,
altogether.
From the state specification,
above quoted, it might be inferred
that all detached rock or bouIders
are actually measured with a tape
or rule. Such, however, is not the
case. On the contrary, in st. Louis
County road work it has teen the
practice to estimate the proportion
Eof detache l rock or boulders, in a
given cut, from an inspection Of
same. Guess" would be better
term, for that is what 1t amounts
Ito.
A prominent local engineer has
said: cit is a cardinal principle
among civil engineers to make no
final estimate of quantities in con-
struction work except from meas
urements by rule, tape or level"
The impracticabi::ty Of measuring
all the small 5ouiders In a cut Is, of
course, apparent. But why measure
/ - khar. iaI Al sci