The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1936-04-16
City Council Organizes
For 1886 Business
,(Continued from Page Sikh

ready to establish such assumption
The trial was adjourned by the In
dustrial Commission to permit Mr.
| Gray to introduce testimony OF
that subject only, with the time an,
place left to be fixed to suit tn
convenience of the parties. The ad
tournament was set for two or thre,
definite dates, but, before being
heard, was put off either for tn,
convenience Of the Industrial Com
mission, Mrs. Gray, or her Attor
ney. It Is now set to be heard OF
April 18th and at that time thu
trial will probably be completed.
Due to the advanced stage of thi:
trial, it would be difficult for ar
Attorney who did not participate II
the proceedings to complete it and
if he so desires, will be glad t.
assist the new City Attorney in this
case.
The Sewage Disposal Plant
This matter requires attention
not by the City Attorney, but BY
the Council, and, as there seems tc
be considerable misunderstanding
even on the part of a new member
of the City Council, it will no doub:
be of assistance to you if the lega
rights of the City are again pre-.
scented to your attention.
At the time the contractor claim
ed that he had completed the
Plant, the City's engineers were
unwilling to accept the so-called
out-fall sewer, consisting of ap-
proximately 1000 feet of sewer
pipe leading to the Plant. The en-.
gineers claimed that this sewer had
more leakage than was allowable
and more than there would be il
the sewer had been laid in a pro
per manner. The contractor dis
puted this and claimed that if the
sewer was left alone the leaks
would "take up and would event
ually be almost entirely stopped
The matter was discussed by the
engineer, the contractor, and your
body, with the result that upon the
written recommendation of the en-.
gineer, and under your direction
the City entered into a supplement
tary contract with the contractor
whereby it agreed to pay to him
the entire consideration for build
ing the plant except $4,000 there
of and that such s150000 would be
held until June 1895, when a new
test of the amount of leakage
would be made and, if the sewer
was not then acceptable to the City
then the City and the contractor
would stand in the same position
as they did at the time the contract
was made, in other words, the
right of the City to claim that the
sewer was not properly construct
ed and the right of the contractor
to claim that it was, would contin-
ue without prejudice and could be
determined after the test was
made. The engineer stated to the
Council that the cost Of repairing
the sewer, in any event, would be
less than S15OO.00. The agreement
also provided that the city was to,
and did, finally accept all of the
rest of the Disposal Plant, except
ing the out-fall sewer.
|
nished the contractors bond con-
scented in writing to the foregoing
arrangement and it's liability tor
| the out-fall sewer was limited to
an additional S1500.00.
About the first of July, 1885, the
test contemplated in the said sup
Elementary agreement was made
and it was found that the leakage
in the sewer had not decreased but,
if anything, had increased, AMI
therefore the contractor made at
tempts to stop the leakage without
relaying the sewer or the portions
thereof which leaked, and, at the
same time, claimed that he was not
liable for the leakage and that he
had constructed the sewer in a
proper way and in accordance with
the plans and specifications.
After the contractor had stopped
making attempts to check the leak
age, your body arranged a meet
ing with him, at which he stated
that he was through and that II
was his position that he had fully
carried out his contract and was
entitled to the $1500.00 which was
being withheld by the City.
Thereafter you met with the en-
gineers and the undersigned and
were advised as to the legal situa-
ton and as to ways and means Of
fixing the sewer. OF course, no re-
covery can be had from the con-
tractor until the sewer Is fixed and
the amount of the cost thereof Is
definitely determined.
The contractor claims that the
interest on the $150O.O0 withheld by
the City, at percent, will pay the
cost of pumping the leakage, which
is in excess of the allowable amount
and which cost Is, as I remember,
approximately $500 per year. You
will recall or have record of the
definite amount. The engineers fol
the City and the engineer inspector
employed by the Federal Govern.
ment, and on the job during the
construction of the Plant, all claim
that the sewer was not properly
constructed and that, had it been
so constructed, there would be
practically no leakage.
In any event, the contractor. K
]. O'Neil doing business as M. j.
ONeil, has contracted to construc:
the sewer in accordance with the
plans and specifications, ETC., and
is liable for the FULL AMOUNT
OF DAMAGE arising through his
failure so to do. In order to make
collection Of any such damage
from the Contractor easier and
more sure, the City has two items
of security; first, the $1500.00 with
held as aforesaid, and next, the
$1500.00 liability Of New Amster-
dam Casualty Company on its