Show WHOS SHALL LAY PIPES t Board of Public Works Injunction i Case Argued I + NO TESTIMONY HEARD I PETITIONERS ALLEGE LAW IS NOT FOLLOWED 4 Counsel Contended That Board of Public Works Shall Supervise the WorkCity Attorney Claimed Council Had Authority to Ignore the Board i 1 After delays and postponements lasting last-ing over a month the injunction case of W A Nelden et al vs Mayor Clark the city council Superintendent of Waterworks Caine and City Engineer Kelsey was at last argued yesterday before Judge Hiles Mr Nelden and his colleagues sue the city officers to prevent them from carrying on certain public works in cludjng waterworks extensions claim ing that such matters should be left in the hands of the board of public works and allowing that if done by the city enllnppr and nrlnt nilAnt nf t works they will cost the city several thousand dollars more than if accomplished accom-plished by the board of public works The case came up yesterday on an order to show cause why the temporary tempo-rary restraining order now In effect should not be made permanent Frank Stephens and Benner X Smith on behalf be-half of the plaintiffs argued that the board of public works was formed liy the legislature and given power to contract con-tract for and supervise the construction construc-tion of all public works except public buildings courthouses etc The city council subsequently reenacted this law into a city ordinance giving the board exclusive charge over all public works When the council planned the new work it ordered it done h v the city engineer and superintendent of waterworks and the board of public works immediately entered a protest which the council disregarded The board claimed that the work will cost much more if done by the city officers offi-cers and Mr Stephens offered to put witnesses upon the stand to show this Judge Hues uled however that this I was not material as long as fraud was not alleged by the plalntiltc City Attorneys Contention City Attorney Hall contended tha I the board of public works was merely an auxiliaiy board and that is giins no authority to do any work whatever I save from the city council that the council has discretionary pcwer and may order public work done in whatever what-ever manner it seems best disregardIng I disregard-Ing the board of public works entirely If it desires He said that the council had ordere the work done by the city officers so that It mfoht be done by days work and not by contract as would be the case if It were given into the hands of the board of public works They did this so that laborers in the city might have the opportunity to find employment on the works If It were done by contract the work would be let out to the lowest bidder and contract con-tract laborers would be brought into in-to the exclusion of local taxpaying citizens Judge Hiles took the case under advisement ad-visement and will probably render a decision on Monday |