Show ANOTHER HOWL OF PROTEST V i AGAINST SKIMPING OF WORK IN BIG SIDEWALK CONTRACT Another protest was made by b taxpayers taxpayer living In sidewalk extension district No o olOS lOS when a communication was as addressed yesterday to the board of or public works The protestants charge th contractor with violations of the specifications and ask that the work be not approved until they the shall nave have nave been given ghen an opportunity to present their grievances in detail The petitioners also handle the inspect inspectors ors ore without gloves They The say sa they are In Incompetent Incompetent Incompetent competent others have hae said the same thing and there tl ete is glowing under the In Inspection Inspection system a fire so 80 warm that by next meeting time many man things will be made boiling hot The communication pre prepared prepared prepared pared yesterday reads We e the undersigned d citizens and tax taxpayers taxpayers payers pa erg residing within that portion of sidewalk extension No Xo 10 lying hying between Lincoln and Seventh East streets from east to west and between Ninth South and Tenth South streets from north to south do h teb solemnly pretest against the utter disregard of or the contract specifications specifications by b the James Jamea Kenney Kenne 1 Construe Construction tion company In the laying of In the district I Ve We protest on the following grounds The contractor has failed to tamp tam th fills on sidewalks raised above the th natural level as required by b the specifications See paragraph 2 section 2 page 20 of or printed specifications s The contractor has bas failed to finish the wearing surface of the sidewalk In a aw workmanlike w manner as s required by the specifications sl si See Sec S paragraph 3 2 section 11 Ii page 24 Of or t V printed specifications The contractor has failed tall d to protect the sidewalk sl against traffic after arter its be being beIng being ing aid ad and before It has set firmly as required by b the specifications See para parc paragraph graph raph 3 section 11 page 26 6 of or printed specifications The contractor has shamefully disregarded disregarded the specifications as to the rela relative relative i tive tIe proportion of cement to sand and ana gravel placing in the sidewalk first laid for fer foundation one part of or cement to twelve parts of or sand and gravel and In Inthe Inthe inthe I the wearing surface one part of or cement I to six parts of or sand and graveL grael whereas I I the specifications call for tor one part p rt of or ce cement ceI Cement ment to eight parts parLe of or sand and gravel I for tor the foundation and one part of ce cement cement ment meat to two of or sand And and gravel for th tho wearing surface In other words the con contractor contractor contractor tractor used one sack of or cement in the foundation should uld have used one Ond and sacks andin the wearing surface used one sack k of t fV cement where three should uSed u uIn In the sidewalk l protest by b indignant citizens the relative proportion of cement used for fo the th foundation was Increased ed by b the contractor to one to nine I and for Cor the wearing surface increased to toone toone toone one to tInes thie th E whereas whir r as It Should have hae been I Ione one to eight and one to two respectively respective In ln proof Jf of r the your our petitioners herewith present the affidavits i of or numerous citizens j violations of con contract contract All of th the foregoing I tract by h the contractor tor were w iv remade re made possible I Ible ble by bj the misconduct of V the tile In inspectors I of the UIE city 4 Your petitioners petition rs represent that while i T I much of or the sidewalk laid In ih said J al district Is I 1 manifestly defective and of or poor quaI quality quality I ity that a great elt deal heat of said ad sidewalk it I is covered with sand and S deTects defects de feet I from view and ind that your ou r petitioners can cannot cannot not therefore at this time set out in j detail the particulars and the th location of many man of or the defects in said k ex cx except except as before set Ret forth as to the insufficient insufficient proportion of or cement In view of or the foregoing facts rac your our petitioners pray pm that the work done in inthe inthe inthe the district before described by b the Jamea Kennedy Kenned Construction company compan be not ap approved approved I proved and d and that your our peti petitioners petitioners have hae ai an a opportunity to present to your honorable body bod a detailed statement of the particulars in which the work of or said contractor is III defective and in viola siola violation violation tion of ot the terms of his contract and the particulars of the damage done your pe petitioners pa thereby Your petitioners further pray that the tho Inspectors guilty of allowing the foreso Ing violations of contract bv by b the contract contractors ors be forthwith discharged |