Show CONTRACTS DIED OCT 31 3 t Dey Deprives Palmer and Mo Moran Moran ran of Big Jobs BLAME LAID N COUNCIl COUNCiLe e I DID NOT NOl WORK AT A r PER TIME I City Attorney Charles CharI C DO De has decided that the toa time tor or the th corn com ot or work upOn pub pubIc Ic Improvement contracts pa I Oct 31 of the fiscal yr yer the I Ity counell orders done bedre that date The effect or of the ruling la is to deprive PatrIck J Moran and Fred G Palmer or of thousands of dollars I worth or of cement sidewalk and Street I Improvement work which they had con I doing this summer on 1903 1902 Although the opinion only deals specifically with 1903 1003 ontra t with Mr Palmer the principal or of law aU all city Improvement work rho Palmer contract was made a test case The ot of the cIty attorney Is to toome torome I rome ome up before the th board of at public works work at its He next meeting on Tuesday At t that meeting Mr Ir Palmer Is to agaIn pr present nt hit hir side of at the case ore tully fully than before He contends that the tho old board has established a precedent whereby l Ct over contract can be fulfilled th following year He main maln talus that that has been done don In times PR part t arid and that there Is no good reason why he hc not In of at past a ap the old ld bO board be permitted to lay certain cement sidewalks this year eal under those conditions Opinion oZ ot Attorney Day The opinion ot of City Attorney Dey to th the pUblic works board together with the facts in the ease case as regards regard Mr Palmer the relative to Mr foran being practically lly the same me tol fol I laws lawsIn In reply to your under I date ot of Feb G 6 In the Palmer sideWalk the following appear to be the facts and que Uon Involved vl viz Feb 4 1504 Fred J Palmer mil made de a COntract with your our board whereby b he to construct III all cement sidewalks ordered by the city from Jat Jait to Oct II 21 1001 19 During the period b by said Mid contract the thu city council levied special ta 88 and confirmed the levies for the construction of 01 six 4 sections or of sidewalk Sept 8 1 lD by resolution the city II the board ot of public works to ss as soon as practical with the or of sidewalks and sewers for tor which special taxes are or hereafter be levied Aug 10 we the city council passed a to the tho effect that bf not ordered to proceed with t Ion of sidewalks until 71 7 per cent or of tao tRO special tax taC is collected l Two of oC the said Mid a were con firmed prior to Aug 10 end subsequently No order a appears to have havo len been made by your b board ard laud authorizing the work of DC con constructing any of oC the six several everal sidewalks and no Spit spa fal order directing said Mid proposed work to bE don done appears to have hae been made by b the city Old Contracts No Good GoodS S Section 3 chapter 51 revised ordinances 1 po p M provides II the council determines to la proceed with tiit th t It lin an orner shall be enter f In Ua the minutes of oC Its authorizing 4 and York work t be done and Im hit made This Thill prerequisite order fhe council haiS hac ought to delegate to YOur board to tomake tomake make by its re of oC Sept with the limitation by Us Its further re resol tion or of Aug 11 In ew et Mitt tact fact that the th Palmer con contract contract tract is iH on only 1 for cement ment or ordred ordered dred dered b by the city council from Jan 1 1901 es to Oct 1 1 anti and that tIle the city on And between said ald dates m made iLO 10 order for Cor the work to be done and that your board under the authority dote dele gated to It b by the city made nO during said period for the work to tobe be 11 done and that work was not actually by contractor before the ox ex expiration or of his It I Is toy my opinion that under his contract Oct u 21 Mr Palmer baa no valid claim or orrl rl ht to perform the thu work In words his c claim m under his is 18 limited to Work actually or either b by the city council or your our board while his contract was In force orce I |