USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Melrose > City of Melrose annual report 1885-1889 > Part 37
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41
Interest coupons, town hall bonds . 4,550 00
water fund bonds 11,680 00
Water loan sinking fund, commissioners' surplus, 1888 3,829 22
Purchase of land, cemetery
350 00
Damages, settlement of claims ·
275 00
High school building committee
100 00
State tax, 1889
5,880 00
County tax, 1889
4,558 50
$165,096 27
Jan. 29, 1890. Cash in treasury 114 20
$165,210 47
123
REPORT OF THE TOWN TREASURER.
GEORGE NEWHALL, TREASURER,
In Account with COMMISSIONERS OF MELROSE WATER LOAN SINKING FUND. DR.
February, 1889. Cash on hand $2,418 05
To received as surplus from water fund for year
1888 3,829 22
To received as interest on bonds and mortga-
ges 1,687 31
CR. $7,934 58
By paid rent for box in safe deposit vaults $10 00
For mortgage on real estate in Melrose
2,500 00
In Boston Five Cents Savings Bank
1,000 00
In Suffolk Savings Bank
1,000 00
In Melrose Savings Bank .
3,424 58
$7,934 58
124
COLLECTOR'S REPORT.
COLLECTOR'S REPORT.
TAX OF 1889.
To amount of warrant . . $91,914 40
Interest
77 80
$91,992 20
By amount paid George Newhall,
treasurer
$58,390 15 .
Abatements
261 70
Uncollected
33,340 35
-$91,992 20
PARKER MERRILL, Collector for 1889.
TAX OF 1888.
To amount uncollected Jan. 1, 1890 $28,012 18
Interest
1,022 55 -
-$29,034 73 By paid George Newhall, treasurer . $26,801 93 Abatements I43 73
Uncollected Jan. 1, 1890
2,089 07
$29,034 73
PARKER MERRILL, Collector for 1888.
125
ASSESSORS' REPORT.
ASSESSORS' REPORT.
FOR YEAR 1889.
No. of inhabitants .
7,821
school children
1,303
dwelling houses 1765
horses
472
COWS
2II
swine
51
dogs
546
oxen
2
Valuation of personal property
$ 413,490 00
real estate
. 6,022,130 00
Total
. $6,435,620 00
Amount committed to collector
$91,914 40
Additional
88 32
Re-assessed
37 74
Total
$92,040 46
Rate, $13.60 per $1,000.
Number of polls assessed
2,204
Number of women assessed 6
I26
ASSESSORS' REPORT.
ABATEMENTS ON TAX OF 1889.
Estate Chas. Barrett $6 80|Mrs. C. W. Clinkard $6 80
Mrs. Emma Burnham
6 80 Mrs. S. A. Dean 6 80
Mrs. Ann Colligan
6 80 Mrs. Mary A. Finn 6 80
C. W. Ellison
I 36 Mrs. Aaron Green
4 74
C. N. Fowler
2 70 Estate Harry Hunt
6 80
Geo. B. Graves
2 72 E. W. Jones 68 T. D. Lockwood
6 80
J. Lehmann
12 90 A. V. Lynde
4 08
Mrs. E. Loring
6 80 Wm. H. Porter
2 70
Mrs. Esther Morcomb
6 So John J. Rink
2 72
Mrs. Ella Powder
5 44 Mrs. Joan Stackpole
6 80
Mrs. E. Simonds
6 80 A. Taylor
2 70
D. D. Stratton
6 80 Mrs. Jennie Upham
5 78
S. D. Taylor
13 60 Andrews & Fairfield
IO 20
Misses Wheeler
13 60 Estate T. Corey
6 80
Miss S. A. Cooper
6 80 Fred Belyea
2 72
Miss Nancy S. Wilson
I 36 Ellen Powers
6 80
Mrs. May D. Ellis
6 80 Misses Conway
13 60
H. G. Vennard
5 44 B. R. Upham, reass'd I 36
Mrs. C. V. Fernald
4 08 G. W. Chipman “
16 32
J. M. Fuller, reassessed
18 70
A. Cutter Sibley, “ I 36
$278 02
S. E. Benson
6 80
ABATEMENTS ON 1888, DURING 1889.
Geo. W. Emerson
$4 52 Mary R. Prince $6 80
Estate F. D. Howe
6 80 Mrs. Mary A. Higgins 6 80
Mrs. Susan E. Smith
6 80 Geo. W. Farnsworth 8 84
B. F. Dutton
12 24 Mrs. Mary A. Finn 6 80
Mrs. Louisa Weeks
IO 54 Geo. W. Grover
4 04
Mrs. Lucada Critchett
6 80 Mrs. E. Burnham 6 80
Geo. N. Cass
6 80 C. H. Batchelder
7 67
J. C. Ingalls
44 88
Mrs. Jane Grundy
3 40 $150 53
ALBON W. PARKER, CHARLES W. COOK, JOHN R. NORTON, Assessors.
2 72
Wm. Hyams
127
REPORT OF POLICE DEPARTMENT.
REPORT OF POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MELROSE, Dec. 31, 1889.
To the Honorable Board of Selectmen:
The report of the Police Department for the year ending at date is as follows :
CASES BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT.
Assaults . 8 Keeping and exposing
By-Laws, violation of 2
· liquor for sale ·
Breaking and entering
2
and larceny 6
Larceny 5
Neglected children ·
4
erty
3
Non-support . I
Reckless driving I
Search warrants for liq-
Disorderly house . .
2
uor
. II
Disobedient child . ·
I
Search warrants for
Entering building . ·
2
stolen goods ·
2
Persons assisted home
6
Truancy
.
I
Threats
2
Vagrants .
2
Insane carried to hospital
·
7
Lodgers accommodated
·
I27
Doors found unlocked
5
Disturbances suppressed
15
Notices delivered
· 53
Children taken home
·
5
.
.
.
.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK M. MCLAUGHLIN, Chief.
4. Liquor nuisances .
Concealing stolen prop-
Drunks .
26
Disturbing the peace .
5
128
REPORT OF FIRE ENGINEERS.
REPORT OF FIRE ENGINEERS
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER, 31, 1889.
To the Honorable Board of Selectmen:
During the year seven buildings were damaged by fire, of which there were
Totally destroyed 3
Trifling damage 4
Whole number of alarms, thirteen, of which one was for a fire in Stoneham, and one call for assistance from Boston.
Value of property destroyed $4,235 00
Insurance on same
3,175 00
Loss
1,885 00
Insurance paid on same
2,470 00
Date, Jan. 10; box, 41; location, Swains pond avenue; owner and occupant, J. H. Currier; value, $735; loss, $735; insurance, $2,700; insurance paid, $1,995; cause, incendiary.
Date, April 15; box, 41; location, Park street; cause, brush.
Date, April 21; box, 48; location, Emerson street; false alarm.
Date, April 23; box, 57; location, Warren street; cause, brush.
Date, April 26; box, 41; location, Grove street; false alarm.
Date, July 5; box, 35; location, Stoneham.
Date, Aug .; box, 49; location, Oakland street; loss, $50; cause, lamp explosion.
I29
REPORT OF FIRE ENGINEERS.
Date, Sept. 4; box, 35; location, Washington street; owner, E. F. Gove; occupant, W. B. Cook; value, $2,600; loss, $200; insurance, unknown; cause, spontaneous combus- tion.
Date, Oct. 24; box, 41; location, Lynde street; owner and occupant, W. E. Locke; insurance, $25; insurance paid, $25; cause, lantern explosion.
Date, Oct. 30; box, 41; location, Third street; owner, Joel Atwood; occupants, J. and G. Atwood; value, $900; loss, $900; insurance, $450; insurance paid, $450; cause, lantern explosion.
Date, Nov. 6; box, 48 ; location, Emerson street; owner and occupant, J. Barrett; cause, accidental.
Date, Nov. 25; box, 43; fire in Boston.
Date, Dec. 2; box, 46; location, Main street; owner, H. C. Richardson; cause, incendiary
In making our report, we recommend to the town the laying of a twelve inch main from Wyoming avenue to Emerson street, in order to give a more efficient supply of water for fire purposes. The time is soon coming when a more extensive equipment will be needed, that will require more room, and we think it advisable for the town to take into consideration with the erection of other buildings the needs of its fire department, and we recommend for the expenses of the fire department for the ensuing year the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars, and we also recom- mend the sum of two hundred dollars for additional fire alarm boxes.
Respectfully submitted,
A. W. LYNDE, SAMUEL LEAR, A. W. PARKER,
Engineers.
I30
REPORT OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS.
REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS.
To the Citizens of Melrose :
Your attention is respectfully called to the following ex- tracts from the town by-laws in relation to the prevention of fires :
ART. 7, SEC. I (as amended). Any person intending to erect any dwelling house, stable, shop, store or other build- ing in the town of Melrose, shall, before proceeding to erect the same or lay the foundation thereof, give notice in writing to the Board of Selectmen of such intention and of the character and location of the proposed building.
SEC. 13. To aid them in the proper enforcement of the foregoing regulations, the Board of Selectmen are hereby authorized to employ some suitable person to inspect all buildings in process of erection or alteration.
Acting upon the authority conferred by the by-laws, from which the above extracts are taken, and by appointment of the selectmen as inspector, I have, since my appointment, May 15, 1888, inspected buildings as follows :
Number inspected where notice was given through the
selectmen, as required by Sec. I (quoted above) Number inspected without notice 57
152
Total . 209
Seven chimneys found to be unsafe were by my order taken down and rebuilt, four flues for stoves were rebuilt, one girder which ran directly through a chimney was re- paired and made safe, and one chimney in a house partially burned was rebuilt.
I3I
REPORT OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS.
In response to notices served by an officer, many changes have been made as directed, and future danger thereby averted, and in no case has it been found necessary to prose- cute the offender. If the citizens generally, the owners of buildings in process of construction or alteration, and the contractors or builders, would render assistance in the matter of giving proper notice and complying promptly with the directions of the inspector, more could be accomplished under the by-laws toward preventing the dangers from fires which will arise unless the utmost care is exercised.
Blank notices of intentions to build can always be obtained of the inspector or at the town clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
DEXTER PRATT, Inspector. Jan. 1, 1890.
I32
AUDITORS' REPORT.
AUDITORS' REPORT.
We have examined the books of the treasurer for the year ending Jan. 28, 1890, and find them correctly kept and proper vouchers and orders accompanying them.
We have also examined the books connected with the water department, and find them correctly kept.
FRANK E. ORCUTT, WALTER I. NICKERSON, GILBERT N. HARRIS,
MELROSE, Feb. 14, 1890.
Auditors.
REPORT OF THE BOARD
OF
WATER COMMISSIONERS
OF THE
TOWN OF MELROSE, MASS.,
FOR THE
-
FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1889.
IO
MELROSE : DUNTON & POTTER, PRINTERS. 1890.
TOWN OF MELROSE, MASS.
WATER DEPARTMENT.
COMMISSIONERS.
WILBUR D. FISKE. GEORGE L. MORSE. W. H. MILLER. 1
REGISTRAR. PARKER MERRILL.
SUPERINTENDENT.
JAMES W. RILEY.
PUMPING STATION.
CHARLES F. CHURCHILL, Engineer.
3
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
REPORT OF THE WATER COMMISSIONERS
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DEC. 31, 1889.
The twentieth annual report of the Board of Water Com- missioners of the town of Melrose, also reports of water registrar and superintendent are respectfully submitted.
The demands for laying main and service pipes during the year, together with the expense of providing and putting in position new fire hydrants, largely exceeded the expecta- tions and estimates of the board and made necessary an additional appropriation, which was voted by the town, viz., $2,000.
Number of feet of main pipe laid in 1889, 6,674 feet.
66 service 2,780
new hydrants set II
66
gates set 15
A detailed statement of dimensions, location and cost of the above will be found in superintendent's report.
WATER SUPPLY.
There has been an abundant supply of water during the year and the pond is now in excellent condition. The highest point reached being Dec. Ioth, when the dam was overflowed. The lowest was on Oct. 20th, the water at that time being 1434 inches below high water mark. This favor- able exhibit is, of course, attributable to the unusually heavy rainfall of the past season and cannot safely be assumed as a fair average of the capabilities of the pond.
4
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
PUMPING STATION.
The pumping engine at the station has run during the year to the entire satisfaction of the board and has required but trifling expense for repairs. The whole pumping plant has been under the charge of the Engineer, Mr. C. F. Churchill, and is in perfect condition.
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES.
Owing to the absence of extreme cold weather no trouble from freezing has been experienced, and expense for repair- ing has been correspondingly light. The board reports a saving in the maintenance department, by teaming its own sand and cement, and also by a discontinuance of four of the telephones formerly in use; a further reduction in minor expenses has also been effected.
QUALITY OF PIPE.
At the last annual town meeting it was voted: "That the water commissioners be requested to seriously consider the question of the merits of iron as compared with cement- lined pipe; the relative cost of the same; the relative cost of repairing, and all collateral expenses. And if it should be found that the cement-lined pipe is no better or cheaper than the iron pipe, then the manufacture of cement-lined pipe to be discontinued."
In complying with the foregoing request, the board have found themselves confronted with so much conflicting testi- mony, and so little really definite information, that exact data upon which to base an opinion has not been attainable, and they are consequently not prepared to make an absolute statement, preferring rather to submit such facts as they have acquired and leave the decision with the town. Mel- rose has a good plant, with all necessary apparatus for
5
RDPORT OF WAFER COMMISSIONERS.
making cement-lined pipe. She has also workmen skilled in its manufacture and experienced in laying and caring for it. In this respect we possess advantages both for the practice of economy and in securing perfect work over most of the towns with whom correspondence has been had. A recognition of these facts and a careful comparison of prices paid by other towns, as well as our own, induces the belief that cement-lined pipe can be produced and laid at an average cost of some ten to fifteen per cent. less than iron pipe.
The relative cost of repairing and other collateral expen- ses can only be given approximately, as we have no record of tests of the two kinds of pipe made under exactly similar conditions. The weight of evidence, however, appears to be that while the expense of repairing a given quantity of iron pipe might be greater than for the same amount of cement, the iron is, on the whole, considered safer and more reliable, and consequently the aggregate cost of its maintenance would be no greater than for cement.
A satisfactory comparison of the two kinds of pipe as to durability cannot be made, inasmuch as sufficient time has not yet elapsed to demonstrate fully the enduring qualities of either. Plymouth has cement pipe thirty-eight years old and still in use, while Boston has iron pipe forty-three years in service and still claimed to be in good condition.
These figures, however, are exceptional, and after a care- ful examination of all the evidence at hand, the board are inclined to regard a fair average of the life of both iron and cement pipe to be some twenty to thirty-five years; both being, of course, greatly influenced by the existing condi- tions.
While each kind of pipe has its merits and each its defenders, it is at the same time true that neither has as yet fully established its claims to superiority. This fact, how-
6
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
ever, must be admitted that no instance has come to the knowledge of the board where cement pipe has been sub- stituted for iron, whereas it is known, that in many cases cement has been abandoned and iron put in its place. Under all the circumstances, therefore, and in view of the fact that Melrose is considering the question of substituting iron for cement pipe, the board call attention to the follow- ing points as deserving consideration :
a. The fact heretofore mentioned, that the town has a full equipment for manufacturing and laying cement pipe, and if iron be substituted new apparatus will be required.
b. Experience has proved that the chemical action of Spot Pond water on iron pipes is such as to cause rapid deterioration. This peculiarity as compared with other waters which have been examined is decidedly marked, and involving as it does the question of cost for future maintenance ought not to be overlooked.
c. Melrose has a system of cement-lined pipe, and it is an open question whether a combination of the two is desir- able. Experts as a rule do not approve such a union. The judgment of the board is that the difference in cost is not sufficient to be made a factor in deciding between the two kinds of pipe; it is purely a question of superiority.
The following letters have been courteously furnished by the gentlemen whose names are signed to them, and are entitled to respectful consideration, expressing as they do the opinions of men of high authority in the matters of which they write.
[GOODHUE & BIRNEY, Water Works Contractors.] SPRINGFIELD, MASS., Jan. 20, 1890.
W. D. FISKE, Esq.
Dear Sir: - Replying to yours of the 16th, would say that on the 4, 6 and 8 inch pipe, sizes that you would naturally
7
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
use for extensions, there should be a saving of about 10 per cent. in cost of cement over cast iron, at present prices. As I understand you make and line your own pipe, you can judge if you are able to get some work done on the making of pipe at odd spells, when men to whom you give steady employment would have nothing else to do.
Regarding the relative life of the two kinds of pipe, if each are properly made and laid, I think the cement would last much the longest. If the work on cement pipe is care- lessly done, the life of the pipe will be shorter. The chances for a town obtaining poor or imperfect work on cement pipe if done by contract are a little more than on cast iron. If you do your own work, there can be no excuse for poor work. Plymouth, Mass., has several miles of cement pipe which has been in use thirty-eight years.
-
There is virtue in each kind, with chances for better water from the cement. You are at liberty to call upon me for any further information that I can give you.
Yours truly,
C. L. GOODHUE.
[BOSTON WATER WORKS, Office Supt. Eastern Division. ]
BOSTON, MASS., Jan. 25, 1890. WM. H. MILLER, Esq., Melrose Water Board.
Dear Sir :- In reply to yours of the 24th inst., asking for my opinion in regard to the comparative merits of cast-iron and cement-lined water pipes, I will say that I should not recommend the use of the cement-lined pipes, and my rea- sons for that opinion are based upon my experience with both classes of pipe on the Boston works and upon my general knowledge of the experience of neighboring cities and towns which have used the cement-lined pipes.
The Mystic works, constructed in 1864 for the supply of Charlestown, were furnished with wrought-iron cement- lined pipes, and in 1876, twelve years after the pipes were laid, the number of breaks in the mains were I for each 0.45 (about 1/2 ) of a mile of pipe, while on the Cochituate works, laid with cast-iron pipe, the number of breaks were one for
8
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
every 24.4 miles. We have been obliged to replace the entire distribution of Charlestown with cast-iron pipes.
The cement-lined pipe was used in Somerville and Chel- sea, and in both of those cities the pipes are now giving a great amount of trouble, and they are replacing the wrought- iron cement-lined pipes with coated cast-iron.
As to the life of a cast-iron pipe, I can only say that the pipes laid in Boston in 1848 are to-day in service, and to all appearances nearly as good as when first laid. When laid in marsh mud the cast-iron pipes decay rapidly; but in good earth they will last at least fifty years, and I see no reason why not one hundred.
As to the comparative cost, I have not had any exper- ience.
Yours respectfully, DEXTER BRACKETT, Supt. Eastern Division.
[Office of Superintendent Hingham Water Works.]
HINGHAM, Feb. 3d, 1890. JOHN R. NORTON, Clerk of Water Board, Melrose, Mass.
Dear Sir: - As we are a private company and have no commissioners, I take the liberty of answering your note. We have some forty miles of cement pipe from 14 in. to 3 in., most of it laid in 1879 and 1880. Thus far we have had very little trouble from breaks and our water is very clear. Our pressure is about fifty pounds and we have a gravity supply. For a low pressure like ours I think cement pipe, if honestly made and laid, is all right. Would not use it for a pumping system or where the pressure was over fifty or sixty pounds.
There is very little difference in first cost or in repairs between cast iron and cement pipe when the latter is first- class. The extra care necessary in handling and laying cement pipe where it is carefully done, as it must be to ensure good work, will offset the difference in cost of the materials. So that the only recommendation for cement pipe is in its absolute freedoin from corrosion and conse-
9
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
quent purity of the water. This is the vital point in all water works, and with water that will readily attack iron there is no question of the superiority of cement-lined pipe. Otherwise, and with high gravity or pumping pressure, I should say cast-iron every time.
Yours, C. W. S. SEYMOUR, Superintendent.
[ Concord Water Works, Superintendent's Office.]
CONCORD, N. H., Feb. 3d, 1890. JOHN R. NORTON, Esq., Clerk of Water Board, Melrose, Mass.
Dear Sir: - I have your favor of Feb. Ist. Our works were built in 1872 with cement-lined pipe, and we have but little trouble with it. Of late we have used cast-iron for extensions. Were we to build our works anew now, I should use cast-iron. The difference in the price is not large. The iron costs more than the cement-lined, but I cannot give you the exact figures. Iron pipe has advanced about $3.00 per ton, and cement-lined would advance some. Mr. C. L. Goodhue, of Springfield, Mass., will give you the figures for cement-lined.
Very respectfully, JOHN KIMBALL, President.
[Office of PERCY M. BLAKE, Civil Engineer.]
HYDE PARK, MASS., Dec. 5th, 1889. Major W. D. FISKE, Boston, Mass.
Dear Sir: - I have been too busy to attend to that matter of comparative cost of piping, about which you spoke to me. Let me know if it is not too late, and I will try to have it looked up for you. I should say, to express it in a general way, that with the present price of cast-iron, the laying and furnishing of 4, 6 and 8 inch wrought-iron cement-lined and covered pipe and the furnishing and lay-
IO
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
ing of the same size of cast-iron pipe, standard weight, could be contracted for at the same price. If, however, you are well equipped for the manufacture and laying of the cement-lined pipe, it is probable that this kind would cost ten and possibly fifteen per cent. less than standard cast- iron.
Yours truly, PERCY M. BLAKE.
[Manchester Water Works, Superintendent's Office.]
MANCHESTER, N. H., Feb. 3, 1890. MELROSE WATER COMMISSIONERS, Melrose, Mass.
Gentlemen: - We have laid no cement-lined pipe for thirteen years. We have laid over with cast-iron pipe this year about half a mile. Now we find in taking up the cement-lined that some portion of it is just as sound as it was sixteen years ago, when it was laid. Other parts, the iron is all rusted out. This shows that it could be laid so as to last a long time. We have got to take ours out, that is, a large portion of it, on account of poor work, and we shall lay cast-iron in place of the cement. The cost of cement- lined I do not know about. The repairs on cast-iron are easier made, and it does not cost so much to repair it. I have always understood that you are satisfied with cement, and if so, why change it ?
Yours truly, CHAS. K. WALKER.
[Office of Watertown Water Supply Company.]
WATERTOWN, MASS., Feb. 3, 1890. JOHN R. NORTON, Esq., Clerk of Water Board, Melrose, Mass.
Dear Sir :- Your favor of the Ist received this forenoon. In reply would say, regarding the merits of cement-lined pipe, there is no doubt in my mind but it is the best con- ductor of water; the only trouble seems in getting a thorough job. We have had a very favorable experience; in fact, our
II
REPORT OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
mains have given us no trouble at all. Cast-iron will stand any amount of rough handling, and I do not think there is much difference in cost at the present time.
Yours truly, J. H. PERKINS, Superintendent.
[PLYMOUTH WATER WORKS.]
Board of Water Commissioners, Melrose, Mass.
PLYMOUTH, MASS., Feb. 6, 1890.
Dear Sirs: - We can give you very little information in regard to cast-iron pipe, as since 1854 we have used cement- lined wrought-iron almost exclusively. Our water is par- ticularly destructive to cast-iron and so use the other, as it has proved entirely satisfactory. Some four inch cast-iron that we laid for a corporation a few years ago was taken up last year and its capacity was reduced to a two inch by the formation of rust inside. We have not dared to try the dipped cast-iron in any of our mains, although no doubt it would last longer than the undipped, but how much only time will tell.
We laid quite a large quantity of cement pipe three years ago, when we put in another main from the pond to the town, and the prices were as follows, including pipe, trench- ing, back-filling, keeping road-bed in repair for a year and setting gates and branches, gates to be supplied by the town :- 16 in., $1.90 per running foot; 14 in., $1.70; 12 in., $1.35; IO in., $1.05; 6 in., .72; 4 in., .52. In laying our own pipe with higher labor the expense is a few cents per foot more.
I suppose you know that we are one of the few towns in this State which clings exclusively to cement, but our experience justifies it. Our works were originally laid in 1854, and that pipe is in use to-day, and when taken up is generally in as good condition as when laid. When we laid the new main three years ago, we made two services-a high and a low, and the greater part of the old pipe was thrown on the high service. Of course for a short time we had
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.