The Illinois free trader. (Ottawa, Ill.) 1840-1841, 1841-01-29

said committee have power to send for
persons and papers, and after collecting
the testimony, to report the same to the
senate; which was adopted, and Messrs.
Gatewood, Harrison, and Hamlin, were
appointed the special committee.
On the lth Of Jan. 1871, William j.
Gatewood, in behalf of the committee,
made the following report to the senate:
The select committee appointed, &c.
There the above resolution is repeated
respectfully report:
Your committee found that the letting
was by John Dixon, commissioner Of the
9Th judicial circuit, at which Mr.. Peck,
commissioner Of the 18th circuit, assisted.
Your committee had before them the
original contract, which it is necessary to
refer to but Tor one provision, which is,
that it stipulated that the state should pay
Nichols, for $4,000 cubic yards loose
rock excavation, the sum of 81 Sc per
cubic yard. This price corresponds with
the price in the bid of Nichols on file in
the office Of the board of public works, a
copy of which bid was handed to your
committee, and sworn to by f. II. Dutch
er, as also several other bids for the same
work
The committee soon became satisfied
that the state had been defrauded in the
contract for the Improvement of the up
per rapids, from the examination of bids :;
for Sterling, Mix & Co. and Henry Weed
q Go. offered to take the contract and to
execute the loose rock excavation for 60
cents per cubic yard; and Cooper, Nc
Farren az Co. offered to do the same for
Go cents per cubic yard while it would
seem that it was let at 81 Sc which, in
$4,000 yards, made the immense differ
ence of $4,000 against the state and
this undertaking, for other specifications
of work, as appears by the aggregate of
the whole amount bid for. Cooper,
McFarrcn & Co.'S bid amounted to S56,-
730; Sterling, Mix & Co.'S bid amour
ted to S5i, 2O7 so; T.. G.. Nichols bid,
as appears by the contract, to amount to
$78, lGl 10. The estimates, as audited
by the board of public works, show that
Messrs. NICHOLS, GMBRAITH & SANGER.
have received pay for % $3.50 cubic yards
of loose rock excavation at 81 Sc. If the
suppositon be correct that the bid decIar-
ed upon was originally SO cents per cubic
yard, which would make Nichols bid 4
cents lower than two of the above cited
bids, then they have received just $22,-
$50 too much.
SO great a difference in the bids being
found to exist, it became a matter of sur
prise that Nichols should have been the
successful bidder, when such letting would
clearly be in violation Of law, especially
as your committee became satisfied that
| the bidders first mentioned were entirely
responsible. They proceeded to the in
veStigation of the subject by causing to
come before them Mr.. F. X. butcher,
II. p. Woodwork, an engineer in SER
vice at the letting in question, Sam'l M.
Bowman, and Mr.. Peck, commissioner,
whose testimony as taken down Is here
with submitted. BY all which it appears
that the contract was drawn up on the
sth of June, 1889, but that it was not
signed until in Dee. afterwards. All the
witnesses state that, at the time of bidding
Nichols bid was known to be the lowest.
Mr.. Woodwork and Mr.. Peck, who were
present in the discharge Of their official
duty touching the letting, both say that
they would not have givei, the contract to
Nichols if it had not been the lowest.
Mr. butcher swears that Nichols himself
told him his bid was below the engineers
estimate, which was about $4,000.
Further circumstances disclosed by
these witnesses point to Mr.. SMITH GL-
DRMrH as the person likely to be guilty
| q the jra'm. They all concur in stating
that he was the secretary of Mr.. Dixon at
the time, and that the contract is in his
handwriting. Shortly before Mr. Dixon
went out of Office, and not till then, your
committee felt inclined strongly to infer
that the contract was signed, from the
remark made by Nichols to butcher, in
Springfield, in Dee. 1899, that he had
Just got his contract signed. After this
period and when he was removed from
public employment, Mr.. GiIbraith appears
openly as the partner Of Nichols 81 San
GER. Upon a settlement between the
firm of Nichols, Sanger 81 Gilbraith, Mr..
Bowman says GiIbraith told him that he
had made to his own profits about SIS, 600,
and this too, your committee would re-
mark, when the whole contract was not
near completed. No inquiry was made
of this Mr. simmer Int II iS too nhNinns