The Nevada journal., 1852-06-12
GOLD FLAT, June G. 1852.

Mn. EDITOR. has been two
communications in your paper respect
ing the county jail, one of May 29th.
signed "A Mechanic" and the other
June 5th, signed by Justice Dougherty.
The frst was written for the purpose
of obtaining q correct statement of the
facts respecting the letting of the con-
tract for building the Jail, and the one
BY Justice Dougherty | suppose was in
tended as explanatory. have nothing
to say against Justice Dougherty or any
other man as an individual, and l be-
lievc he is governed by honest motives !;
but yet he is liable, Ike any other man,
to be misled, or to be in error; and may
also, (when acting rs he says he was at
that time as on extra member Of said
coart) 60 beyond the provisions of the
statute. Now in the matter Of the
county Jail the statute Of 1851, page 20,
sec. GO, prescribes the manner of receiv.
ing proposals The words Of the statute
are, that the erection of the Jail, &c.
shall bc let out after one months pre-.
vious publication of readiness to re-
ceive proposals therefor, to tho lowest
bidder &c. The Inference is that those
bids, and those only, which are put in
according to the terms of the adver-
tisemcnt can be taken into considera-
tion; the reason of which is plain. Each
person putting in bid will then be 60
verncd by an estimate of his own, and
there can be no collision But if an
other course is adopted, and bids are
received after the time advertised, then
any person wishing to take advantage
thereof, can do so, after finding out the
lowest bid, thus being enabled to secure
the contract in place Of those who COM
piled with the terms of the advertise
ment. do net believe tho last course
would be according to tho intent Of the
law, for it would open the door wide to
collision and fraud. The terms Of the
advertisement in this case wore, that
the proposals should be handed in to
Judge Caswrll by the 81 Of May. Now
the question is, did Judge Caswcll re-
cevc Wilson & Endicott's bid on or be-
fore that time, or did he not ! This
question can be easily answered, and
needs no recriminating language such
as is used in Justice Dougherty's COM
munication, that "A Mechanic know
every word in his communication to be
false. again ask the question, was
Wilson s. Endicotts bid handed in to
Judge Caswell before the Sd of May I.
This islhe gist Of the whole ma.tor in
controversy, and Justice Dougherty, as
the champion Of tho Court Of Sessions,
should have answered the question. II
Judge Caswell did receive that bid by
the 81 Of May, then "A Mechanic has
been wrongly informed, anil will retire
from the controversy and rest satisfied
IL that question is not answered, then
"A mechanic" as we'll as the community
at large will understand that the bid
was handed in after the Sd of May, and
consequently was not put in according
to the terms Of the advertisement, there
by virtually telling the public that "a
Mechanic" was correctly informed, and
his communication was uhoHy true.
II is easy to assert that IA Mechanics
communication was false. His article
was mostly questions, except that part
embraced in the following queries ::
Did the Court of Sessions advertise for
proposals to build Jail, Was Judge
Caswell appointed to receive bids or pro-
posals up to the Sd of May! Was Will
son g. Endicott's bid handed in to Judge
Caswell after the Sd of May! And did
Wilson 4 Endicotl receive the contract,
If those questions are answered afir-
matively, then "A Mechanic was right
and Justice Deugherty was wrong. If
negatively, then "a Mechanic was
wrong and Justice Dougherty right. An
answer in plain terms to the above ques-
tions would satisfy many mechanics, and
especially ROBERT GORDON.
From YREEA.-Nr. A. j. Horsely, Of
Cram, Rogers s. Co.'S Express, arrived
in this nlnca On Thursjov loak c~o,,.