The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-09-25


aiure. and the utter failure OF their sustain
any OF the chages Of maleasance preferred against
them, that they should hear OF these Iae accu
saons In this expectation they have, however been
disappointed. The perYesioas of their action by Nj
Merlman have recently been revived. and ain thro
before the public with the most exravagant misrepre.
sensations calculated TO mislead and poison The public
mind, and 10 destroy confidence the integrity and just
intentions Of the members of the board. ;s
In view OF these facts, i have deemed 1t due 10 fhe
commissioners 10 The people, and 10 The ends Of justice
and truth that the attention. 81 The public should be again
called the report OF ths committee that investigated This
subject last wintcrc the facts elected by that inves
CATION, and direct it 10 such other facts and consdera
touching this subject may calcnlaed lead
TO a just appreciation OF il IN all its bearings.
ln tie irst place. there seems TO be general impress
sion The public mind that n had heretofore been the
pscce OF the canal commissioners TO allot work TO the
lowest bidder without reference 70 his experience. ca
| pac,ty, and Intentions This has been general
rnlet never has been generally practiced al any pre-
vous letting, and hays no hesitation in saying that il
could be carried Ii would lead to interDina-
Bile delay, ycxaon and ultimate loss to the State Such
system would produce numerous reetngs, the ad.
| vance OF prices after the allotment, which would be
objectionable practice in the agents of the Com
monwealth than the exercise OF reasonable discretion
at the time of making the contracts The few instances
in which the board had exercised this discretion rather
than allow the work to stop had been made the subject
oil 30 much unjust censure that they had concluded 10
gard themselves entirely excluded IRON use in fu-
iure, and to endeavor make their original contracts on
fair and equitable 1t will be by the tesiimo
ny OF J Edgar Tbompson president OF the Pennsyi-
vania Railroad Company, well tt Of Strickland
pany did not make il rule 10 give work 10 The lowest
bidder. Mr.. Thompson says ''We do not let work
10 the lowest bidders. There bidders lower than
those 10 whom the work was aIloedi we always give
it TO The lowest good bidder who has the means and
xpeence to carry out; but this cannot always
De carried o9 az The same contractors may bid or more
work than they can do" Again ne says, the prices on
their line since the letting had been raised only
special instances, but has become nearly general And
Il he oI hs Ssw %ss
says that some ol their contracts have been raised twice
and that the mountain is the hardest place 10 do work
be has ever seen Here is the testimony Of gentlemen
who have no interest in the question: and who will moi
be charged with partialy for ihe commissioners, They
do not think the allotment OF the State work too high.
Indeed, il is we'll ascerlaned fact that this company is
paying handsome per ceDtage above the States ates for
similar work in lhe same vicinity, sqH6a Il
hcers, that they would have been forced into
reerings and much delay If they had not advanced and
readvanced the original prtces II the canal commits.
sioneIs this generally the blame
OF fay orsm would be louder and wider than is.
ltt the duty OF the canal commissioners aoi this
work al all IT was much an obligation to do II 10 such
manner would besl promote the interest o The State,
BY securing Il. promp, aud economical construction That
this end should not be attained without the of
wise discretion in reference obds can be most sasfac-
toriy shown by the bids themselves sl7 st Bsa
| There seems TO be general impression that when
indiyduals bid for work they offer bonds security for
lis performance. This IS noiihe case. The retained per
cenage the only guarantee The Stale has Tor The
peon OF the contracts This is the system on all public
works Another erroneous impression -, that The bids
deal OF nssss in the bids Of the experienced
contractors For instance IL is pfspostefous to suppose
that the highest and lowest bdders general rule,
pnt IN Their oBers expecting thereby 10 get the work.
lew instances will show that these propositions
wide apart to be the esol OF Judgment and thai
the idea that ihs work could have been done at the
low proposed s simply ridiculous " the sections
had been awarded not out OF ten OF them would
ever have bern ouohed. The bidders would all have
large advance after the so,mens, and y .fused they
would have OF The work, and abused the board for
favoriiism. But let US look al the bids -
sec,ion No Il Was aIored a. 81, s5o-the highest bid
was as 450-and the lowest, 81, 900
| Ss5, ,9i2-and ihr lowest, Sis.52
No. a. For inanc,, and about which hero has beeu
much reeentstoo. was allotted at 8l03 o25-esti
mated BY ,bs s snsssers at az 0oehshos S'd si2i
No "a Allotted st 827 675-csmeed at s27 sOo-high.
csb'd, s.5, ,,sc-lowc. yI1,I
No u Allotted S6, estimated at ~, asp-higbe'
bid, ss7o2alows.', SisM ,,u...,
bid, ss5, iA,--lowes,, So s.
No Is. Allotted At SAa ts.es esmn'ed at S52oSo-hghest
No 26 Allotted at s2i emsed a, s2i s2o-higbe',
No 81 Hloued Al estimated at sl7 oo-higbe.,
bid So, ,ooo-lower, SiIeSo
No This smother OF tie conlrsc,s shout which much
has been said. twas allotted at S77 1S0-bsd been ~stima
ted at ss3, ,2oo-highea bid, Sii5 5.po-low.. $500
bid s3a, ,s5o--owest, Sl7.550
No 81 Allotted at sal yoo-esimaed Al Sti,sSo-highest
bid. s5e. 400 lowest, sls 300
No 35 Allotted S3o,uO-eslmatet AT 1ts ico-hghest
bid s56. .s7b--owest, S2s,7W 5.
No 3S Allotted at s,3,7vo-csinsted al S1 2o-highcs
bid, S65. 6o-lowost, SZ,565
could presen, many other instances just N striking
bu, these Will sshce No candid man who understands
this subjec, will pretend that the highest and lowest bids
given above were made with the expectation ol getting
The work or other WORDS that experienced con'fac
Tors as many OF these bidders could diner thus
widely as 10 the real valve OF job OF work lbe gen
emen ole ring the HE bids expected 10 gel The
work at their rates. and ose offering The lowest never
intended 10 do IT, The idea that work on actions Nos.
49, g5 81 40 2s, a. as 49, and 32n shori on any one
secoos could be done a, the lowest
b,d is an absuriay too palpatie 10 N,slesd any maa
i No experienced man could be found who would touch
them al such rates. Ia "a great mistake 10 suppose
thai work will be done below The actual cost, simply
because il may have been allotted individuals Will
not sacrifice themselves for the benefit o the public and
il is idle alege that The Stale Could have saved me
difference between the aoments and the lowest BIDS as
/ given BY Mr. Mernman.
The were bound, therefore, 10 exercise
proper discretion, and taking these estimates OF me
engineer general guide they allotted tee work al 'se
low eat rates at which they believed u could he done
Indeed many OF the had Withdrawn Their low
bids before The letting. For instance Painter, Condor
CO. had bid neatly all OF the actions east OF the
mountaipA and aferwards, ss shown by the testimony
Of one OF them before the legislative comm'iiee, hey
aave the commissioners notice that these bids were not
s.ceretha, they did no, want the work at such rates
These bids have been the basis Of much complaint pu'
s seen thai the commissioners were never allowed 20
i con sder them. astt t.Iaf
i These are few prominent facts which shoald satisfy
the public that wrong has been praetised on 'be Sae
BY hese aliomeais One OF these u, tha, the ae9lesW
allotment ~ below the aggregate estimate OF 'ne
Mr. Thompson testified that the contracts on ms r,so
were ao,,ei above be estimate Of the engineer ana na
The contracts had nearly all been raised snce' ana so'
+ thpm -.