The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-29

But in the main his defence must be permitted to say,
is failure. 10 article OF Saturday we showed that
immense losses had been sustained BY the government
under The contract for marble and We explained. too,
the process by which those losses bad been pocketed by
the contractors The architects defence does not show
either that those losses had not been sustained that
the proper precautions had been taken 10 prevent theW
II brings in the late President and Secretary Of the Inle
ror for share Of the responsibility, and gives history
Of the contracts for marble which proves even without
other evidence that course was followed which pre-.
pared the way either by accident ignorance. corrupt
design for the mapractces spoken OF by the committee
of investigation II il had been the purpose OF those in
trusted with the public interests that matter to have
kept up appearance of fair dealing, so as TO pro-
tec predetermined unfarness, and give scope TO unjust
demands cannot suggest better plan than the one
which pursued. In the first instance an ad verse-
ment wasmade for sealed proposals for the marble work
OF the Capitol including material and workmanship.
This had an appearance OF fairness but then the spec
cations furnished in accordance with the advertisement
were indefinite and uncertain needing personal expana
ions and leading to MISUNDERSTANDING. The ooseness
OF these specifications may be judged OF by the fact that
the bids ranged from s77a.sls TO Sl,o9709 The right
was also reserved in deciding the bids to regard the
quality of the materials offered. and accept that which
might be deemed most advantageous 10 the government
So there was no binding force in the advertisement for
proposals, unless the government chose to be bound after
opening them AT this point the architect says that if
there had been purpose to give the contract TO favored
bidders, would have been Immediately awarded the
favored party under the reservation jus, mentioned We
differ with him. There would have been necessity for
other proceedings, in order to up such purpose
and prevent detection.
Alter the opening of the BIDS the samples accompany
ing them submitted to tests aud all but three ruled
out-,hus making the party which finally obtained The
contract the lowest bidder at Sse3,ae5 including cut
ting and setting AT this point change came over the
proceeding. Ii determined to contract for the ma.
teria and workm anship separaley-a determination for
which no satisfactory reason has been gven-and let
tiers addressed TO the three bidders whose marble
had not been excluded inviting them make proposals
for the material alone Proposals sent in under
that invitation, but the party who obtained the contract
was not the lowest bidder yet the government officers
charged with the matter thought that he ought to have
the contract account Of the quality Of his sample
though higher by 80 per cent which the architect calls
e and after reference TO the Congress Committees
on Public Building, the contract awarded him, and
the contract for cutting and setting the marble was given
without advertisement competition, to the parties who
put in the lowest bids in the first instance under the
advertisement which has strong likeness TO the course
which would have been pursued had there been pre-
concerted division OF the spells. The archtec, asks
why not the contract awarded to The lowest bidders
after all but three had been ruled out by the tests applied
TO the marble. il it intended TO favor themi In re-
ply, ask why propositions invited from the
bidders whose marble had been excluded if it was no,
the purpose TO accept the lowest of them Why was
the contract given 10 parties who not the lowest BY
thirty per cent, if they not favored ? And why
the workmanship and material separated, and the
former given to the original lowest bidder for the whole
without allowing competition The reference to the
committees OF the houses, under the circumstances re
gard suspicious after the archec, and the Secretary of
the Interior had made up their minds 1t has the appear
of attempt 10 impose shield against jus, respon.
sibiy, and really amounted TO nothing.
The circumstance which have detailed nigh,
happen without implying guilt; but when they are
considered in connection with the contract itself and
the practice under the contract they have powerful
| significance. Ii was within the power OF the architect
and il was his duty, 10 have specified the size OF every
block OF marble 10 be used But instead OF doing this he
entered into contract which made vast difference be
the prices OF the larger and smaller blocks of mar
Bile, without specifying the quantity OF each kind which
would be used in the building True. he reserved 10 him
self the power fix the proportion but how has he used
that power Thus far he has received s2s cubic feet
in large blocks, al cost Of S65ss9 when small block
would have answered the purpose, at loss to the
government Of S44,326 and if the same proportions are
preserved, $3.50. 100 will be lost when the contract ia
completed In addition TO this. mode OF peasuremen
has been adopted under the contract that not an
tcpaied by the bidders which adds four inches to the
length and four 10 the width OF every block. This not
only gives direct advantage 10 the contractor, bu,
makes blocks which are less than thirty feet measure
more than ihat-requiring the government, to pay one
dollar and ninety eight foot for instead of sixty.
five cents The fact that advertisements were made or
proposals. in view Of the facts we have mentioned can
afford grounds OF defence on the suppositon tina,
such implies fair intentions The contracts and
the practice under them must stand their merits for
none of the features OF the system OF sealed proposal.
which mparialiy adhered to, for all the
doors for fraud were left wide open.
Discarding Partisan Ground.
In aborng TO explain how the wings propose to sup
por, the democratic policy OF President Pierce wiihou,