Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-09-02

plying smile from an opponent-but when It Is mo-
iiCed that the President is only charged with at
tempting to influence his political FRIENDS, while
Capt. MHos, who has charge Of the aquaduc'' Is
political enemy, Their isn't even chance for the
'conirastp spoken Of If We were to adopt the
Banner logic, We might hold that paper responsible
for that contract Mr.. BUCHANAN triecto influence
his friends to vote for Kansas, says that paper.
Then why didn't the Bonner do the same thing ana
influence its friend, Capt MICS, to give that iron
contract to some good Know Nothing? We pause
shortly for reply
But the Banner says that Messrs. Starr Co.,
of Philadelphia, agreed to supply the iron at Soo
per ton; Mr.. Myers the Scotch specuator agreed 10
supply it at SSs IS per ton" On the other hand
Capt ME1as says that the contract was awarded 10
the lowest bidder; and on this subject Capt MEles'
as be knows much more about the matter than the
Banner is much the best authority, with u.s.
With the following very conclusive statement
from Mr.. MEIos himself, we drop this subject;
Gan advertisement for the materials and WorS
needed to complete the aqueduct, was puohsned LOT
! two months under the laws Of Congress. rms az
vertisement engaged that the lowest Responsible oo
der should have the contract for the REMAINDER o.
] the iron pipes, many miles Of which had oeen al
ready furnished by q citizen of Camden, New Sef-
sew under former contract. The present contract
was awarded to a citizen of Philadelphia, MI Law
/ renee Myers Thus were all parties treated with
equal fairness, and the interests of The United
States which pays for the pipes. protected. Inc
price is low The contract is too large 10 De hlleo
by one mans means in the required time, and Mr..
Myers nagotiates with the great ironNmasters Of
Philadelphia to assist him; but | suppose, for
know nothing Of the matter, he finds their prices
/ foo hiUh his contract. aRdsO0hG hatLor farm
sIf this be SO, who is to blame? Is it the e0gin
eer who acting under the laws, invited fair eompe
tition, the contractor, who seeks to make the bes
terms he can, or the Philadelphia manufacturers
who allow Scotch firm three thousand miles Of
to uudersell them at their own doors!
~ hope that the contractor will succeed in max
inp or purchasing bis pipes in this country No on
more than myself would regret to see the CapitC
supplied with water through pipes not Of our oW
manufacture but certainly cannot interfere IN th
private business Of contractor, and it was my d.
o ty TO award the contract to the lowest bidder Il
happens to be aPhiladelphian.
9'While the officers of the Government have \
= right to pay cut more of the money entrusted
J. them in order to American iron, the mani
facturers who complain have apereot right to aba
their prices so as to keep the work in this eountr
+ and thew would show more patriotism thus than
n complaining of the contractor who follows his !
n terest or of the engineer who has done his duty
ic It will be seen by the above that after full al
ample notice. the contract for furnishing the wal
e pipes was given to the lowest bidder, lrhO is e
le Of Philadelphia. The moment the contract v
h awarded the matter passed out Of the hands Of
e. Government, and the only thing that remained
c. the Chief Engineer to do was to see that the ma
rails offered were equal, in every respect, to
m specifications.