Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-25

i, a.. a. ~hoyL66nds, as follows
y Street.-Hopper & Mont
peI heal new curling, 81 IS; re-
-Hopper& Montgomery
rbing, 81 70 resetting, q
srs. Hopper nd Nasi 9 ~ rs
J called upon MS54 0S6 81 rsse'1ng' ~
lon to Il ~ Sntraetkr & Montgom-
sum - q tbsPs; ns,n4dP6zg, 81 rs; reset
" 8 areet.-Hopper & Montgomery,
Is pew eurbing, 81 IS; resetting, 20
II &art 1ton AUenae.-Hopper q Mont
SSomerB IS As new curling, 81 49, re-
settingE0 cents.
Old Madison Sreet.-Hopper & Mont
gomery, s. 40; new eurbihg, 81 70; re-
setting, 20 cents.
Main Sreet-Taft, Hopper & Mont
gomery, So IS; new curling, 81 IS; re-
setting, 20 cents.
Al the &reets.-Taylor, Mclean &
Co., s. "A; new eurbing, 81 SO; reset
ting, Al cents.
Al the S3reets.7Jones & Greenlaw,
IS As new curoing, 81 80.
The bids of Messrs. Jones q Greenlaw,
I anu AAEElA6s 4AuBBEL ~ AAtAA6oAACAJ -
aggregate about the same amount on the
whole contract. In view Of the magni-
Jude of the work, its especial influence
and bearing upon the financial welfare
OF the city, and the Importance Of a GER
tain and speedy execution of the contract
on the terms proposed, We would report
in favor Of awarding the contract To
Messrs. Jones & Greenlaw, By order Of
the finance committee.
HENRY J. LYNN, Chairman.
Alderman Amis desired to know the
difference between the bids.
Alderman Lynn said he believed the
difference to be almost fifteen thousand
dollars.
Alderman PassmOre wanted to know
the reason why the bids had been
awarded to Messrs. Greenlaw & Jones.
Alderman Lynn said that the Messrs.
Greenlaw & Jones were old citizens
and men Of large property and
wealth. While be did not desire to
say anything in references to the standing
Of Messrs. Hopper and Montgomery,
he was opinion that the parties to whom
the committee recommended the con-
tract to be given, were the most reliable,
and the board must consider that this
was a work of great magnitude, and
done under a long credit. He hoped the
contract would be awarded to these gen.
tlemeu. On motion the 5ocds offered
by the various parties were then read.
In response to an inquiry from Alder
man ShaW, Alderman Lynn stated that
be did not consider the bonds offered
sufficient, but they had ten. days in
which to give the necessary ssG1rity.
Alderman Clancy wa in favor Of Civ
/ ing the contract to Hopper & MOntgOm-
Z err ~ he baliavad fhav anu1H rivn tba
proper security.
Alderman Passuore could not under
stand why the fnaBes cou mittee should
desire to award the contract to GFs5nlaE
& Jones, thereby giving to that firm
according to the statement of the chair
man Of the finance committeel $4,000.
He believed that the firm of Hopper &
! Montgomery were ready and willing to
give as good and sufficient security as
would be required. He was well aware
Of tie fset that Messrs. Greenlaw &
Jones were vel &ble 20 carry on the
work, but he did not think that the city
was in q position st the present time to
make these gentlemen a present Of 80
much money.
Alderman Townsend said a portion Of
the discrepancy wa Stcounted for by the
fact thai a large portion Of the cH 'PTs
80 A-@Ala - 6tAAU Va Nat we AVaua-
lower GEoR some streets tha sno
OtheEd &c had Deea IL favor Off q
the con Fact. He had uNjsE nat
neither party would accept lsSu s@Iss,
ton. Outstanding Of G9. Wilcox. for
was well 4 own. Tbs rnad never failed
10 carry Oh Assiaad tract. He was not
satisfied 5Tt5gt u security offered by
Hopper ThtgOmery. He was Of
opinionf4sJ1f the report of the commit
reR5nsS adopted, the BONDS VoGld not be
Of I'd in the market, but he held &c vas !
nicsOd investment. He thought that to
ta,-'them the contract would be event
.L--aoa saving.
Alderman Smith thought it was the
duty of the board not to sguarder the
peoples money, and be thought it the
duty Of the board to award the contract
TO the lowest bidder, provided they
could give the proper bonds.
DIR. Shaw was in favor Of giving the
contract to the lowest bidder, while if
all things were equal, he would give the
contracts to the Messrs. GreeDlaw and
Jones, but he must in justice vote for
giving the contract 10 the lowest bidder
The question of royalty on Main sire, {
coming up, Alderman Cochran stated
that both parties ia thst respect were
equal.
Alderman johnson thought the differ
ence between the bids was over thirty
thousand dollars. Messrs. Greenlaw and
Jones had not conplied with the re-
agreements of the city when they asked
for bids he was strongly in favor Of
giving the contract to the lowest bidders.
Alderman PassnseEs desired to say
that the gentlemen who had bid for the
work had purchased the royalty, and It
must prove a benefit to the city Of
nearly ten thousand dOllars-according
to his calculation the difference was over
twentV-four thousand dollars. The bids
had evidently been made on a close cal
culstion, and be believed they could
give the proper security and in justice
should receive the contract.
Alderman Townsend went into quite a
lengthy argument in reference to the
good effect il would have to give the cou-
tract TO men who could afford to keep
the bonds, and not throw them on the
market. His experience had Taught him
the lowest bidder was not the
cheapest.
Alderman Amis was in favor Of pur-
the old course, and giving the work
TO the parties who would do it cheapest. {
Alderman Clancy thought the action :
Of the committee World be cheating the :
payers to the amount Of twenty-five
or thirty thousand dollars. !
Alderman johnson offered a resolution J
referring the whole matter to the i'm J
provement and finance committee, with {
the mayor, to report at q called meet :
ing. 2
The mayor being called upon, stated !
that the estimate made by the city engi-
neer gave Messrs. Hopper & Montgom- |
cry the advantage by about ten thou !
sand dollars, making them the lowest I
bidders, when the paving and curbing !
were taken together. The mayor and I
finance committee had the power to !
award the contract, but as this was a :
Of such magnitude they had con- o
to refer the matter to the board. c
AldermanF Wickershsm would act in 8
this matter just as If it were a private
matter, and be would not bind himself O
take the lowest. v
Alderman 0'Donnefl was ia favor of &
referring the matter, and giving some
members Of the board an opDortu1itv Of
making further inquiry as to the relative 2
character of the bids. 2
A motion by Alderman Clancy TO =
able the resolution to refer was lost. E
Alderman Lynn stated that although
Aessrs. Greenlaw d Jones had not conf
llied with the agreement Of the eondi- q
Jon on which the bids were received. the Z
committee bad acted in good faith, and T,
he names Of the parties were Of them h
sufficient security. He bad been \
informed that Hopper & Montgomery
we're backed up by monied men. This
night OF might not be true. He was still Ii
n favor Of giving them the work. D
Alderman Passmcre thought that G,
and standing. did not always a
honest men. No one could doubt q
he character of Commodore Montgom- II
ny or Mr.. Hopper. They were con- 81
ractors OF standing, but II the board was
to give away 50 much Of the peo-
'ls's money let them do it, but it would d
)e to their shame. q
Alderman Cochran was in favor of re- u
81
Alderman Smith wanted 10 refer the Or
eport TO 3 select committee Of q mem F
yer from each ward. Lest. b,
Alderman Johnson accepted anamend- OK
nent 10 refer the matter to committee Ell
# the whole, to meet this evening at *
our O'Clock, which was passed by the r.
blowing vote Yeas-Powers, johnson, ca
cochran, Wickersham, Lynn, Hoist, W
)Donnell, Shaw, Townsend, Lemon. "
Nays-Glaney, Amis, Smith and Pass II