The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1871-03-14
Petition of the Tredegar Company
and Talbot d. sons.
RICHMOND, March II, 1871.

RICHMOND, March IL, 1871.
To the Council Of The City Of Richmond !:
Your petitioners respectfully represent that,
under an invitation contained in an advertise
ment signed by the Superintendent CT the City
Gas Works, each of us did duly prepare, at no
little labor and expense, drawings and specii-
cations for a gas-holder of the capacity re-
quired by said advertisement, viz 400, 900
cubic feet /; and we did, each of US, on the 9Th
of March day named by the Superinten'
dent of the Gas Works for that purpose--hand
in to him our respective sealed proposals for
the said gasometcr, accompanied by suitable
drawings and specifications. One OF the under
signed, Talbot & Sons, offered to do the work
complete for $43,57l, and the other, the Tred-
egar company, for the sum of S36,950.
To our surprise, we learned, on the morning
of the 7th of March, that the Committee on
Light had recommended the preference to be
given to the offer of Messrs. W. e. Tanner Il
Co. at the sum of $47, ,000-a cost to the city
$3,429 greater than the offer of Talbot d
Sons, and $l0,050 greater than the offer of the
Tredegar Company. Knowing that we had
obligated ourselves in our respective proposals
to furnish the city machine of first-class ma
terial and workmanship that our plans and
specifications are those of the most approved
works in this country and England, and re-
membering, too, our long residence in this
city, the familiar acquaintance OF our citizens
with our operations, with our experience and
mechanical qualifications, and with our pecu-
mary responsibility for whatever work we
| might undertake-we could see no reason why
| the Council should commit the city to pay more
money to Messrs. Tanner & Co., or to any
other party, than to either of your petitioners
| for the same amount or vatue of york.
| We therefore naturally concluded that there
| was some mistake or error in the decision or
recommendation of the committee. We sent
one Of our engineers to the gas asworks to exam.
| inc the specifications of the work for which il
is proposed the city shall pay SAT, 1000. We
append his report to this petition. 1t will bs
seen that he was permitted to examine the pa
| pers and was told that he could have copies
but when he returned next day TO take then
he was denied the privilege. We complain o
this. We complain that to say the least, SO
rious error or oversight has been committed
by the committee, by which great and alarm
ing injury has been done to this city, and espe
cially TO the petitioners not only TO their capaci
ty of manufacturers aud mechanics, but to thei
interests as taxpayers. The extent of thi
damage can only be ascertained by comparing
the specifications and drawings.
Your petitioners only ask for an exposure o
the facts-they seek to make public the truth
Ifthe offer of Messrs. Tanner q Co. is most ad
vantageous to the city they would cougratu
late them upon being the successful bidders
But if that be the case, there is no need 70
coneeaiment. An exposure OF the paper
would vindicate them and the committee