The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-03-14
SINGULAR ESCAPES
Petition OF the Tredegar Company
and Talbot 81 Sons,
g. R1nu4nEn March Ill. 1911. =,

','.. RICHMOND, MARCH IL, Iot1. .
To the Council of the City Of Richmond:
Your petitioners respectfully represent
that, under an invitation contained in an
advertisement signed by the Superintend-
ent of the City Gas Works, each of US did
duly prepare, at no little labor and ex-
pense, drawings and specifications for a
gasholder Of the capacity required by said
advertisement, viz 100000 cubic feet and
we did, each Of US, on the 9th of March
the day named by the Superintendent OF the
Gas-Werks for that purpose-hand in to
him our respective sealed proposals for the
said gasometer, accompanies by suitable
drawings and specifications. One Of the
undersigned, Talbot & Sons, offered to do
the work complete for 1851, and the
other, the Tredegar Company, for the sum
Of $3.50. . -
To our surprise, we learned, on the morn
ing of the 7th of March, that the Commit
tee on Light had recommended the prefer
ence to be given to the offer of Messrs. W.
E. Tanner 6 Co. at the sum Of S47, OO0--a
cost to the city So, 429 greater than the offer
of Talbot q Sons, and $40, 050 greater than
the offer Of the Tredegar Company. Know
inc that we had obligated ourselves in our
respective proposals to furnish the city
machine of f1rst-class material aud work
manship-that our plans and specifications
are those of the most approved works in
this country and England, and remember
ing, too, our long residence In this city, the
familiar acquaintance of our citizens with
our operations, with our experience and
mechanical qualifications, and Witfour Pc
cuniary responsibility for whatever work
we might undertake-we could see no rea-
son why the Council should commit the
city to pay more money to Messrs. Tanner
G. Co.. or to any other party, than to either
of your petitioners for the same amount
or uaIue Of acork. 49,.
We therefore naturally concluded that
there was some mistake or error in the de-
cision or recommendation of the committee.
We sent one of our engineers to the gas
works TO examine the specifications OF the
work for which it it proposed the city shall
pay SIT 600. We append his report to this
petition. It will be seen that he was, per-
mitted to examine the papers and was told
that he could have copies, but when he re-
turned the next day to take them he was
denied the privilege. We complain Of this.
We complain that, to say the least, a serl-
GUS error or oversight has been committed
by the committee, by which great and
alarming injury has been done to this
city, and especially to the petitioners, not
only in their capacity Of manufacturers and
mechanics, but to their interests as tax
payers. The extent of this damage can
only be ascertained by com pairing the spec-
fications and drawings. Your petitioners
only ask for an exposure OF the facts-they
seek to make public the truth. If the offer
of MesSrs. Tanner s. Co. is most advantage
Gus to the city they would congratulate
them upon being the successful bidders.
Buff that be the case, there is no need for
concealment. An exposure Of the papers
would vindicate them and the committee.
Hence the surprise Of your petitioners
when their engineer, calling to take the
promised copies, was refused by the super
intendcnt on the ground that member of
the house of Tanner & Co. had forbidden
the papers being shown to any one.
But, the previous examination Of one of
our engineers enables us to approximate,
we believe very nearly, the true state OF the
case He reports that he believes that the
quantity of work we respectively offered is
little, if at all, less than the city would get
Of Tanner & Co. for SAT 1000.
Now, we do not assail the motives of any
one. But there are some circumstances
connected with The matter which we would
do injustice to ourselves not to state in the
strongest terms. We allude TO the fact that
the committee showed preference to the
highest bidders by comforting with them
after the bids were opened, thus giving
them an opportunity, extended to neither of
your petitioners, to explain their plans and
specifications; and we further have anthem
tic information that the committee did con-
fer with that party about price, and did III
fact come to an understanding with Tanner
g. Co., unknown at the time to your petit
TONERS, their competitors and lower bid
ders, by which they obtained Tanner 4
Co.'s assent to {. reduction OF $500 in their
bid H.: and in this your petitioners complain
Of a violation OF the sanctity OF sealed pro-
posals, under which they were induced to
make their tenders to the city. Your petit
TONERS submit that if it was admissible to
call in the bidder who charged SIT, 800 to
reduce his bid to SIT GOO it would have been
much more proper to have sent for the
lowest bidder, who offered the work
for $50, $50, and have made to him
bids for this work from three establishments
IN the city, all equally responsible. Their
plans for the holder are substantially the
Same. One of The bidders, however, offers
columns that we prefer to yours, but his
offer is much higher than will make up for
the difference in the cost. Would you not
be willing to furnish for $4,000 all that he
asks 81 800 for?" Now, it is further mat
ter of complaint that the committee did not
make known the several bids to the COun-
Gil. 1t is plain that If the committee were
in error the Council must thus fall into the
same error.
The following is list Of the bids and
bidders ~...
The Tredsgar Company Sss, $50
bay, Kennl dy 4 Co, New ork. ........... 10000
Talbot & Sons 49, 7i
W. r.. Tanner l. Co., (six bids on six plans,
W. +. Tanner & Co.. ~ zoe
w. e. Tanner & 45.t0(
w. Il. Tanner 4 Co.. 80 00l
w. +. Tanner 1880
w. Il. Tanner q Is. 5gl
| TT will no ohsorva5 tbot Noecrs rpo,,o,