The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-03-21
LOCAL MATTERS.
For other Local Matters see Sd page
CITY COUNCIL.

| Sh SouhSAt " Ao hSto gCSGCl uo5 dltCl uOol
in their chamber. Present: J. J. English
ESQ.,, .(presdent), Messrs. jenkins, Scott
Brannan, Todd, Kent, Laube, Lohman
Davis, Greanor, Wagner, Sloan, Wynne
Higgins, Morris, Mayo, Flournoy, Allen
Lipseomb, and Prince. = ,,t5E G'E-@ I.
The report of the Committee on Street,
was presented and adopted.
MIR. Brannan, from the ,s-. -.
COMMITTEE ON LIGHT, ..
presented his report; which was read ant
adopted. The following is the reply of the
committee in reference to the contract fol
the new gas-holder: 49,. 49,,
RICHMOND, VA, March 90, 1871.
TO the Council Of the City of Richmond
Gentlemen-A paper in the form Of q
petition, signed by Joseph r. Anderson,
| +. Il. Glasgow, Archer Anderson, r
Archer, II. S. Archer, for the Trcdegar
Company, and Talbot & Sons, having been
placed on the tables of the members and
read by the clerk at the called meeting OF
the Council, held for the purpose Of hear.
! ing the complaints OF the signers of the
same, on the 18th instant, in which they
say 'We complain that, to say the least,
serious 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 Pc
| titioners, not only in their capacity
of manufacturers and mechanics, but
to their interest as taxpayers" because
the committee deemed the interest of the
city would be served by giving the ''contract
| for gas-holder to Messrs. Tanner & Co.,
and the whole Of the signers, as your petit
| TONERS concur that one Of their number,
| the Tredegar Company, were entitled to
| the work on the ground that they were the
| lowest bidder" and in which paper an effort
is made to show that the committee did not
| net fairly by the bidders, nor with proper
consideration Of the interest of the city.
| And although the committee have the
| satisfaction of being sustained in their de-
cision by an almost unanimous vote OF the
Council, and therefore do not feel that it is
necessary to dafond themselves before their
| fellow-members, yet, inasmuch as publicity
has been given to the paper above cited by
| the newspapers of the city, and thinking it is
probable that the statements therein con-
| tanned might be believed by and affect the
opinions Of some theirfellow-citizens who
have as much right to decide upon their
| conduct as the Council, we beg leave there
| fore to reply to such portions of that paper
| as protesting to give the facts in the case
| under consideration-and narrative Of the
circumstances Herewith connected is calcu-
| lated, if uncorrected, to create the most
erroneous impression in regard to the action
of the committee and having disposed of
these, we then propose TO set forth the rea-
sons which prompted Us in coming to the
decision which received your sanction on
| the 9th inst, and was confirmed on the 18th
instant. In the first paragraph of the
petition 1t is stated that leach of us
did duly prepare, at no little labor
anI HroHuir unI cnonifipot nnS
for gas-holder of the capacity required"
&c. How much "labor and expense" was
expended by these petitioners which in
creased their claims on the city for the
| award Is shown In the fact that one of the
parties was represented by single draw
| ing, showing an elevation of gas-holder,
and the whole specifications and proposals
for the same did not cover quite two pages
Of letter paper, while all the other bidders
required from nine to twelve pages large
size legal paper to contain their specica-
tons. The other rendered no drawings,
but instead thereof sent with the specifca-
photograph eight or ten inches square of q
drawing in many respects similar to the
one above named, and both Of which pho
tographs and specifications were familiar to
several of the committee from the fact that
an officer Of the city government had eX-
hibited copies OF them during the past
six months as the work of the house
of Morris, Taker g. Co., of Philadelphia.
Further on they say st" Knowing that we
had obligated ourselves in our respective
proposals TO furnish the city machine OF
first-class material and workmanship-tha
our plans and specifications are those Of the
most approved works in this country and
England, and remembering, too, our long
residence in this city, the familiar acquaint-
ance of our citizens with our operations,
with our experience and mechanical quail
fications, and with our pecunlary response
bility for whatever work we might under
take, we could see no reason why the Coun-
Gil should commit the city to pay more mo-
ney to Messrs. Tanner & Co., OF to any
| other party, than to either of your petition
ers for the same amount or Uatue of ac0rk.'
Whatever claims long residence and Pc
cuniary responsibility may give over others,
the committee expect, with the assistance
of the Council, to secure the city against
possibility Of loss and that the work when
completed will be satisfactory in every re-
spect. The last FIVE words in the above.
quoted paragraph (printed in italics by the
petitioners), in which it is intimated too
plain for misunderstanding that the COM
mittee had agreed to give 1lessrs. Tanner &
Co. more money than the petitioners asked
for "the same amount or value Of work."
does not convey proper idea OF The
award. Neither one Of these parties
offered the same amount or value Of
work. The plans for the construction of the
shell of the holder alone were similar in
design, and presented but little variation,
except in the number, or in the sizes and
disposition Of the stays and braces and in
these particulars the plans Of Tanner d
Co. exhibited superiority over the other
two Richmond bidders. The important
differences in the plans for bidders are to
be found in the arrangements for support
ing, guiding, and raising and lowering the
| she'll and we are fully satisfied that in the
arran gements of the plan adopted we have
secured the best that was offered. The diff
ference in the cost of erecting those
that have been adopted we will dis
cuss in another place. The petition
ers further complain that one, of their
engineers, after having looked at the draw
ings and specifications long enough to learn
ali that he states about them, was not al
lowed to copy any of them, and of this
they complained because In no other way
conId the extent of damage done to the
city. the mechanics, and the taxpayers, be
ascertained unless their engineer had an
opportunity to examine the same. From
evidence which we shall submit, we think
1t will be made apparent that the engineers
who made the report embraced in the Pc
tition would hardly have made very
correct report of the amount of damage
sustained by the city in the action Of the
committee. The Withholding Of the plans
and specifications from an agent OF party
who was interested In condemning the &C
ton of the committee, ofone who would have
| had nothing to check his ardor for condem-
nation or to represent the good features of
THE other bidders plans, metz with: the APP
proyal of the committee, and the use made