The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1873-05-01
Written for the Advertiser.
COUNTY BRIDGES.
How Contracts are Let and Who
Gets them-A pretty sharp Crit
ic1Sm.

Mr.. Editor Advertiser :-Throug
. your columns I would like TO max
public little proceeding Of our count,
Board Of Supervisors. or part Of u =
least. which, /, as one Of the peoP'e
| for whom they act, do not believe %
be either fair to the bridge builders
| from whom this Board 10 frequently
asking proposals. to build certain pub
liz hridees. or to the taxpayers, from
whom they just = frequently ask for
monev 10 ray for them same bridges.
The late special session Of the Board
vss. I think, for the express purpose
Of letting contracts to build some very
needed bridges thst were this spring
washed away. Advertisements had
previously been made in our county
papers for proposals TO build two
bridges: one on Sugar creek known
e the Haines' bridge, and one on
Rock creek known as the Jim Dwig-
Rans' bridge. The latter was compar-
atively small matter, only requiring
. few perch Of stone to fix up the abut-
msnts and the wood for 50 foot span;
but the former was long bridge and
needed big amount Of rock.
The bids were to be put in for the
wood and stone work separately, and
Is we are only looking after the latter
At present, we will only give them
here. Five proposals were made to
furnish and lay the stone, which were
opened in full Board and found to be
a. follows, by the perch in the wall:
One 1t Se.25; two At So; one at $50
and one At ss.25 with g per perch al
lowed for whatever stone remained in
the old abutments. or course this last
was very much the lowest bid. and to
that bidder, al three members Of the
Board being present, the award of
both joJs was made In open session.
Now then. after Supervisor Motif
had gone home, and as we believe
wishou. his knowledge or consent, il
appears that some one changed the
first bid above enumerated which Was
made by Springdale man-we will
not give names by adding to i, prop
osision to take the stone on the ground
1t s., same Is the last bid and there
upon the first award was recoDsidered,
taken away from bidder No. At S5.25
md given to bidder No. ] st S6.25.
Now, bear IL m;sS tia; TIL, man
whose bid was thus changed and then
accepted was not himself present, nor
any one authorized to act for him, un- /
less some member OF the Board |
should have been his silent part
ner; bear In mind that, even
lfter the change, the work was taken
ron tie rsry lowest and given to the /
1ery highest bidder; bear in mind /
hat this bridge is estimated to take |
bout $50 perch Of rock-Temember
.hese things and you will see how
much and how grossly rank Partially
or some fduorite has wronged his COM
petitors and swindled the taxpayers
his county. ! may be told that the
bidder from whom the job was taken
,ould not give the required bonds for
proper performance Of his contract.
But that won't wash, because they
lidn't let him try and besides, they
eft him with one bridge to build, and
good for one he certainly was good
or another-at least until the security
vhich be said be could give was seen
D that 1t could be rejected If proved
lsufhcient. Hoping you will give
his space, I am
Yours for fair-play,
BRIDGFMAx