The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1873-05-15
COUNTY BRIDGES AGAIN.
"Bridgemans" Conclusions OBJ
jected to--Some Mistakes Cor.
rected and what appear to be the
Facts in the Case Stated.

rected and what appear to be tn
| Facts in the Case Stated.
We received a week ago lettt
from the member of the Board who's
locality seemed to indicate himself a
the most prominent recipient {
"Bridgema ans" attentions in the com
munication published two week
since /; and although it was therein
| expressly stated that the same wa
not intended for publication, we shal
yet venture to make extracts from |
as the only way at our command t
get statement Of the case at all likel,
to do justice to the intentions of tn
Board In the premises. And thus W
make our desire to do full justice tn
excuse for an apparent breach of con
fidence. The letter referred to, or $,
much oft Is is necessary in this con
nection, is rs follows:
= He (BridgemanD makes som,
very grave charges against the Boarl
or at least portion of them. In til,
first place the Board reserved tn.
right to reject any or all bids. w,
did at first conclude to let Mr.. Care,
have both, but afterwards our com
missioner informed US that botl
bridges should be built at the same
time as they were on roads that wer.
travelled very much and it was actu
ally necessary to have them completed
as soon as possible, and it was impossi.
BILE for one man to build both bridges
as soon as they ought to be to accomo
date the travel. From the bids put in
the Springdale mans was next to the
lowest. He offered in his bid to build
the bridge for IS 90 per perch and al
low - 90 per perch for the stone in
the old abutments. The balance oil
the bids Except Carey's) did not offer
anything for the stone. You can see
the bids as they were put in for the
work by calling on Mr.. Brink. /
know there was not any changes made
in any of the bids by the Board, nei-
Their was either one of the Board in
terested in the bids of any man. Our
object was to build the bridge the
soonest possible to accommodate the
public. 1 do not intend this for pub
LEGATION, only as an explanation. BY
calling on Mr.. Brink and Mr.. Hatch
you can get all the particulars.
III. {. GILL.
Now the prime necessity for the in
PRODUCTION of the above letter exists in
the fact that without it matters could
not have been presented in the light
which it is fair to presume must
have prompted the final action of the
Board. This Is SO because the inquiry
and examination recommended by its
writer shows him to be laboring under
several mistakes as to matters Of fact
Of which would have pre-
vented us from making precisely the
which he seemed to de-
sire and expect. Aud before briefly
ststing the errors made both by
"Bridgeman" and in this letter, we
wish it understood that truth i'm the
premises is all we are aiming at. Our
first correspondent evidently thought
there was "nigger in the wood pile, ]"
and we are free to say that if this were
SO, Tor whenever it may be so in any
official wood pile we are perfectly
willing TO uncover the colored gentle
man to the full gaze of an interested
public. But while this is true, it is
also true that we would not under any
do the slightest injustice
to the acts and intentions of any Off
Ger or NATURALIZATION, of course,
plain truth should not offend.
Inquiry from Messrs. Brink, Hatch,
Motif and Contractor Leon
ard, and examination of all the bids
and paper connected Herewith, ena-
BILE US to conclude
1st. That "Bridgeman" was mis- ta-
ken in thinking that the successful
bid (Jno. Leonard's) for the stone
work of the Sugar Creek bridge was
changed after being handed to the
Board. The error probably arose from
the fact that the main part of the bid
Ito build the S0-foot span for Sc SO
per lerch and the 1901 foot span for
So 25 per perch" was signed John
Leonard, spelled with an q; and the
postscript, offering to give 80 per
perch for the old bridge stone l may
lse," is signed by Leonard, spelled
with an G. There is no doubt, howev-
er, but the bid was perfectly straight,
and just as Leonard made il, if lie did
spell his own name differently in the
Two places.
Ind. That, as appears from the above
quotations, Leonard did not bid at Sc
per perch, but at s. so and S625, and
hat his offer for old stone was only
for what may use"-leaving it OPP
.ional with himself whether he used
my or not.
Sd. That the contract for the Sugar
Creek bridge was fully and fairly
awarded to Mr.. Carey, and that he was
70 Informed by a member Of the Board
previous to its being reconsidered and
given to Leonard.
4th. That Mr.. Leonard's bid was not
he next lowest to Mr.. Carey's; nor
was it the only one beside his which
offered anything for the old stone.
). VI. Towns bid, as compared with
Leonard's, offered over 5000 outright
ior the stone in the old piers and any
,fthe lower bidders would undoubtedly
nave been glad to have paid reasona-
,le price therefor if made condition
% the acceptance of their bids.
5th. The speedy completion of both
bridges was undoubtedly highly de-
,irable for the public convenience, and
looked after by the Board.
It has been suggested that Carey's
ability to give bonds for the