The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1875-09-01

THAT BRIDGE AwARD.-The Lambertyille Record in
Inmates that the awarding Of the Mgsconetcong Bridg
contract by the Joint Committee of Warren and Hunter
don Freehclders, manifests dishonest job" some
where The fact Of taking such vote by ballot certainly
which obtained the work at 700 an effort had beer
made to give at $500 at preceding meeting of the
But The Record misstates the case in at least one con-
pcuous particular 1t gives the unsuccessful bid of the
put in such bid the planking not Included Gas
10 those Of other bidder and they also put in another
than The Record gives as their rejected
make necessary for The Record to explain the three
votes cast for the Lambertyie Company before it can
phia jobh Its strange sstaement also renders other
explanations now incumbent on The Record.
clear. 1t the public, The Records pre-
sentaion Of the that the who should have been
offered to complete 1t for ST. 100 They known TO be
Trustworthy and competent bridge builders The Com
mittee on the Hamden bridge (of which Mr. Shurts
is Chairman) made with them contract which is uni
ersay conceded to be most advantageous to the County,
that in this Committee Of twelve only po voted to
accept from such men the lowest hid Those two 1--WE
Committee has been questioned in which ar
ragns the reputation Of all are Director Van Sycke of
Holland, and Capt. Taylor Of Union
We have ourselves no doubt notwithstanding The
Records strange missatement of the Lambertvie bid
pure public interest," on the ground that they were thus
trying to benefit local institution And ordinarily
SnOulu suppose that there motive public
economy which prompted the majority to give little
more to the philadelphia party. The work may have
to have Explained to the public however now there
are against them the suspicious circumstances have
expenditure Of public money without any apparent pub
lie advantage.
The Clinton Democrat " misstates the case'
in several conspicuous particulars. 49,
The unsuccessful bid of the Lambertvillc
Company at s., $50 " did include the plank
ing, notwithstanding the statement of the
Democrat to the contrary. Neither is it true
that those who voted to give the contract to
the Lambertville Company voted for another
and higher bid of this company. They vot-
ed to give the contract without specifying
which bridge they preferred. The Democrat
rings the changes on misstatement !" and
strange misstatement' but these terms are
only applicable to itself. If the Democrat. will
show wherein our structures sarraigns the
reputation of all :" the Committee, we shall
be glad to see it. We distinctly laid the GEN.
sure on the Warren Co. Committee and one of
the Committee from Hunterdon. Neither did
we claim even by implication that the contract
should have been given to any other than the
lowest bidder.
We will say, however, that we do think
that our own county interests should be fos-
tered in preference to those outside, and if a
company in the county offers to build bridge
within fraction of the price offered by out
side parties, the interests of the county would
be subserved by giving it to such company
Take as an illustration the Lambertville Iron
Works. This establishment pays several hum
dred dollars tax to the county each year, and
the money paid out to employees. helps direct
ly the merchants and the farmers of our coun-
ty- This fact should have some weight in de-
termining the award of contracts the more
SO, as any repairs that may hereafter be re-
CURED to such bridges can be done cheaper by
a-home company than by those at distance
off.