New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-01
UNBALANCED BIDS.

TIE PLEA or THOSE CONNECTED WITH THE ACCEPT
ANCE OF UNBALANCED OR SPOTTED" PROPOSALS
THE CONTRACTING BOARD NOT BOUND TO
ACCEPT SUCH BIDS-DECIsIoN OF THE SUPREME
COURT-JUDGE PECKuAM'S OPINION.
As stated by tho regular correspondent
Of THE TRIBUNE at Albiny, those persons who
have been connected with unba anccd bids-thc accept
ance OF which has been such fruitful source OF fraud
plead in excavation that the Constitute provides thai
all canal work bs let the lowest bidder ana that
the State officers have alternative. This plea, how
ever Is OF no avail since the highest in the
ed the question long ago and e!t doubt to the
duty OF the State officers in this respect In rbonrs
Supreme Court Reports. Vol SO, Which meets the
points at issue Is reported Two bids although the low
est were rejected by the State Contracting Board on
the ground that they unbalanced aud OF fraudu-
lent nature. These bids for rebuilding the Bas'et
lock and for raising the banks the ChampIin Canal
The bidder for the work the Basset lock sued out
peremptory mandamus to compel the Contracting
Board TO give him the contract the ground that the
Constitution expressly declared that all canal work
should be given the lowest bidder provided he gave
adequate security for its performance Tao case was
carried to tho General Term, in 1851 aad was argued for
the State by Attorney General Myers aud for the con-
tractor by Lyman Trcmlin, eX-AttOrncy- General
Judges Gould, Peckham, and Hc@eboon ooncurred In
the opinion that the position taken by the Contracting
on Judge Peckham said:
Irrespective the question OF the power or the Board
to protect the interests OF tue STATE ny c1nrct 10 TIC
entered INFO by the rclatOr by Withhold nag the pay
mens beyond the Is per cent un the work snohih al
be performed AN of the opinion tha the Board vas not
bound to accept propOs Ike tho Que ~ q.es' lCh
rs purpose could not otherwise than fraudulent ana
would rarely fan to result III irtui upon INC STATE
IL may be safely said that proposition 80 utterly Ou
OF proportion this contains sons proDosei fraudulent
thrreIore the more dangerous. do not think Board
should entertain proposition IKE tne one III
question under circumstances Ike thest suppose Tue
contract be fuly ana tlOroughY peIornieu ~ " io
means follows that the State Is not defrdudei Here T.
proposition make some 400 yards OF rock excavation
with blasting estimated by the engineer To be farJ
worth yard. for " per yard. ms. 10 VIII De
rate AS may be- the amOdnt OF rock excavation TO be
done. Suppose turns ont, in executing the contract
there should he 1000 The State. Of course. would b.
seriously defauied such gross disproporon III prices
Ield, 10 strife and contest as 10 the amount OF
work OF the peculiar character so ever Charged. IL
will he sought 10 De magnlted. the Inducements To
magnify IL will strong the temptation To wrong will
be quite strong. That the amount OF sucl WOrA
would be larger than stated IN the estimate might be
generally safely calculated AT best II Is but AN est
mate and when there Is departure thereIrom an error
or mistake in judgment, or III making Tue experiment
On which TO base the estimate, SAFELY calculate
that such inducements the error would almost uui-
versally be to the benefit OF the contractor. Though
the may make the estimate In the best possible
faith which should not Ordlnafy DC disposed To qhes
on stl that does not deprive individuals OF the rght
OF making examinations and estimates, aud the
vigilance stimulated by great Interest woad be
very apt ao to state Se Would Always Ss the
The estimates, OF course cannot DE accurate they VIII
always vary and 1t Is entirely safe to that tue State
will ALWAYS by the variance. such proposal al
ways leads to suspicion OF e0nnlNance between tue
contractor and the engineer who makes the estimate.
Ii certainly offers strong temptations for such con
niyance. In fact, sucn dsproportlOn III prices leads
and netes a sorts of frauds, and should not receive
the least encouragement from the courts The PROPOSE
ton IL clear fraud upon the Jaw. TINS principle OF
course sanction 10 rejecting Dld unless the
dispruportiOn broad ana palplble-antirey aud ni
GRAVITY transparent Exorbtant prices do not express
lie idea They fraudulent prices. Nor would APP
with UFAuf "A
done was clearly ana absolutely known. But IA case
like the one at bar the peculiarly appropriate Held
the exercise OF THIS species OF management ahd tue
state the true subject IL seems that these fraudu
lent high prices all upon that part or the work nrst
to be done. suppose the WORK, after being parity per
formed should any cause be suspended, when the
contractor to that me had received some twenty i've
fines what his work worth. Suon suspensions nave
occurred from unavoidable Would tue conttac
tors sense justice prompt hun to reiuUdt Though tue
DO erroneous they cannot be entirely acou
rate II tho prDposas bear reasonable approach W tho