Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1876-06-23

SS9U
This was the bid of the Staunton Iron
Works Co., on which we were called to
pass orfthe 22d Of March, when we met to
consider all the competing bins. 1t will
be seen that by this bid the pNsts, COM
plete in all their parts were offerel to us
at $3.50 apiece, which was an Advance of
Mr.. Eyler stated his Company would be
able to furnish them. We found that we
could get the same posts complete at the
hands of Asa Snyder Il Co., Of Richmond,
a firm distinguished for it's superior work.
manship, at a cost of $3.50, which. after
allowing $45 for freight from Richmond to
Staunton, would still be saving to the
Association of $85 when compared with
the bid of the Staunton Iron Works Co.
And we do now again most emphatically
declare that neither before nor at the time
of the letting of this contract was there
any proposition before us from the Staun-
ton Iron Works Co. to s'duplicate the low
est bid less the costs of transportation from
Richmond OF Baltimore,' and that we
should have esteemed any such proposition
from them as utterly contrary to all rules
of honorable business competition, and
that had there been any such proposition
from them before us we should have felt
ourselves bound in honor to the lowest bid
der to reject it. We further declare, that
the assertion now made by the Staunton
Iron Works Co. that ''the proposition made
by Mr.. Eyler embraced the placing of the
posts in position, and could not therefore
be placed on the same basis as the bids of
other FIRMS" is to us novelty. We point
eddy affirm that it it was never intimated
to us either before or at the time of the let
ting of the contract that the bid was in
tended to embrace "the placing of the
posts in position" We had not asked them
to embrace in their bid this item Of ex-
pense, our specifications did not cover it,
and it will be seen that their bid of the
18th March, which was not a Jumping bid
but an itemized bid, does not in any man.
ner provide for it. That bid, standing ma
kedly, was all that was before us from
them, at the time of the letting of this con-
tract. We are unwilling to be affected in
any manner by their afterthoughts, and
beg leave to suggest that little more fore
thought might have saved them from the
change in their estimate from 81 so to So, 80
NIT did not tend to advance them in our
favor, although we should, notwithstand-
ing, have dealt with them, had their last
bid proved the most advantageous.
We have now for the second time very
patiently made answer to these unjust 1--WE
choose to speak mildly accusations against
us made with what useful or fair intent
we are at loss to determine.
JAMES II. SKINNER,
JAMES BUMGARDNER, Jr.
S. TRAvERs PHILLIPS,
J. III. WATERS,
JNO. N. OPIE.
The statement of the interview between
Mr. Eyler and myself at my office at which
the President Of the Association was pres
ent is correct as made above, and II further
concur in the above statements of the &C
ton of the Elk. Com. OH the bids of the
Staunton Iron Works Co., [ having been
personally present and in consultation
with them at all their meetings. touching
the letting Of the iron work for the Soldiers
Cemetery, and now holding in my hands
the bids of which accurate copies are above
set forth.
DONALD ALLEN.
June 23-1t. Civil Engineer.