, 1876-12-03

ing or the granulation Of flesh texture that
mark her portraits OF children.
sExTON'S CONTRACT.
MR. WOODBRIDGE CONCLUDES.
Judre Williams was down in good time yes
tcrday morning to hear the closing argument OF
Mr. Woodbridge in the Sexton injunction case
The audience was small, consisting only OF Sid
Smith, three or four other lawyers, and three re-
porters.
alr. Woodbridge, after going over the main
points in his Fridays argument, commended that
the proper construction to be put on the County
Boards reserved right to reject any and ali bids
was, that il their judgments disproved the bid
because of the lack Of fitness in the bidder in
any respect, then they might reject it. 1t
might also hare meant that they might reject
bids without assigning q reason, but
it did not mean that they could
decide that any particular bidder was the best
bidder because he was the lowest responsible,
competent bidder, and then have the option OF
rejecting him. If anything else WIS meant by
this reservation it was simply perpetratlnE:
fraud upon the public and the bidders. Ihe
complainant being tue lowest bidder, and The
Board knowing it, the public had right to say
that the bid should be awarded to complainant,
and the latter had correlative right to say ne
should receive the CONDENSATION. II this r1ent
Of the public and the bidder attached, it At
tached before the awarding of the contract to
Sexton. It was too late for the BoaTd to
exercise any right of discretion. They had
made a proposition, and it had been accented.
MIR. Woodbridge cited the case Of the otaats:
Zeitung in connection with the city printing,
where its contract was revoked By the Court,
and new contract made. 1t was not necessary
to show that the Sexton contract involved moral
turpitudc, although that could be shown. 1t
was simply necessary to see that the thing was
unfair. .....
TIE DIRECTION TO rn1s BID
was that the Union Foundry Works and other
people were invited to bid, and Sexton put IN
bid that could not be foreseen BY them, that
they could not provide against IN any
way4gaast es+ tho terms faa s9i[t GI tad of t6e
specifications, aud against the whole current Of
things II the County Board could go on and
! make public letting in the manner mdicatea,
and then depart from 1t wholly without notlce
| to ANYBODY, and adopt new rule in favor OF
particular class Of bidders, was it not true that
| Iii responsible bidders who did not understand
| the tricks Of the trade would be driven from
| competition. This practice simply deferred
honest bidding, and public morallty ana salet'
hIr. Woodbridge then took up. the other
branch Of the case the right to insist on an in
| junction because Of frauds pcrpetrated in tue
| letting Of tho contract in such Away as to IN
| crease TIC QuFlltN VI tAAALANIs Rha "A4AANAA !
deliberately, without reason, and without au-
! thority. The County Board had conceded that
t the lower bidder was just as good as the higher
bidder in this case, and they had thereby CON
ceded ali their authority in this case; Ihefe l r.;
whom he confided. The guilty we're probably
few, but the others participated in the act, aud
! it was a fraud Some were probably bought,
some we're persuaded When such blos IS those
Of complainant, and the Chatheld: bid and
l ~ ynn little
quiet investigation. The Board had pre-
| yiously decided in favor OF separate bids,
| but wien all the bids were In they decided that
u the previous policy Of the Board had all been
wrong," and tnat JOINT plos were tne proper
thing. From all the circumstances, it was clear
II evident that Sexton was the prcarranged Ia
| yorite bidder. The suspicious committee-lnect-
ing. where the policy Of the Board was changed
the haste of some OF the unsuccessful bidders te
sign the bonds Of the successful ones; all ttlf
and other things went to show that Sexton was
| to lave the hid, Notwithstanding Architect
| Eagan's wonderful affidavit to the contrary
This document MIR. Woodbridge commented OF
| at some length. All thugs showed TINT the DC
| parture Of the County Board Was prcarranScdi II
favor of Sexton, who was to have the contract
it would seem, at all events.
1t would not do for ! court to tolerate such
thing as this. There was no doubt that this
was tie true state Of the case The public bid
ding was simply farce, dumb show, where
the puppets went through their parts, and the
honest bidders were crowded out to make room
Tor Sexton, the favorite Of the Board, and the
Board had urged false reasons for the conduct
of its members. Common dccency required
that the Board sholld examine the other bid $
It was q case Of constructive and actual fraud
and public morality and safety required the
Court to interfere with an injunction to put Al
end to this corrupt bargain and to destroy III
influence upon the letting Of contracts in subse
uuent matters Of pubic*i c*importance.
Here Sfr. Woodbridge concluded, and Judge