The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-02-11
City Contracts and Contractors.
WHEELING, February 10.

WHEELING, February 10
EU,,ra Of the IntclliseneeT:
sec Jy your report vi the proceeding.
in the First Branch Of Council that Mr..
McAdam., a member Of that Branch from
the Fourth Ward, stated in his place that
the sewcr recently constructed on 29d
street VA. not built according TO contract,
hi, he asserted, as he said, without fear
81 successful contradiction. lie also
stated that he had been an eye witness to
the fact that common mud was used in
stead oi good cement mortar a. required
hy the specifications Of thecontraci.
This charge, made by man who ls not
only reputable citizen but a faithful
member Ui the First Branch Of the City
Council, starts several questions which
are we'll worth consideration, not only by
the City Council, but by the people who
are taxed, aud right rOundly too, for what
are denUminaicl improvements. How is it
thaicunlracts are given out 10 = man ThO
prOycrbially fails TO give saliSfac-
iion in the filling Of his con.
tracts? This TACT being admitted,
for it can not be denied; how is il that
there i. not stamina enough in the
Council or it, committees to compel the
faithful execution OF contracts entered
into by the party referred to. We could
cnumcrale all the contracts entered into
by the city with the Contractor who built
the I'D aud I'D street sewers, ut least all
Of any magnitude, and we fail To rccollcct
one 0f them that has given complete
satisfaction in it, execution. One or two
Of them have been litigatcd at consider.
able expense "a the city, the Others have
been paid after a good deal Of mutlcrci
CurEng and grumhing, simply, n somc
members Of Council have said, to avoid
the expense Ol Law suit.
Notwithstanding these well known aud
iRdiypuilblc facts giis same Contractor
comes in with hi, bid a. regularly as any
public work il advertised through the
papers. In answer to the query ~ to
why contracts are awarded him, il !. said
h. il llSays the lowest bidder and gives
good honds iur the execution of the
work.
Snw ! would ak council, II low bid
and good boud,ncn j. MI that /, compris.
cd in the term "lpwc.t aud best bidder"
take 1t that there i more in the term
best than . mere Iuri.urr NJ re.pOn.ihil.
ity. II rightly comprehend il. reference
is not only had To the contract
price oi the work iu bc done
and the responsibility ii tho hond.-
men, but nl.u what ! consider ol very
great Importance ilr reliability 0i the
Contractor, by which ] mean hi, charnc.
ter for the faithful execution VI hi con-
tracts. Without the attribute OF rclin.
bility | maintain that while . contractor
may bc the lowest bidder and furnish m.
cxcep,ionablc bond-mcn, he j. neither the
"rcsponsiblrn nor the "best bidder with.
in the meaning Of the law. Recognizing
the futility Of entering into a legal con.
test with contractor about the charnc'
lr- ri work which il buried several feet
uuIrf ground and therefore not susccpli-
hir ui inst critical examination necessary
10 tx the inferior character Of the work
to the s1iI.licliun 81 q jury, the City
Council have been Too prone In overlook
i'i' IlEh'lul iuirtr1 nj the taxpayers nj
[ ilu city, ho'lusu, 80 u g. 4aid, ii involves
rrprn'r ln maintain tie II,l right. ui!thr
/ |ciiF Ne against uuinIlllul contractors
] iIu''hlr nqlhis uasOuiug may he when
/ applied H. y contractor with whom the
. Council "i this rily has bad only unrc,.
| l'ftrr0' i' g., o. Mr.. Vaughn would NV,
- Ilil'. tpp tlIn, when applied h. the ron.
tractor iu Tie minds eye II Mr.. McAdnn.
when hr made hi statement IN the first
Branch ~ lur"iay evening, Most
cnphatlcally III" fault II the City Cpuu.
| ril lies not ~ -crklng ip avoid
litigation with contraction, but IN incur
ring tug ri'k Of One oi two consequences,
either litigation VI subui.-iyn 10 the in.