The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-04-04

The BOOk.Disatfing.

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AS TO
THE CoNTEsT-TIIE SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC PRINTING IN ERROR, BUT NO PROOF
or CoLLUSIOS-THE BO0K-BINDING AGAIN
AwARDEp-THE WORK TAKEN At Low FIG
uREs.
The following Is the official report OF the
Joint Committee on Printing made yester-
day in the contest between the book-bind-
ers:
The Joint Legislative Committee on Pub
lie Printing having considered the law and
the evidence, RS we'll as the arguments OF
counsel, in the cases Of Simons d Brother
and j. J. English in regard to the awards
made on the Sd day OF March, 1877, by the
Superintendent of Public Printing for the
public binding, have reached the following
conclusions:
The object of the law in letting out the
public printing and binding to the lowest
responsible bidder is that there may be such
fair competition among responsible persons
for such work as will ensure reasonable
contracts with the State tor same.
The evidence shows that there were but
two bids put IN for the public binding 1or
the current year-viz., said Slmens u Bro
ther and J. J. English, who compared thelr
bids before putting them in, and agreed be-
tween them what portions OF the work each
desired to receive.
The evidence shows that few days pre-
yious to the Sd day OF March, when the
awards were to be made, George W. Gary
apDlicd to said Superintendent OF Public
Printing to know whether bid would De
entertained if put in b. him for the public
binding, who replied that his bid would be
rejected if put in, for the reason that the
said Gary did not come up to the require
ments Of the advertisement.
Acting on this information the said Gary
did not put in bid, when the evidence
shows that he was able TO carry out any
contract he might make with the State for
the said public binding, since he had the
necessary facilities for doing this work; and
even If lie did not have all the necessary fa-
cilities, he he'd sufficient capital and credit
to supply any deficiency in his bindery.
1t was further shown by the evidence that
J. Is. Eye, OF the city OF Petersburg, came
to the city Of Richmond for the purpose, as
he stated to witnesses, OF putting III oia
for the public binding; that he had inter,
views with Simons and others IN regard
to bidding, and from his actions ana decla-
rations while in this city he left under such
circumstances as to lead to the conclusion
that he was induced to leave without put
ting in bid.
The committee are of the opinion that the
awards were not properly made; that there
were not such bids as the statute contem-
plates, and they decide that the awards
made to said Simons & Brother, and
the award to said j. j. English, be an
nulled and set aside, and that the Su-
perintendent Of Public Printing be
directed to receive new proposals for the
public binding, to be opened on Tuesday,
April Sd, at II NJ, in the office Of said Su-
perintendent of Public Printing.
The evidence does not show that there
was any collusion between the Superlntend-
ent OF Public Printing and any other per-
son in the matter OF the public binding, but
they are OF the opinion that he erred in say
ing to said Gary that he would not enter
tain his bid, il put in, for reasons above
stated. Is. r. BLAND.
WILLIAM Z. TANNER.
JOHN T. LOWELL,
WILLIAM S. GILMAN,
CHALHS B. COALE.
The Joint Committee on Printing met by
invitation in the Superintendents Office yes
terdav at noon, and the Superintendent
opened the bids for State binding for the en-
suing wear, and awarded the contracts as
follows: TO w. L. Simons L. Brother. all
the State binding, except the binding OF the
twentv-eighth volume OF Grattan, which
was awarded to Randolph 4 English. The
figures are eighty per cent. lower than those
| OF the annulled bids and those that have
obtained for several years past.
The bid Of Mr. George w. Gary was from
thirtv-tive to forty per cent. below the bids
OF last year, and the bids made by the sue
cessful competitors this year. The State
will get its work done very cheaplY. In
fact. in several instances the contractors
will not get back what they have to pay fol
the raw material.