The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-28

cad, and e.. L.. henry.
AMPuTATIoS-Mr. Leander N. Jude,
watchman at the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail
road coach-house, who was injured Satur-
day night, and who was removed to his
residence in the country, had his leg ampu-
tated on Sunday.
Remarks OF slr. williams i'm the Boar<.
OF Aldermen OH the Proposition to
Award the CITY Advertising to the
Lowest Bidder.
Mr.. President,-In the resolution from
the Common Council there is not set forth
any point in which we have committed an
error, SO fac as the ordinance OF the city is
concerned. Nor have they stated that we
have violated any Of the principles usually
observed by delberative bodies in commit
tee legisl lation. We advertised for bids, and
we guarded our right to reject any or all
bids. We have told you in ollr report to
this body and to the Common Council that
the award was first made to the lowest bid
der. We told you also that upon more
mature consideration that vote was recon-
sidered. No one has yet questioned our
right to reconsider our action. 1t is one OF
the principles in legislation recognized and
practiced by all deliberative bodies.
The rules governing this body expressly
declare that an ordinance cannot he recon-
sidered at any future meeting OF the body
unless said motion be made prior to the
time of the ordinance going into operation,
showing bevond q doubt that motion is
open for reconsideration until all the acts
necessary for its completion are completed.
In this case a motion is made to award.
At q subsequent meeting, in the absence of
any authorized communication with the
second party, that motion Is reconsidered.
The contract had not been finished. 1t was
an omen matter, and hence there was per-
feet right for reconsideration.
Believing rs we did that we had commit
ted an error, and had not put the advertis-
ing in the best channel Of communication
with the people, we certainly would have
done wrong not to have reconsidered the
action. Our next step was to reject all
bids, and Just here hinges the whole matter.
The question is simply this, Did we have Il
right to reject any OF all bids?
Ii we had no right to reject, then we
were in error when we did so reject them.
II we had the right to reject, then our action
was not IN error, and we protest against
any course looking to the rendering Of our
contract with Cowardin & Ellyson null and
void. We claim that we had the right to
reject
1st. Because in our advertisement we eX-
pressly made known that such q right was
reserved, and did so in language which
admitted of but one construction. With
this offer for bids it was the privilege OF
any one to bid or not bid. So long as they
withheld their bids we had no control
over them; but 80 soon as they accepted our
offer for bid, they accepted also the terms
upon which their bid was considered;
which terms secured to the committee the
right to Judge the merits OF their bid IN
connection with the object which was pro-
posed to be accomplished wit, the most
ehectual channel OF communicating with
those who arc under liabilities to the city;
with this understanding, we claim that we
had the right to reject.
I'd. We claim that we had the power TO
exercise that right because it Is right eN-
ercised by other committees in the city, by
private citizens and companies, in order 10
protect themselves against numerous con-
tingencies which may arise to their damage
in letting out contracts.
I think am rightly informed, ana Will
state that on one occasion the Street Com
mittee received and opened bids for certain
stone-work, sc. The committee, conclud-
ing that the prices were too high, rejected
ali bids, referred the matter to sub-conl-
mittee, and, after verbal communication
with bidders, received written and verbal
bids, and awarded their contracts.
On another occasion we find the same
committee acting for the city as they would
have acted for themselves. They received
bids for feed-stuf, &c, and after opening
the bids, rejected the bids for hay, and went
upon the market because they had reason
to suppose the price OF hay was downward
in tendency.
On another occasion the Committee on
Water received bids for bricks. The bids
were all rejected because the committee
concluded that there was reason to believe
that there was combination among tho
bidders.
Thus you see these committees exercised
this right, and no one will pretend to ques
tion their wisdom; for without this right
the city would be placed at the mercy o.
those who might combine to force her tt
purchase at figures beyond the market.
But, sir, we are not dependent on tht
action of committees to sustain US in oul
claims to exercise this right. This subjec
has been before the Council Of the city in I
case involving far more extensive appro
priation of dollars and cents than the cas'
before us-a case in which Il committee re
iected the lowest bid and accepted the high
est, which was, say, about $4,000 over th'
lowest. I refer to the bids for the gasome
ter at Rockets. In this case bids were pu
in by residents and non-residents. Th,
first exercise of this right was made in re
jecting all nonresident bidders, not becaus,
they were not able to complete their con
tract according to plans and specifications
but simply because they were non-resi
dents. In the second place, they rejected
the lowest bids because the facilities Offered
in their plans for strength, de-, Were
not, in the judgment OF the commit
tee, equal to those offered by th'
highest bidder. In this case the low
est bidder, gentlemen OF known In
teligenee and influence 10 this city, pro
tested against the decision of the commit
tee, but the committee having concluded
that the facilities offered in the plan OF tht
highest bidder were better calculated tt
serve the purposes Of the city, so reported
to the Council. The Council. after hearing
Ia protest carefully prepared by the com
plainant, did sustain the committee. But
mark you, they did not sustain the com
mlttee upon any grounds ei Inability g
perform the contract as set forth In plan'
and specifications offered by the loves