The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-05-25

In making the purchase of the lot the
| Commissioners prudently require ad stipu-
| lation that in case the ground did not
afford suitable foundation the contract
should be rescinded. Both parties contract
ed with the understanding that the lot was for
the purpose of the county JAIL and that it
was Of the requisite size for that purpose. 1t
appears now by uncontradicted afidavits that
the Jail wall, according to the specifications
upon which Mr. Krug made his bid, will be
| about five feet wider than thelot. One Of two
things, therefore, must happen-either the
contract with Krug must be changed, materi-
ally affecting the price, or else he must be
bound to build portion of the wall in the
| highway on the north side, or trespass
upoRthe lot Of another party on the south
eithers.of which last is illegal, and if carried
out as proposed and now remains unchanged
will cause irreparable mischief and be injuri-
Gus to the community For this reason alone
the bid of Mr.. Krug ought not to be carried
out, having been made and received under a
mistake of fact.
| In order to invite competition the Commits
sioners advertised for bids or proposals for the
entire work, except the heating, reserving the
right reject all bids; they were, therefore, at
full liberty to take whatever time was neces-
sary to inform themselves as to the character
Of any bidder as competent contractor or
otherwise, and also to ascertain the solvency
and financial situation of the sureties propos-
ed for his faithful performance.
In order to the exercise of sound discre-
tion it was the duty of the Commissioners n
| the present case to have made such inquiry as
was necessary to put them in possession of
the facts in regard to the lowest bidder for
this work.
The bid of John r. Deihm & Co., was but
little below the estimates of the entire cost of
the building as furnished by two competent
| architects, for the construction of the work
upon the old site where the cost of construc-
ton, as shown by the afidavits of witnesses for
the defendants would exceed the construc-
tion on the now proposed site by from three
thousand five hundred to FIVE thousand dol
lars and yet the job was allotted upon bid
of nearly sixteen thousand dollars above the
lowest bid and from ten to fifteen thousand
dollars above the estimates of the architects.
1t is evident from the affidavits that the
| Commissioners were rushed to conclusion
to reject the lowest bid and accept the higher
without time to consider or to exercise discre-
tion upon the subject.
1t was rejected on the spur of the moment
by majority of the Commissioners, not on
the ground that the bidder did not or could
not furnish security, but because the bid was
too low.
1t now appears that the lowest bidders
were reliable men and that the sureties offer
ed, residents Of an adjoining county were am
ply sufficient for the amount required by the
| advertisement.
1t also appears by the careful estimate Of
Mr.. Nesbit, an architect of acknowledged
ability, that the work can be constructed ac-
cording to the specifications for forty-three
thousand dollars, and afford fair profit to
the contractor.
1t is true that there are other estimates
sworn to by competent architects to the effect
that the bid Of ffty-six thousand nine hun.
dred and seventy-6ve dollars is not too high
But as the now estimate is many thousands
above that furnished to the Commissioners fol
the erection upon the cheaper ste-there was
good reason to pause and consider why this
difference; and why one had made estimate.
for the Commissioners and upon whom they
relied for advice, should urge bidder to bic
high for the work.
In eleven of the counties of this State tn,
Commissioners are required by law to let tn,
construction Of public buildings to the loves
bidder who will give security for his perform
ance. Although there is no statute establish
| ing that as the rule in this county, yet tn,
principle commends itself to our judgment q
safe rule of action.
/ While We disclam any right to control tn
discretion invested by law in the county com
missoners we have no doubt that when the,
propose to pay more than thirty per cent 70
the construction of public buildings beyond
bid proposed to be amply secured, Court @
Equity has the right to restrain them iron
f so doing.
Il 1t is not necessary that we should find tina
, they have acted corruptly in the sense of bri
berry or making gain for themselves-it i
: enough that they have been mistaken and de
ceived and have acted hastily and without tn
exercise Of discretion.
If the building can be erected for forty-on
, thousand dollars or even for forty-seven thor
f sand dollars, according to an estimate of tn
architect made before the letting the Con
: missioners as the guardians of the public il
= terest can raise no reasonable objection.
e At all events we are of opinion that und'
d the circumstances shown by the affidavit
= both sides being considered it would be col
N trary to Equity to close the contract upon Il
II bid Of Charles Krug.
C. IL this were mandamus upon the Cor
missioners to award the contract to the lo'
l. est bidder We would dismiss it at once as b
IN ing an attempt to interfere with their discr
~ ton. But it by no means follows that
I'd ought not in proper case to restrain the
at exercising their power to the injury of Il
re public. 1t is their duty to erect new ia
u They have resolved to do this and it is n
en- our province to say that it shall not cost oy
Ks a certain sum, Within the bounds of any re
ms sonable amount their discretion cannot be co
trolled.