, 1881-11-06

in tho Fourth Ward, 1,0O0 in the Eleventh. and
:,0tO in tho Twelfth vote tho Dcm"cratic ticket
may be defcuted: but II tho Republicans do
their duty, go. to the polls ani deposit the
stight ticket. our candidate will be elected, our
hold nn county and Stuc assured. anu An - ot1-
year" calamity Will be avoided. S. T.
MORE CHARGES EXPLODED.
Since the renolnnution of Commissioner Co
burn the columns OF the Times have been free
to his cne!lies and have teenled with all manner
Of charges against him. At first his great sins
were his connection with the dome md the
"extrn" brick~work Ut the new Courthouse,
but these were explained ut once, since whlcl,
time there hus been III omiuou5 silence on the
subject.
but, III the papers determination to maIign
and abuse the gentleman, other charges have
been preferred from duy to day intended to it-
jurc him. Atnong others, there Is one TO the
cilcct that, i'll the letting of the contract
for putting the gas-tixturcs in the new Court
House, he favored MesSrs. Eassett s. Co., and
lhnt he expDscd the designs ot otner ,coinpcti-
tors. etc. and generally acted unfairly. The
facts In the case dispose Of the charges very
thoroughly. aud are set forth i'll Il letter to tlaIt
paper, which WAS written yesterday by Messrs-
3assctt Il Co., in selt-detense, nnd which Is It's
follows:
IL tie Editor Of the Chicago Times: DEAR SIR:
We have llUtics.i for several days III your
COLUMNS reference to our connection With put
ting i'll the Eas-tixturts in tue new Court House.
ALI OF the articles hive reflected upon us
and upon Com 5siOner Coburn. who is Chair
lIAll Of the committee having had thAt matter
In Charge, and we feel that it is but just thut the
mistakes YOUR reporters have made should be
corFects'; We ca'onc.ea for tha work submitting DE-
signs, aud subsequently bids No spectca lions
were offered lis, aud our understanding, Us we'll
Us that OF lll other competitors. was that the
designs for the tixtnre5 were first to be adopted.
und then the qu,llity OF the material ana tue
H*s.r 11f
us the best. allI subsequently, after the
quality Of the fixtures desired bud been
agreed upOn, our prices were fnund tu be tho
lowest. and we vert given the coltract. This is
'tll there wsts tu It, They approved our designs,
ahuptcd the ut,altsy of goods we presented. and,
finally, the prices offered IL furnish them at-
WE cuuhl h,lve furnished the sumo designs III
cheaper material at bali the nancy we were
pui hut were not called upon to do it, urd aay
The bids ranged from S6,a1. 10 slO.4;A, and we
were given tie work ut S!0,Gi5. which ought to
explain tho point. There was no favoritisln
transaction. aud tue unswer to the Charge.
that We were unfairly given the design OF an
other connection, It's well rs his prices. is found
i'll the fact thai nur nri.itul designs were Muupt-
cd and We're "entircly disSlsnilur 10 any 9th
crs presented. The fact that we presented
were adopted before amy prices were named,
and the further fact thnt our figures were the
lowcst for what WIS wanted, is the reason: oild
the uniy reason, VIC were given the work. Those
Voting for the award tD Us under these circutlI-
Stances. several of whom We did not know. nnd
h. nad L. meyer spoken IL ;, were; MessrS Ayars
Stewart Wood. aud Purinyspu. -.
The pubii:atlon Of the above vii! be but m
act of Justice 1o all concerned, uEd will piuce
tue Iies rI*ht oefof 'hp5e txn"r %e the
Comment is unnecessary, especially since the
firm Is one OF the oldest and most reputable in
the city. They set forth the fucts cuncisey. and
Us thoy are. aud If there was any mistake Ele
III !e11log the co.racf for tue sas-:itlinV it was
snf ed not ther Price, t eond hase p
in for balf the nhnev, just us one corner lor cnn
be oought for % half the price ,hat IT, ivy can; but,
Another question the same paper has hnrped
upon Is the conduct 0f Messrs. Naod and CoburH
churge tha1 4. II. Andrews s. Co. were
favored t. the detriment. Of the public
o;her charges and is quite rs easily disposed Of
The bids for the work ranged from 81, ,O30 to
Ss1O0o, aud in opening tho bids the bid vi Mr..
formal III the examination Of the other bids,
however, it WIS found that the lowest bidder
was an individual withont>.n shop, moncy. or
the next bidder, 1t was found thut ne iai just
promised to settle with his creditors Tor
Us 5,,., cents On ~ The dollar and was to-
tracts. The othor bidders were thought
to be high, and, after considering the bids, it
was determined to rfadvertise, The second
character, but this tine Andrews l. Cn. were III
order. and their BID was considered The lowest
bidder WIS one 0su0od whose natne could nut
be found iii the directory, a:,d whoso shop could
not he located He came before the board,
however. but utterly tuilcd to satisfy that b,ly
of his responsibility, md at 0uve iroppcl out Of
sight. The next lowest bidder was Andrews &
to. 1913, 750). aid. upon their complying with
tho requirements Ut the specifications, giving
bo1itl, ctc., the award was nude the;t
'I1i3 Is the history OF the letting OF tho Afur-
niture ccntEnet" iii brief, frutn which 1t will bc
eco!, thAt the lowest responsible bidder xut tho
work. If tho Commissioners had been son tho
make us is churged. they could have let tho
contraot to Sexton tho ulti-tino t,lyorit, for
SGo0o0, or to Suttle Ut tho other bidders for $90
00U. hut they Wtro not "on the make" to NIL |
appearances, for they let the work to the lowest
responsible bidder. The reader cun scum the |
facts and draw bis 1sft1 conclusions.