Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-08-23

GIBSON BROTHERS COMPLAIN OF BAD TREATMENT B
THE COMMISSIONERS.


THE COMMISSIONERS
To the Editor of THE EVENING STAR:
We desire 10 call the attention OF the public to the
following statement through the columns Of your
widely circulated paper:
In accordance with the advertisement OF the Dis
trlct Commissioners for Proposals for Supplies for
the year ending June 30 1885, we put in bid for
Class 2, which embraced twenty-four items of
BLANK Forms and Printing Bids were opened on
the 10th OF june but we heard nothing conc rning
the result, except rumors, till the 18th OF July,
Clerk OF the Engineer Department that we had been
awarded twenty Of the twenty four items and
would receive the following day Official notice.
In our mail of the morning OF July 18th We received
| the following:
"OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER COMMISSIONER,
| WASHINGTON, D. G., July 10Th, 1884.
| "Messrs. GIBSON BROS,
''13h 81. ana Pa. are. N "
s1Rs: GU are requested to call at this Office to
execute contract for printing, &C., for the Dis
"By order Of the Engr CONT DC;
! capt OF Engineers, U. S. A."
| To which we responded within two hours when,
upon being shown the schedule of the bids. and
| having discovered that, although were the low
est bidders on twenty out of the twentyfour items,
ana tied on the two principal items with another
| firm, who were lowest On only two items,
the two we tied on (Which could not be divlded)
were awarded the other I'm instead or
us, we inquired OF the Chief Clerk why such was
the case. He answered, don't ask me any cues
TORS" Upon being asked from whom we should
letter in answer to the note you received Accord
| ingiy, We sent the following letter:
"CAPr. R. L. HOME.
"OGce Engineer Commissioner, d. c.:
"SIR: In obedience to your request we called at
your Office today but, finding that items twenty
three and twenty-fOUr, on which we are tied, are
not awarded us although we are the lowest bidders
on twenty out OF the twentyfour items contained in
Class y we did not execute the contract.
GAS these two items embrace the heaviest and
most Important portions OF the printing required
during the year, and have more extras connected
with them than all the other items combined, we
| feel that. by your refusal to award them to us,
who are virtually the lowest bidders.) our integ-
ave suppose you are aware that we are not
strangers to the District printing. We were the
contractors in rs an 10. and believe that our work
gave perfect satisfaction to every department of
the District government. Our facilities are un-
surpassed by those of any other establishment in
the city, and we can conceive OF no reason why we
Should be thus Disseminated against
"Rel!eving that when the matter is looked into
ii viii be seen that in all fairness these items
should be awarded US, we await your reply and
remain
Respectfully, &c,
This letter. received at the Office of the En-
gineer Commissioner on the morning of July 18th,
has never been responded TO. We discovered,
however, after diiigent inquiry at the Office of
Capt. HOX1e, where we were treated in an ungente-
manly manner by the Chief Clerk, that it had been
referred to the commissioners On the 23d OF July
we called upon Commissioner West and injured il
any action had been taken by the Commissioners
On our communication, which we understood had
been referred to them After conversation on the
subject he said that, If the matter not brought
before them when they should meet that day, he
would call it up next day and see what could be
done. SIX days later we obtained the following in
formation, not from the Commissioners but from
the Washington letter in the Baltimore sun OF July
| 29th
1.-The District Commissioners have directed that
contract FOR the printing Of the District for the
current fiscal year be made with Judd & Detweiler
IN no
made by Gibson Bros. be returned TO then."
This, coupled with the fact that Mr.. Judd, who
Is re1y familiar with pretty much all business
transacted by the Commissioners, had stated to
several parties that all. or nearly all of the print
| for some reason changed his mind and asserted
that his firm would "get the best Of it after all,
Willie Gibson Bros. would get only the small, I'M
profitable work. led Us TO suspect that something
was wrong. WhereupOn called On Engineer
commissioner Lydecker to learn why we
had been treated SO unfairly He said there was
no unfatrneS5, and claimed that, the other firm
had been doing the District printing for several
years, and had frequently assisted them in shaping
up blank forms. 1t was entitled to considera-
ton on their part and By awarding to that firm the
ted Items they had made nearly equal division
OF 1ae w n5cs OF The printing between two good
considered they had done us a favor Ill returning
our deposit OF 1900 inasmuch We had forfeited it
by refusing to execute a contract for the twenty
items awarded us.
We claim that we have been treated in an En-
ceedtngy unfair manner, and no unprecedented per-
/
fact that the Engineer commissioners Chief Clerk
had Informed him that we hal refused TO sign the
contract after reading IL over prove that it
was not shown to US We 5,erer Sdtr it. Referring
to the matter Of assistance in shaping up blank
forms for the District Government, we are entitled
to far more credit than the other party, because
just when we took the contract in 1878 the various
branches OF the District Government - Health,
SCHOOLS, Police, Fire, &C-Tere placed under con-
troll o! the Commissioners and then it was that
large number OF new blank forms were required,
and we respectfully refer the Hon. Commissioners
TO the then superintendent OF Property Col. +. b.
townsend, or his successor, the present Property
clerk. Tor information as TO who assisted without
compensation In shaping them up. AS regards the
e41!dt GtrisO OF the whole OF the printing between
Two parties, when one IS entitled to twenty items
While the other Is tOony two items, we fail to
prehehd the "faifneSS or justice Of such decision,
anu doubt whether any but prejudIced mind can
appreciate 1t. As regards theravOr[? in returning
to us our deposit OF 800, alleged to have been
1elted, we positively refuse tO consider it SUCH
Any person who sends respectful business letter
20 The commissioners Is entitled to reply; but
While we were waiting for an answer to ours,
which we certainly expected befole final action
would be taken, they directed that q contract for
al tie items be made with the Othe firm, thus de-
priying us OF the opportunity 10 execute the con-
tract, even had we desired TO do so.
After looking the matter all over, we have come
TO certain conclusions, which we think the public
will also arrive at, but which, for obvious reasons
the newspapers would decline to publish.
GIBSON BROS.
The National Theatcr.