Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-02-08

which your committee would not en-
terrain or receive, giving as reason
that the time for receiving them had
expired.
s. That on the opening Of said
proposals az the hour above named on
the 4th day Of February, 1885, IN pub
lie by the committee aforesaid and the
city engineer, In the city engineers
Office, and after the said proposals were
duly and legally canvassed by said
committee and city engineer, said
committee made the verbal report TO
said assembled contractors that your
petitioner was the lowest bidder as re-
quired by the plans, specifications and
form of proposals governing the letting
OF the contract, and they further
stated that they would then and there
allow any other OF the bidders TO with
draw their certified checks at that
time, one or more Of whom awaited
themselves Of the offer.
Your petitioner claims that the
contract for said work should be
awarded him for the following reasons,
to.wit: That your committee on
streets, alleys, etc, was the only per-
son or persons who could ldigfWly &C
cept one OF reject any or all pro-
posals, as is set forth in the public adj
vertisements of the city engineer
which Is hereto attached, and that
their report that your petitioner was
the lowest bidder as before mentioned
was final aud binding upon the
city council, and that your honorable
body could set 1t aside for no reason,
unless the report Of the committee was
In fact false and fraudulent. Further.
more, your petitioner, when he placed
the certified checks for 5000 in the
hands OF the city enginineer, said
checks Endorsed by him to the honora.
BILE mayor, thereby released all further
control over said 5000 and making a
debt from the Traders' National bank
TO the Hon ]. 2. Smith, mayor Of this
city, and your petitioner thereby full
filled all the requirements Of your
committee on streets, alleys, etc, and
the city engineer, and was lawfully en-
titled TO receive what benefit was to be
derived from the legal performance Of
the duties OF your council committee
and your honorable council and
mayor, whose acts only were required
to complete the contract. Your petit
toner, as Aforesaid, having completed
all the legal requirements devOlving
on him, fully c0nsummates the con.
tract.
5 Your petitioner being citizen and
owner of property on the South side,
does not desire to place any obstacle
in the way OF the improvements en-
braced in the contract above referred
TO being done at once, but following
the lawful business of a contractor he
| depends for support upon the profits
arising from the performance of the
! contracts he may make, and mas
much as he considers himself right
fully and lawfully entitled to this con.
tract, he respectfully requests your
| honorable body 10 consummate said
| contract, or to cause to be paid to him
| reasonable profit which would &C.
crue 10 him If he had performed said
work at the prices named In his pro-
posal. Your petitioner estimates the
cost Of executing the above contracts
at the price of 20 cents per surface
| yard, which on the basis of his prOpO-
sal would net him the profit of 10
! cents on each surface ward,
| and inasmuch as the work con.
] templated embraces 10 S72 yards, he
Is entitled to the sum of 1857 20, which
sum he hereby demands as compensa.
ton, should your honorable body moi
see fit to consummRte said contract
with him; that the estimate of the
| profits TO be derived from this work /.
not too high, the attention of youl
honorable body is called to the estimate
made by one OF the learned council
men, in which he reached the conclu
sion that the cost of the work would
not exceed - cents per surface foot
ana he seemed TO be SO well informed
as II he had an interest In the contract
| with the party to whom he voted b
award II; that another of your honora
BILE body took an active interest In the
matter of awarding the contract, youl
petitioner would state that
the supplemental proposal
or letter accompanying the
certified check presented DURING
Ino afternoon session was written az
directed by him. Very respectfully,
e o. BROWN.
Alderman Hughes made a motion
that the petition be rejected, and dis
claimed, In support of his motion, any
motives except the the interest of the
Taxpayers on the line of the proposed
improvements.
Alderman Alexander moved that
the petition be referred to the city at
t!Sorney fora report as to the legal ques-
lions involved.
Alderman Hughes pressed his
motion TO reject but he had no second
ana after being made to understand
mat the contract with Crimmens was
not IN danger he withdrew his motion
ana the petition was referred 10 the
city attorney.
The committee on fire department
was authorized TO dispose OF sick horse
belonging to the city and used by the
Peter Smith Hose company, and pur.
chase another.
The council then adjourned.