The record-union., 1891-04-30
STREET SPRINKLING.
New Bids Therefor Several Thousand
Dollars Lower,
But They still Exceed the Limit of the
Sprinkling Fund-What Is
to BE- Done2

ing yesterday afternoon for the purpose
of receiving new bids for contracts for
sprinkling the public streets. Proposals
were received from fifteen persons and
firms.
While the figures are much below those
submitted ten days ago, the lowest for
six months, for the several districts, are
high enough to absorb the full amount
that will be available for the year, under
the limitation placed by law upon the
power of the board in this direction.
The Trustees will meet this afternoon
to take action on the bids, and as the re-
lection of the former bids resulted in a
reduction of some $1,000 for six months
sprinkling, it might not be bad idea
for the board to do a little more rejecting,
and perhaps another trial may bring the
bids down to such a reasonable figure
that the city may see its way to have the
streets wet down for more than six
months Of the year.
The public has been raising its voice
long and loudly against the present sys-
tenn, which permits the city to be clouded
in dust in the spring months-and some
times in the fall-and the Trustees appear
TO be earnest III their expressed desire to
let the sprinkling contracts for at least
nine months of the year.
No charge for water is made to the con-
tractors, and most of them employ
youths, to whom they do not have to pay
full wages, TO drive their carts. 1t would
seem, therefore, that the work can be
done more cheaply than is now proposed.
There are all sorts of rumorS afOat of
alleged combinations among the contract
OrS, and as but few persons are prepared
to do that kind of service it is not unrea-
SOnable to suppose that there may be
some foundation for these rumors.
If the City Trustees should become
| assured that any scheme has been CON
cOcted whereby the city is to be placed at
| the mercy Of a handful Of contractors,
they might be justified in considering
some other plan for having the work
done.
Some taxpayers have even suggested
the advisability of the city procuring its
own outfit and having the sprinkIing
done to suit itself If individuals can
make profit on sprinkling contracts,
why cannot the city save money by do
ing the work itself?
Following are the bids submitted yes
terday:
John Beck-For sprinkling District No.
Z, $50 for six months, s., 100 for nine
months, $3.50 for twelve months; also,
for sprinkling District No. 3, 81, 400 for
-.
S2, 100 for twelve months.
Henry Dehn-District No. 8, 81 100 for
six months, $1,000 for nine months,
81, 800 for twelve months; also, District \ O.
8, Sl,790, Sl,940 and S2,I4O for the re-
spective periods; also, District No. 6,
81, 100, 81 $40 and 81, 10 for the periods.
J. Burns-for six months, $500, $500
and $780, for District No. 2, 2,49O, $500
and $3.50; for District No. 3, 81, 800, S2l5
and $780, for District No. 6, 81, 200, $3.50
and $500; for District No. 9, $l,O73,s S137
and $I97.
NJ. Enright-District No. 3, 81, 800, $500,
$500; District No. 7, 81 500, SI50, $500; Dis
trict No. 3, 81 800, $50, $500.
w. A. Gloyer-District No. S, 81. 100.
Sl75; District No. 8, 81, $50, Sl35.
John Beck-District No. 3, s., 400,
$3.50, $500; District No. 7, 81 $50, -, 100,
a. L. Rosa-District No. /, 50. 200, $500,
$500; District No. 2, Sl,79O, $500, $500
j. Wall-District No. 2, $3.50, s., 200,
$3.50.
a. L. Silva-District No. 5, 81, $50, $3.50,
S250; District No. 6, 81, $50, $3.50, $3.50.
p. McHale-District No. /, 50, l4O, $3.50.
$3.50; District No. 2, 81, ,735, $50, $40: Dis
trict No. 4, 81 ,6S9, Sl50, S225.
NJ. Gorman-District No. 4, s., 500. 500.
Sl50; District No. Z, 1920, $500, $3.50; Dis
trict No. 9, 81, ,l75, 500, Sl50; District No.
s, 81, ,000, 500, $3.50; District No. 2, s., 400,
$3.50, $3.50.
Milton Brady-District No. l. s., ,3S5,
$500; District No. 2, s., 200, $50; District
No. 3, $500, $3.50; District No. 4, 81 200.
$40; District No. ), 81, 900, $500; District
No. 8, $1,000. $500; District No. I, 81, ,25O,
$500; District No. s, 81 800, $500; district
No. 9, $500, 5000. These figures are for
the first six months and last three months
of the year.
Antoine King-Dstrict No. 5, S.. 900; Dis
trict No. 4, 81 800; District No. 5. 81, ,4g9:
District No. 6, 81 ,6S5; District No. Z, s., COO:
District No. 8, 81 200; District No. 8, s., ,I99
For second three months, $3.50, $3.50, $780,
$3.50, $500, sl50 $3.50. For last three
months, $500, 500, 500, 500, 500, $3.50,
$50.
John Hughes-D District No. ], s.. 800.
$500, $500; District No. 2, 81, 200, $500, $500:
District No. 3, $500, $50, $500; District
No. 4, Sl,S75, 500, $3.50; District No. Z,
s., 600, 500, 500; District No. s, 81 $50.
500, 500; District No. 8, $1,000, 500,
500.
Karser Bros.-District No. 7, 81, 800, $50.
500.
Il. NJ. Burns-District No. l, s., ,397: Dis
trict No. 2, $3.50; District No. 8, 81, ,345:
District No. 6, 81, ,547; District No s, s., ,229.
For second three months, 500, 500, Slg7,
Sl60, $40. For last three months, S26O,
$40, $3.50, Sl75, Sl60.