Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-16
THE MAYORS VETO.
He Does Not Approve the
Paving Contract.
He Thinks the Price Is Alto
gether Too High.
The Bituminous Lime Rock Company
Not In II.
Was 1t sharp Practice That Kept Other
Parties From Biddins?-The Law
on the Question, Discussed
at Length.

at Length.
The paving, sewering and curbing oi
Pearl street has caused whole lot oi
talk. Mayor Hazard will have his say
today. Here is copy of his message
which will be read at the meeting of the
council today:
THE MESSAGE.
To the honorable the council of the city of Los
Angeles:
The awards to the Bituminous Lime
Rock Paving and Improvement company
for paving, sewering and curbing Pearl
and Figueroa streets are herewith re-
turned without my approval.
The law under which this work is to
be done provides for the payment of the
same in bonds, creating lien on the
property abuttine on the streets to be
improved. AS to whether these bonds,
when issued, will constitute a valid
lien on the property, is question
that has not yet been determined in
our courts, and to one about to engage
in street improvements, to be paid for
in bonds, it is very material
question, and to cast any doubt upon
the validity of the same is to discourage
bidding for work of this character Be-
fore the time for filing bids for this
work had expired, j. A. Fairchild,
member of the Bituminous Lime Rock
Paving and Improving company, showed
to Martin Marsh, who is a street con-
tractor, and was acting as the agent for
Frank Walker, another street contractor,
who is now contracting in San Fran
cisco, who had directed Mr.. Marsh to
put in bid for him on this work. an
opinion OF Messrs. Chapman and Hen
drick, reliable and reputable attorneys
OF our city, in which they declare. after
careful examination of the law,
that, in their opinion, it would
not be safe to invest in these
bonds. AS a result, Mr.. Marsh
communicated these facts to Mr. Walker,
and Mr.. Walker in consequence thereof
directed him not to bid on the work.
This opinion was also shown to Adolph
Ramish, another contractor, "entireiy
unsolicited" SO he says, by members OF
this same company, and he COMMUNE
Gated the same to ). F. Smith, street |
contractor of San Bernardino, who, in |
consequence, refrained from bidding.
This fact was also communicated to Mr.. |
Smith Dy Mr.. Hough, manager of the |
Porphyry Paving company. Suffice to say |
that as a result thereof but one bid was |
put in and that by the Bituminous Lime
Rock, Paving and Improvement COM.
pany themselves, and these contractors
claim to be justly indignant at what
they term "sharp practice" on the part 1
OF the Bltuminous Lime Rock people,
whereby they secured the award at AN
excessive figure over what the work can
be done for.
Reliable contractors offer to do this
work for much lower figure and take |
bonds in payment therefor. Whether
this opinion was circulated for the direct |
purpose of preventing others from bid
ding on this work do not know. 1t is |
quite evident, however, that it did have
that effect. and the question that pre-
sents itself to us is: Are they entitled |
to the award? / think not. To say |
that there was a fair competitive bid for |
this work under the circumstances is to |
say that competitive bidding is mere |
delusion, in which open, fair competi |
ton does not constitute an essential |
element.
l am in receipt of a communication
from Mr.. Fairchild, in which he says:
"It seems to me that, inasmuch as the
vrooman act specially provides that any
property holders feeling aggrieved at the
award OF a contract, have fiteen days
after the approval of the award in which
to enter into a property-holders' con-
tract for performing the work; that the
property-holders are fully protected,
and that it will be only fair on your (my)
part to approve the contract already
awarded to one company by your city
council"
do not agree with Mr.. Fairchild as
to the effect of property holder con-
tract, because the property holder can
only take advantage of that provision in
the law when the owners of two-thirds
of all the frontage seek to do so and are
willing to enter into contract and bond
to do not only their own work, but the
entire work on the street. / refer at
length to this clause because your hon
orable BODY will be assured, as | have
been. that il work of this kind can be |
done for less than this contract price,
that it ia in the power of the property
holders under this provision to have it
done for less; that they are not obliged |
to submit to the exorbitant bid which
may be accepted. There is absolutely
no protection whatever in this clause,
if one stops to consider the practical
workings of the same. II the property
holders should attempt to take advantage
OF this provision and endeavor to enter
into contract to do the work, no one
would be advised thereof sooner than,
the contractor, and 1t would be an easy
matter on his part to induce enough |
owners of frontage, together with the |
absentees, to refrain from uniting into
such contract to prevent it; and more
especially would this be the caee If
there was margin Of profit enough in
the contract to make it an object for
him to refrain from doing so. In my judg-
ment, this clause was inserted in the
street law, not to enable the property
owner to have his work done for a rea-
sonable price and to afford him protec-
tion thereby, but was inserted for the
very purpose of making him believe he
was protected when such is not the case.
If the law permitted every property
holder who might be dissatisfied with