The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-09-03
WHICH SHALL IT BE-?
fContinued from page 81

fContinued from page 81
the latter moved that a represen tative o
each of the paving companies be allowed
10 talk as long as they wanted to. He Wa
willing to stay here week if it was naces
sary.
THE BARBER COMPANY.
Speeches were finally limited to fifteel
minutes, and c. &. Squires of the Barbe
company was the first to arise. His com
pany had come into the town in good faitl
To bid on paving, and not to antagOniz
any one's interests. The Barber pavement
so far as he knew, had never been ques
toned. His company was an asphalt com
pany and did not care to do stone paving
The plant that would be put in here woult
be a permanent one, and would be KEEP
here during the five years that the pave
ment was, guaranteed for, and would bt
used for making repairs at the end of thu
guarantee. 1t was true that the
material used by the Barber com
pany came from South America
| but it was only because good asphalt had
never yet been found elsewhere. If it wal
ever proven that Utah asphalt was what
the home people represented it to be the
Barber company would use 1t. The as
phalt beds OF Utah had been examined by
representatives of the Barber company
but the company had not yet come TO the
conclusion that 1t would be durable. The
plant to be put up by the Barber company
would cost $4,000 1--WE will do you good
work with our material" he said, land
when it has been proven that your material
is good we will use yours.'' He did not
see whore the Culmer-Jennings people
came in. He supposed it was a matter
between the lowest bidders. AS to labor
the Barber company would bring to Salt
Lake but five men-all the rest OF
the men would be hired here. II
the Barber company came here now
they would be compelled to
remain. The amount Of material that will
have to be imported ia not over per cent.
providing Utah cement was used, and be
thought it quite probable that it could be.
! Home lab0rers and home teams would be
employed.
THE cULMER CLAIMS.
Fl. L. A. Culmer spoke in favor of the
Culmer-Jennings company. 1t was home
company that had spent its money here,
and proposed TO utilize home material. 1t
| PAID 1900 month in taxes to the city now.
| He claimed that his bid should be accepted
and did not believe that tho Barber COM
| pany should be considered. The bid of the
Barber company was irregular and was
not properly made out, according to the in
original bid could not be found. He
doubted that it was in existence. iii was
| it is kept out of sight by the
chairman of the board of pub
| lie works, who absolutely refused to
show to the public In his public Office q
public document The board of public
works had not followed out the line that it
should have done. The samples submitted
by the Wasatoh Asphsltum company to the
hco nd of h liz had hao an
opened to ascertain whether or not they
were as good or better than the others.
This was wrong. AS to the manner in
which his company would do the work, it
would be done quicker and better than any
one else could possibly do it. The Utah
| asphalt was all right and the company
| would prove it if it was awarded the con-
tract. The plant owned by the Culmer-
Jennings company cost $22, 600. All this
some day In the future they would get pub
lie recognition. If the home company was
to be thrown TO one side for the
benefit of foreigners, it would
mean the death of the Wasatch
Asphaltcm company, and then what
other asphalt company would follow in its
train. 1t would mean that the big asphalt
deposits of Utah would forever remain IN
touched. "Can you," he asked, las repre-
sentatives of the public, afford to take such
q courses We confidently expect you to do
what you ought to do, and you ought to
give il TO us.''
RYAN d GRIFFIN's CLAIM.
Mr.. Griffin of Ryan & Griffin spoke for q
few moments in favor of the contract being
awarded to his firm. He reiterated the
arguments made in their letter above.
They believed in the use of home material
and would use it if it was as good as any
other. Their plant was the equal of any.
They had never made failure of any job
they had undertaken. 1t was because of
their knowledge of the business that they
were enabled to underbid all competitors
The Barber company's bid was informal
and should not be recognized-in fact the
bid of Ryan & Griffin was the only COM
plete one before the board of public works
Theye were the lowest bidder by Sl75.
The plant they expected to put in would
cost SIS, 900. If the contract were awarded
TO them the paving would be pushed TO
completion at the earliest opportunity
The firm was entirely responsible. 1t had
done but very little asphaltum work, but
it was able and capable of employing
skilled labor
This closed the arguments of the repre-
sentatives OF the various companies.
THE QUESTION OF REJECTION.
Wantland wanted to know whether, in
case the bid of the Barber company was
rejected, it would be necessary TO read
vertise, or whether CONTRACT could be
made with one of the other bidders.
Lawson sprung the point that no con-
tract had been let; all bids were now I'M
der consideration by the council, and it had
the right to accept which IL chose.
Moran thought the only question before
the house was the rejection or adoption Of
the report of the board of public works.
Rich said If the rejection of the report
would defeat paving this fall, he would
hardly like to be party to it.
Moran favored the rejection Of the re-
port. The law said that all contracts
should be let to the lowest responsible
bidder, and it certainly had not been fol-
lowed by the board Of public works. No
one has said that Ryan & Griffin were not
responsible. The firm had made ashowing
that should convince the council that it
was responsible.
Beardsley said it was free-for-all race
and these bidders came as men, to be
treated as men. Ryan & Griffin had COM
piled with all the requirements and were
entitled to the reward.
Horn was in favor of throwing the bids
open again. He wanted the bidders to have
fair chance, and the contract let to the
lowest responsible bidder. 1t would not
delay the paving very much.
Wantland again asked whether it would
be necessary to re-advertiae for bids in
case the report of the board was not
adopted.
Karrick did not see any necessity for re-
advertising. The matter could be referred
back to the board of public works for cor
rection or alteration.
After several Intellectual attempts to adj
iourn, the motion finally carried, and the
question Of adopting the report of the board
of public works will come up again next
Tuesday evening.