St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-08-30
two and three years.

Fred +. Guion. $500. 10000 $1,000 f., 600
Nicholas Feyen.. -. 2a.009 $1,000 $4,000
w. j. Preston %, 400 800 $500
Isaac A. Grant 49,. 24,009 $1,000 $500
Joseph A. SaTsome. $3.50 47.520 Us, c40
Thomas Gahan $50. 26.400 1920 6S. 400
Isaac A. Grant. $4,000 $4,000 e, 900
King & Ringer. 49, 10000 $4,000 $4,000
There was some talk of considering
only those bids which provided for the
disposal of garbage by the cremation or
reduction process, but this was voted
down and all bids considered.
Mr.. Murray. who represented GuIon.
said none of the bids were too high. At
$4,000 year, allowing 10000 houses in
the city, which was putting it low, it
would only be 81 per house to remove
the garbage. The cheapest and best
bid under the specifications was. he
thought, that of his client. who agreed
to take the garbage down the river ten
miles on ScOwS in summer. and by rail
in winter The city could not get much
the worst of it, as, under the speclca-
tons, it could at any time annul the
contract by three-fourths vote.
Thomas Gahan'S attorney said it was
not question Of dollars and cents or
the lowest bidder. but who would do
the best work, which the committee
should consider. The figures submitted
by his client were as low as the work
could be done for in a proper manner.
King & Ringer representative said 1t
was impossible to do the work well,
visit each house in the central part of
the city daily and the others each alter
nate day at the figures submitted by
some of the bidders. While the firm he
represented had submitted figures
owing to the Trims desire to do the
work we'll and an understanding of
what was demanded. His firm was the
only one to mention they could COM
mence the work within thirty days if
given the contract.
The attorney who talked for Patrick
White said the contract should be let to
the lowest bidder. The position taken
that because the figures submitted were
larger the work could be or would be
| much better done was not 4 good one.
The city, he claimed, had been mulcted
out of large amount of money by this
theory. Mr.. White would give bond
for tile faithful performance Of the
work, and under the law the committee
could do nothing but let the contract to
the lowest responsible bidder who had
filled all the requirements of the Speci-
fications. Unless it were found that
White was not responsible, the commit
tee must award him the contract. The
representatives of all firms that had
submitted bids having been heard, Mr..
Johnson suggested an executive session,
and all but the reporters, health
commissioners and city attorney
filed out. A discussion followed as
to allowing reporters at the executive
session. Reardon, Montgomery, Daly
and Johnson were in favor of putting
them out, and Copeland and Conley
wanted an open meeting. DAILY finally
changed his vote, and the meeting was
declared an open session.
Mr.. COnley moved that White be
awarded the contract. and Mr.. Mont
gOmery seconded the motion. Mr.. Rear
don said he wouldn't vote for the low
est bidder.
DR.. Hoyt explained that under the
barrel system of collecting garbage it
would take 1920 to secure an outfit.
|. The territory included go miles of
street, and about one-ffth of the city
will have 20 be visited daily and the re-
manning four-fifths every other day.
To do this would require fifteen two
horse teams. which would allow
each team to cover ten miles.
The expenses of operating the barrel
system would cost s25,500 per year for
the collection alone. Under the steel
cart system the cost of securing an out
fit and operating it would be S225. 800 a
year tor the collection alone.
Mr.. Conley again renewed his motion
to award the contract to Patrick White.
Mr.. Reardon wanted the bond fixed at
double the amount of the contract, and
it to be approved by the mayor. This
was done, as was also the motion TO
recommend that the contract be let for
only two years.
Mr.. Copeland wanted the contract
awarded TO Isaac Grant at $4,000 Tor
the two years.
Mr.. DAILY thought White couldn't do
the work. MIR. Conley said the way
things looked, it would be better to
give The contract to Isaac
Grant without going through the formal
lty of advertising for bids. Mr. Reardon
| didn't want to skip White and go to
| Grant. Mr.. Johnson said the city would
| be in trouble if the contract were
awarded to White, as he didn't think
Whites figures were large enough to
do the work properly. Mr.. Copeland
| wanted Grant to get the contract, as he
| was now practically doing the work and
had all the necessary wagons and bar
rels, and was responsible. White was
| put through a severe DISCRIMINATION
| by Copeland, johnson and Hoyt as to
| contract. On the motion of Mr.. Conley
to award the contract to White, only
Montgomery and COnley voted for it.
| On motion of Mr.. Copeland the bids
| of Guion and Feyen were not accepted.
| The motion to award the contract to w.
| j. Preston was lost, johnson. Reardon
and Conley voting for it and Copeland,
Montgomery and DAILY against it.
| Preston kicked hard about this. claim
ing he was responsible and would give
bonds for the work being done accord
ing to specifications. He admitted he
would take the garbage ten miles from
the city and bury, it. He didn't say Just
where, but would know just as soon as
His bondSmen, Patrick Keigher and
Thomas Manning, were good men
| and were interested with him should he
secure the award. Mr.. Copeland moved
| that the contract be awarded to Isaac A.
Grant for two years at 1000. DR..
Hoyt put in Il plug for Grant. which
caused Mr.. Reardon to remark that
HOyt'S advocating the awarding of the
contract to Grant was the worst feature
| of the business. The motion was car
| ried, Reardon voting no and the other
five yes. Mr.. Reardop said he was
| under the impression that no contract
had been let, as it must go to the low.
est bidder. The assistant city attorney
held to the view, as expressed by Mr..
Reardon, and said the report must show
that the contract was awarded to Grant
either because ne had the best system,
or because he was the lowest responsible
bidder. This put different view OF
the matter. and after deal of talk the
motion was reconsidered and the con
tract awarded to w. J. Preston, Mr.
Copeland and Mr.. Montgomery voting
against it. Mr.. Copeland threatened t.
| nut in a minority report. and the com