The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-05-04
THE CITY HALL CONTRACTS.


In our issue OF April 2lst we fe!t com
PEELED 10 state editorially the facts con-
nected with the bids Of Messrs. Waddey
and Starka. as the published statements
failed. I'm our judgment. to convey those
facts clearly TO the public. We feel com
PEELED TO do the same thing In respect
to what took place before the Committee
on Grounds and Buildings Tuesday even
ing. as we think that has been so re-
ported as to fail to inform the public Of
the facts.
Mr.. Waddey bid to furnish what was
wanted in schedules j, and D for
s184O71A Mr.. Starke bid to furnish what
was wanted in schedules u. c, d and i
for $ls4837. The committee directed Mr.
Starke TO strike schedule from his
bid. so as to bring him into equal com
petition with Mr. Waddey, which Starke
did, and his bid then stood SS013.57 for
y. c and D. against Waddey's for 3lS-
4O714 for =, G and ID.
When the bids were asked for It was
stated that schedule j would need so
many Of certain articles, 100 little flies,
we will suppose, and that schedule {
would need so many little check files.
100. we will suppose and that schedule d
would need so many deed files. 100. we
Will suppose and the bidder was asked
TO name a gross sum at which he would
furnish everything needed by the three
schedules, as stated in the proposal, and
the sums named above are the response
TO this request
But at the same time they were asked
TO put in a wholly separate bid at which
they could furnish single letter
files. single check files and single
deed files. II might prove in The
course Of construction that b needed more
than 100 letter files, or less than 100, and
that c needed more than 100 check files.
or less than 100, and that d needed more
than 100 deed files or less than 100. The
committee wished to separate the bid,
therefore. that it might know how much
It would have TO pay FOR the excess, if
any. and how much 1t would get credit
for If il did not take all. and this was
stated on the face of the proposal for
the separate bid.
on Tuesday evening before the commit
tee Mr. Waddey took Mr.. Starkes bid
and multiplied the number Of articles
which each schedule was expected TO
contain by the price that Mr.. Starke
agreed TO furnish single ones of those
articles in the second bid. and ne then
claimed that the whole amounts thus
shown would make MIR. Starke's bid LARGER
than his. But it is plain that MIR. Waddey
mixed two things together that had no
relation TO each other. Starke was bound
by his bid 10 furnish schedules Il. { and
ID for SlS.O13S7 with all of each article
as called for in the specifications But
II. In construction, more Of the specified
articles should be called for than had
been specified in the calls. he would be
( paid for the additional ones at the rate
set down on his second bid: il fewer
were used than what was in the call. he
would be paid less than SlS.O7SS7. at the
rate that the articles dropped We're spe-
cited in the second bid. and this is all
/ that there was in the case
Bat 1t is quite in order TO ask why the
/ Committee on Grounds and Buildings
/ took this matter up again at all? They
had made their award. and the body 10
/ investigate 1t now is a committee Of the
/ Council. They are. Of course, not ac-
countable for the inaccurate accounts
/ Of the proceedings that went out. but
there was no reason for the committee
giving any occasion for anything what.
ever.
The Dispatch's report OF the proceed
ings before the committee has the fol
lowing.
THE city Engineer was then asked
for his views upon this whole matter
/ lie said II appeared TO him from the
runols in regard 10 the award OF these
| contracts that people were trying 10 make
mountain cut of a mole-hil."
Surprising Colonel Cutshaw to be cor.
rectly quoted. we do not know whether
he means that 4 Is to make a mountain
OF a mole-hill for objections 10 be ma Il
TO a sum OF the public money so small
as S2l0o being given away. or whether
he means that an objection TO the prin