St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-24
VOTED TO READvERTlsE
F0R BIDS 10 LIGHT STREETS WITH
GASOLINE.


All Bids for Gasoline Lighting
and Try 1t Over Again-The
| Acme Company Has Three
Supporters.
| The principal business before the
meeting of the board of aldermen was
| the consideration of the bids fol the
lighting of the gasoline lamps of the
| city for the year 1894. Three b,ls were
opened by the council Oh Nov. Z and
referred to the committee ON gas for
tabulati0n and report. The commit
tees on gas from both bodies have held
several sessions. and the final report,
which was published in yesterdays
| GLOBE, was handed in at the meeting
yesterday afternoon. After speeches
from several of the aldermen and at
torneys representing the contractors,
the report Of the committee recommend
ing the rejection OF all bids and the re-
| advertising for new proposals was
adopted by a vote of to 5. Aid. Cullen.
| Franklin and Hickman voting against
! such action.
The eleven members were in their
seats promptly at o'clock, and the
clerk read communication from the
Acme Vapor Stove company, stating
that the firm had made the lowest bid.
and demanded that the contract for the
! lighting be awarded to it. If this was
| not done the company would hold the
| city liable for the loss occasloned to
| them 10y the arrangements made on the
| superstition that being the lowest bid
ders the contract would be awarded
| to them.
President Hickman said that arepre-
! sentative of the Acme company was
present and would like to be heard on
would prefer to wait until the report
OF the committee on gas was submitted.
The report stated that larger number
| OF lamps would be needed than $500
mentioned in the bid, and as the COM
mittee was unable to agreed as to the
lowest responsible bidder, they recon-
mended the rejection of all bids and
reimbursement on the basis of not less
than $500 or more than $500 lamps to
be lighted.
ID. f. Stevens, speaking for the Acme
company, said that there was no ques-
tion but that the council, as business
men with the interests of the city at
heart, should award the contract to the
lowest bidder. The committee had
stated that it was unable to agree, but
| that was no good reason why new bids
| should be advertised for. The company
| ne represented had submitted bid in
answer to proposals, and it was legiti-
mate III every way. 1t had been claimed
that this company could not do the
work, and had no knowledge of the
work to be done. That they had full
| filled the requirements up to date, and
| were willing to give bonds for the
| proper performance of the contract, was
answer enough to this statement Ii il
was the policy only to allow those who
had done good work in city contracts in
the past to be awarded contracts, then
the charter should be changed in this
| particular, and only such contractors
| allowed to submit bids. The charter
was that only unreasonable bids could
| be rejected, and in this case there was
1 no sufficient reason why the contract
| should not be awarded to the lowest
| bidder
Aid. Cullen moved that the report of
the committee be not concurred in, and,
| speaking to his motion, he said it ap.
peared to him as though
HISTORY WAS REPEATING ITSELF.
| In 1899 the same trouble occurred in
the awarding of the lighting contract.
| Seven bids were presented at that time,
and all of the bids, with one exception,
were lower than the one put in by Rob-
ert Seeger. The same objections we're
raised at that time as now, but sooner
| or later the city would have to arrive at
the conclusion that the city could te
| lighted by other than Mr.. Seeger.
Aid. Franklin seconded the motion in
| short speech, in which he called atten-
ton to the Upright record" made by the
present council in the interest of good
| and economical government The COM
pany submitting the lowest bid stood
ready to give bonds for the carrying out
of the contract and the award should be
made to them.
Aid. Markham said the contract should
be let to the lowest responsible bidder.
The bid of the Acme company was, on
its face, the lowest, being three cents
per lamp per month lower than the bid
of Seeger. The question was not
whether the company could give bonds
enough, but whether the streets of the
city would be lighted. The contract
with Seeger did not expire until Dec.
81, and it was question whether the
| competing company could have the
system in order so that the city would
not be unlighted for several days. The
best Interests Of the city, he said, was
not to have to commence action on
bonds, but to have the streets lighted.
On the motion not to concur in the
report, Aids. Cullen, Franklin and
Hickman voted for and the other eight
against. Aid. Zimmerman then moved
that the report of the committee be
adopted, and 1t was carried by the same
vote, the three aldermen who voted for
| Inconvenience voting against the
adoption. Aid. Warren spoke in favor
of the bids being advertised for ONLY
six months, instead of a year. A large
plumber of gasoline lamps, he said,
could be done away with by the substi-
tuition of electric lights for street light
ing. The electric lighting would do
what the gasoline lamps could not and
did not delight the streets well-and
the cost would be at least 20 per cent
cheaper. His motion to have the pro-:
posals. when advertised for, make the
term six months instead of year failed
| to secure a second.
An ordinance allowing the Midway
Electric Light company to string wires
and poles in the Midway district was
returned from the city attorney with
| several amendments, and passed. The
resolution passed by the assembly order
| ing the police to arrest street railway
| employees who operated cars faster than
the ordinance allowed, was reported
| back from the committee with recon-
| mendatiOn for indefinite postponement.