The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-11-28
CLAIMS 1T is UNJUST
COUNCILMAN ALLEN TALKS OF
SWEEPING CONTRACTS.
oharges the Board of Works with Tn
fair observation-disclosures. Meyers's
View of the Contracts.

1t is more than probable tina the Council
will demand an investigation of the street.
sweeping and cleaning contracts which
were let by the Board of Public Works last
March. John r.. Allen. 81 member frcm the
Second ward, said, last evening:
IF Mayor Denny does not call the board
to account, / shall introduce a resolution in
the Council calling for an investigation of
the affairs of the department. / owe 1t to
my constituents. 1 don't know how such a
resolution will be received by the Council.
but 1 am going to introduce 1t, neverthe-
less"
The particular contract which Mr.. Allen
wants investigated is that for the Third
district. comprising most of the Second
ward. The College-avenue property owners
are the ones anxious for an investigation.
TIL contracts for the cleaning of College
avenue, opened by the board, March IA,
were as follows: For the first season,
Browder & Shower, Is cents per lineal foot;
Fuehring Brothers, 10 cents; Frank Ken
nington, Is cents. For the second season,
the bids were: Browder & Shower, % cents;
Fuehring Brothers, IL cents; Frank Ken
nington. Is cents. The contract for the us
trict was let to Remington. The explana-
ton made by the board at the time was
that he was the lowest bidder, when an
average was taken of all the streets in the
district. What Mr.. Allen and his constitu-
ents claim is, hat the charter does not in
tend that the property owners of one street
shall be made to pay for the work done
on another. Speaking OF this, Mr.. Allen
said: "AIr. Remington bid less on the
cleaning of broadway than the work Is
actually worth. On College avenue his bid
is excessive. There is no justice in making
the Coiiege-avenue people help pay for the
work lone on Broadway, have laid the
waiting to see what he will do"
1t was reported about the city offices
yesterday, by persons who came to inquire
regarding their STRENGTHENING assessments,
that, Mr.: Remington, the contractor, is a
brother-in-law of f. J. Meyers, of the
board. This Is a matter which Mr.. Allen
wants looked into also. When asked If he
had heard such a report he said he had,
but did not know whether it was true.
Mr.. Meyers was seen last night AND in
formed of Councilman Aliens charges. He
said:
mr.. Allen was before the Mayor last
week with the charge that we had not let
the work to the lowest bidder. The Mayor
called the board together and investigated
the matter. 1t is true that the College-ave-
the lowest bidder offered to sweep it for,
but at the beginning of the season the
board came to the conclusion that it would
be better to let the contracts in districts.
We expected a lower bid by doing that, as
contractors would not have to shift about
and lose time with their wagons and men.
On College-avenue Remington was higher
than the next lowest bidder, but by COM
piling the bids on all the streets, Kenning-
ton was the lowest bidder. By grouping
the streets in districts the sweeping ex-
pense is from Is to % per cent. cheaper
than last year. Mr. Remington is not my
brother-in-law, but the man who is my
brother-in-law, and who did not get the
contract, is Fred Fuehring. The board
acted in good faith and wanted to save the
citizens every dollar possible. / thought
fhof Ny Allan l1ndar0f001 the II
has had it explained and was, apparently,
satisfed