The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1894-05-08

The majority of bills we're in good
shape, the first objection being to that OF
Mr.. Baggs, supervisor of the stone road
between Beverly and Delanco.
Mr.. Stackhouse stated that be drove
from one end of the road to the other on
a certain day. and did not see the super
visor anywhere, but the contractor said
he was at the other end" Two men
were at work on the stone and two were
hauling, Mr.. Stackhouse thought it rath-
err expensive to pay man SIS per day to
oversee two men at work.
Mr.. Vansciver knew nothing of the
particular day referred to by Mr.. Stack
house. but he did know that Bags had
given strict attention to the road, and had
evidently done his duty. The bill was
paid.
Mr.. Stack house asked the Director if he
had signed the contract for the stone road
between Evesboro and Cross Roads. The
Director said he had not because he un-
derstood that the firm to whom the con-
tract WAS awarded did not want IT.
Mr.. McGovern, representing the New
jersey Paving and Construction Com
pany, was allowed to make statement.
When his company bid on the job, their
engineer made mistake, but he under
stood that Mr.. Craig was to have the con-
tract There was some hitch in the lat
ter case, however, and Craig was thrown
over, thus leaving the New Jersey Conn
pany the lowest bidder. Mr.. McGovern
said that he told some of the committee
that he did not want the work at that
price. Mr.. McGovern said There is no
use in doing bad work, and good work
cannot be done for the money. If con-
tractor is compelled to take the job at the
figures quoted. he will do something he
ought not to.
There was bond of 81 900 accompany
ing the bid, and Mr.. Evans moved thai
the bond be released and the contract re
scinded. S-s
Mr. Stackhouse opposed. The company
bid conscientiously. They were not ask
ed to make mistakes, and if they did 81
that was their lookout. To let up in thiI
case would cost the county at least 81, 900
and he did not propose to be party t.
any such action.
Mr.. LIppincott thought it would be es
tabllshing a bad precedent to adopt thi
/ notion 1t would be an incentive fo
other contractors to bid low for work anC
: then, if they did not want to do it, to sa.
a mistake was made.
Mr. Vansciver thought it best not t
! press the collection of the bond. H
T thought 1t would be an incentive to tax
advantage of the county if this compan
4 was compelled to do the work at tn
figures in their bid.
o Mr. Stackhouse again said that the mat
ter of bidding was entirely in the hand
/ of the contractor. Mr.. McGovern had toll
him he had to bid low to get work
o Mr.. McGovern was allowed to speak
second time. He said that he told tn
! committee the day the bids were opene
b that there was a mistake, but was toll
4 that Craig was to have the contract
II tuS DbdIu loiCou a hhah w w bho WI
d at the figures named it would force hin
It to do something that he would not wal
i to do.
Mr.. Wright called attention to the fa'
that the New Jersey Company had oth'
contracts. The profits on one might bs
Is ance another. He had never heard of
p contractor letting up on the county,
g. suggesting that the latter had made mi
:. take.
Solicitor Chambers was asked for {