The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-11-03

this city for $40, 400, which contained
provision that instead of being bound
| 10 use the Pauly patent device, other:
equally as good should be used.
1 Yet the chairman of the Jail com
mittee, Mr.. O'Meara, recommended tt
the city council that the contract bt
awarded to another firm who haG
agreed to use the Pauley devices, fol
S24, 455. 1t would appear from this thai
/ there was a strong desire on the part
| OF O'Meara to favor the Pauley com.
pany, else why should the bidder using
their device be given $4.055 more thar
| the other bidder?
| whether the council would have ap-
proved of this method or not will
never be known, as that body discover
ed 1T had no authority to let the con-
tract. that power being vested in the
board of public works.
Mr.. Davis Communication.
On this subject a communication
from John E. Davis was published in
Ihe Herald some time ago which in
TINS connection is worth reproducing
and is as follows:
To the Editor of The Herald:
In the morning paper there is an ar
tlcle about the city jail and I will ask
your space for brief reply as I was
not allowed to answer at the council
meeting last evening. Mr. O'Meara makes
a statement that | said that he carried
a Pauly Jail model to the police SER
geants room, and admits carrying the
plans calling for Pauly devices which is
distinction without material difference.
MY metallic display weighs about one
hundred pounds, yet he wanted the
council to get the impression it was a
small model. etc, and that L ought to
have brought it to him
He also said that l protested against
Iurnlshlng the key bar device and in
!offering 1T; what I was offering in writ
ing was "T'' bar construction but he
saw fit to give it twisted
He also said in substance last evening
that they had to select home work, and
conveyed the idea that I was not here
until after the plans were decided upon,
when 1t happens that l was here ten
DAYS before the architect, Mr. Hale. was
selected. or at least appointed, and this
would indicate long purpose to adopt
the Pauly Jail devices.
The situation as it now stands is that
for the vindication of the chairman, Mr..
O'Meara, your taxpayers will pay the
difference between $24, 455 and 800, 000-be-
ing the snug little sum of 81, O55-which
Craig & Atkinson, a local firm, and not
Ncarpetbaggers' can explain. whose bid
was thrown out by the committee be-
cause 1T did not conform with the re-
ouirements to furnish Pauly Jail devices,
and of course my great crime has been
10 nght against this wrong which seems
SO deeply planted that the city council
approves of rather than to investigate.
l will refrain from lowering myself to
personal attacks, but will add here that
l am indicated without dollar of cost
where I am known, and [ very much
regret that it threatens to cost this city
the snug little sum of $1,000 to vindicate
an alderman.
L shall be very glad to furnish the jail
part for the price named by Craig &
Atkinson, less their bid of s7,40O for the
structural work.
1 submit these facts to the taxpayers
of Salt Lake City, and would suggest
a double standard for bidding as well
as for the metal of the country, as /
am not monometallist in any sense.
Respectfully yours, JNO. E. DAVIS.