The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-29
One MORE OPINION
An individual Expresses His Views on
That Bridge Contract Award.
VERY MUCH CROSS FIRING
The Subscriber Believes There Is
No Necessity FOR the Amount OF
Newspaper Criticism That
Has Been Applied.

GREAT FAILS, April 1.-THE following
communication has been sent to this
Office by citizen Of Fort Benton:
To the Editor of the Standard:
"This proposition has been discussed
through the columns of the Chinook Opin-
ion and the Benton River Press at inter-
walls for some time past and neither has in
my opinion clearly set forth the facts.
Whether or not the neglect to do 30 has
been ignorance of the matter or q desire
to mislead the public is not for the writer
to say. The River Press intimates that
there may havc been jobbery, and rakes
the commissioners up one side and down
the other for not awarding the contract to,
the lowest bidder. The River Press evi-
IDENTIFY did not take tho trouble to inquire
into the merits Of the several plans laid
before the board, but seems to have
Jumped at the conclusion that the lowest
bid should have been accepted prospect.
I've Of other considerations.
"This matter has been discussed 90
many times that Il seems waste of time
to 10 into details again. but in order to
esNat the facts IL will be necessary to do
so. Let II be said that the average county
commissioner knows little about plans.
specifications and strain sheets OF
bridge. Fortunately the commissioners
had at their service at this time NJ. s.
Darling, whose ability and integrity no
man has . right or reason to question.
"As stated in the River Press OF Jan. 2,
there were four bids submitted, as fol-
lows: o. Z. Pefford. $i,872; Gillett-
Herzog company, $l,547; King Bridge
company, 81 SOL; Campbell, Sl.725. These
bids were opened about noon and dis
cussed until evening, at which time they
were put in the hands of County Sur
veyor Darling, with instructions to report
on the merits or dement's OF each propo-
sition at 10 o'clock the next day; which
he did as follows: Il have examined the
different plans submitted. and find that
the plans of Pefforl are the only ones
that meet the denand OF the advertise
ment. find the Gillett-Herzog plans to
show bridge two feet shorter than asked
for; that while tho King bridge is n nice
little bridge Of good pattern, it is figured
on basis of 80 pounds to the foot, while
your proposals indicate that you ask for
9O-pound strain. The Campbell bridge,
while a substantial wooden structure, ca
pable of the desired strain, would not, IN
my opinion. be desirable bridge for the
reason that 1t is wholly of wood, and in
this country of high winds ii would be liza
BILE to DO blown down.
"This report by Mr. Darling settled the
m utter, and the bid OF Pefford was ac-
cepted and the contract awarded TO him.
The River Press of July quotes the law
to some extent governing the construc-
ton of public bridges, but seems to have
overlooked tho fact that probably no two
concerns who are in the bridge business
construct their structures on the same
plan, and his idea as set forth in the issue
OF April %, that the plans of one con-
tractor or firm should be submitted to all
the other competitors, indicates that he
does not know what he is talking about.
Each bidder submits the plans OF q GER
tain kind of bridge which Is manufac-
tured by the company he represents. ami
none of his competitors would bid on
such plans even were they asked to do SO.
| The law no doubt contemplates that the
commissioners shall select from among
the various bids submitted the one which
| in their Judgment will best s,rve the pur-
pose for which IL is intended. II the law
was SO constructed as to require the
county commissioners to have plan
drawn, giving all details Of constructions,
| then il would be In order that they should
award the contract to the lowest RESPONSE
BILE bidder, and IL they did not do SO they
would lay themselves open to the severest
censure and criticism.
"The Opinion is in error IL IL supposed
that official plans were prepared on which
the above bids were based. and that all of
the bidders were bidding on the same
plan of construction. Newspaper criti-
cisms are sometimes productive OF much
good, but it would look to an outsider
that for the past few months both of the
above mentioned journals have been in
dulging q cross fire at each other. which
has not only been misleading on several
points, but has cast reflections on the in
tegrity of individuals without just cause,
and without benefit TO the reading public
and the taxpayers of Chotcau equity.
"A SUBSCRIBER"