St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-29

lowest bid of the several submitted was that
Of the Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing COM
pany, Of Minneapolis. The afnonnE Of this
bid was $a, 1891 Considerable controversy
arose over the awarding Of the contract, as
the Wisconsin Bridge and Iron company, of
Milwaukee, insisted that its bid was the
lowest one that conformed strictly with the
specifications, but the council finally awarded
the contract to the Minneapolis concern.
This occurred about May 1. Prior to the
awarding of the contract, a verbal under
standing was had with Vice President Clough
and other officials of the Great Northern
Railroad company, as to what share of the
cost of the Como avenue bridge the railroad
company would pay. 1t was agreed that the
road would share one-third of the total ex-
pense, whatever that might prove to be. But
while the Great Northern consented to pay
one-third Of the costs, its representatives did
not enter. into any agreement to advance the
entire one-third as soon as the total cost
could be ascertained Upon this point de-
pends ]. ]. McCardys whole and sole de-
fense, for he insists that the railroad COM
pany agreed to advance the entire one-third
of the cost of the bridge In lump sum. The
fact that the railroad officials might have
been asked to do this and might not have
uttered any objections at the time, did not
bind them.
To proceed, the contract awarded to the
Minneapolis firm was sent to the city comp
troller on May IA to be countersigned. And
here it struck snag. McCardy refused to
countersign it until the Great Northern Rail-
road company should advance it's one-third
share of the cost IN lump sum. This re-
quest the Great Northern company positively
declined to accede to. Its reply was that it
stood ready to advance Its proportionate one
third to help pay the monthly estimates of
the contractors as they came DUE. In other
words, the railroad company proposed to pay
its share of the cost in the same manner as
the city, namely, at the end Of each month.
1t did not by any means propose to hand
over to the city one-third of s31 coo in cash,
in advance of the performance Of the work.
But McCardy, with his customary stubborn
ness, would not yield. For two months and
more he held that contract in his possession
without countersigning it. Then what did he
do? Why one day in July he countersigned
ii, without securing any concessions from
tHo Gredt NoTCnefu, w ally Shnh6O IL snS
terms of the contract. J This act amounted
to confession that he was In the wrong.
Then what occurredf In consequence Of the
inexcusable and lengthy delay, the Minneapo-
lis contractors were unable TO fulfill the con-
tract at the price named, owing to the ma
terial increase in the pricescf iron, steel and
other materials as we'll as labor. AS the
delay arose through no act of the contractors
but was purely the fault of the city comp
troller the Minneapolis firm withdrew and
declined to build the bridge under the terms
OF the contract awarded early in May. The
consequence was that the city was obliged
to readvertise for bids for constructing the
bridge. The lowest bidder this time proved
to be the Wisconsin Bridge and Iron COM
pany, of Milwaukee, but their bid amounted
to $S7, ,793.4S, or just exactly s6604.17 in ex-
cess of the former bid Of the Minneapolis
firm.
What was the result? The bridge was an
absolute necessity, and the council followed
the inevitable course before it by awarding
this contract was sent to Comptroller Nc
Cardy for his signature he scratched his
name on it mighty quick. Yet with the
exception Of the amount and the dates, this
contract was precisely the same as the one
he held two months without signing. Nor
had the Great Northern changed its mind
about handing over its money in advance.
The sMiIvaukee cencerH went to work early
in September. and the bridge is now prac-
tically completed
But it has cost the taxpayers of st. Paul
Just s6,604 II more than It would have cost
but for ]. ]. McCardy's bullheaded blunder.