Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-04-02
THE new FEDERAL BUILDING
Bid of Aument Eckman for
Doing Work Thereon.
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING IT
Copies of Letters Sent by Him
to Washington.
Stated That he Had Made Mistake in His
Estimate for the Interior Finish = The
Check Which Accompanied HIS Bid Con-
fiscated by the Government.
From Our Washington Correspondent.


Washington, March 26.-Aument
Eckman of Wilmington, Dell, has
doubtless come to the conclusion that
bidding on government work is quite
an expensive luxury. The Secretary
Of the Treasury has confiscated the 5000
check filed with his bid for the in
terror finishing of the Federal build
ing at Wilmington.
As has been heretofore published in
The Gazette Mr.. Eckman's bid of
S47, SOB was the lowest submitted. He
would have been awarded the contract
had he not written to the supervising
architect, stating that he had made a
mistake in his estimate and request
ing the return OF his check. After the
receipt of the letters, Mr.. Eckman' 8
estimate was, of necessity, thrown out
and the contract awarded to L. l..
Leach l. Son, Chicago, who we're the
next lowest bidders Mr.. Eckman
Rd6ed new phase to the case by deny
ing in published interview, that he
had made any mistake in his estimate
and expressing surprise at not receiving
the award. Treasury officials did not
take kindly to this statement which
was accepted as being an effort to
shoulder upon the supervising archi-
tect the responsibility of giving the
contract to an apparently higher bid
der. An investigation was instituted
which has resulted in the forfeiture Of
the $780,
Since the award to the Chicago firm
the case has been the subject of much
comment. The impression prevails
that the bid Of Leach II Son was lower
than that Of Mr.. Eckman. Their bid,
with the better materials substituted,
was lower than the original estimates OF
Barry Lane of Chester, and Richard.
son Burgess and G. Thomas of Wash.
ingtun. The bid of MIR. Eckman was
not considered after the authenticity of
the letters had been established Mr..
hemper, chief executive clerk of the
supervising architects Office, said that
ne was at loss to understand what
Mr.. Eckman expected to gain by put
ting the department in false light be
fore the citizens of Wilmington. As no
effort had been made by Mr.. Eckman
to explain his conflicting statements,
or to send representative here. the only
course open to the department was TO
forfeit the check and award the con
tract to the next bidder. In view of
the statement of Mr.. Eckman the fol-
lowing letters were given for pubica.
tion:
Wilmington, Del Feb. 90 1885,
Mr.. W. NJ. Martin Aiken-Dear sir
for the interior finish of post office and
cort house Of Wilmington Del have
made mistake in my estimate for the
interior finish i think it is nv Mace
to let you know at once am very sorry
that this is the case. Yours Resp.
tSigned) A, Eckmani
Wilmington Del. Feb. 20, ls96-Mr
W. Aiken-Dear sir-Recd your letter
of the 27 Had ritten YOU on the N
trusting that you have received il be.
fore this time stating that hade made
a mistake in my estimate. Will Won
kindly return check no $50 and obiipe
me Yours Rest
CsIgned. A. Ecxman
this morning my place of business and
shop and contence was DESTROYED by
fire no 705 W. sth ST.
Inc case Is peculiar one. II is very
seldom that the Secretary of the Treas
ury is called on to exercise the RIGHT ia
conflscate a check submitted with a
bld, and further investigation NAV
be instituted. The chief of the Public
Moneys division was asked by The
Gazette's correspondent whether the
amount could be recovered. 1t was
stated, in reply, that the Secretary II
the Treasury could, if convinced that
the department was in error, return
tho check, provided it had not been
deposited for collection. After the
amount is covered into the Treasury ii
nnf I,a. 81. 4
Congress.