The record-union., 1896-04-21

| boiler will cost more. He believed If
| they Were not adopted that the board
| should reject all bids and advertise
| anew
Mckay said that Mr. Stoddard had
| told him that the Babcock & Wilcox
| boilers We're the best offered.
Kent and Leonard had not Under
stood Mr.. Stoddard that way.
Considerable discussion ensued, and
! the bidders were allowed five minutes
each to present their cases.
! Charles Moore, for the Babcock &
Wilcox boilers, said that he had sub
mltted a number of bids for three boil
ers, after consulting several of the
Trustees and the Chief Engineer of the
| Water Works as to the necessities Of
! the city. He claimed that two of the
expert committee were not experts, and
knew nothing of water-tube boilers.
They had stated that their report was
based on the price He denied that his
bid was any higher than that of the
Heine boiler His boiler had borne the
test of comparison, and the difference in
price was more than compensated by
the superior quality They have been in
use for number of years by the Cap
Z
satisfaction. If they are adopted by
the board 81 200 of the price will be
spent for labor in Sacramento
Mr. Leland, for the Risdon Iron
Works, who have the Hefne boiler. rec-
commended by the expert committee,
spoke next. He claimed that the Bah
cock & Wilcox bids were higher than
MS, and also that the expert commit
tee was composed of experts. Had he
known that three boilers were wanted,
| he would have hidden on three. He
| asked the board to reject the bids and
give him another chance
j. A. Cunningham Of this city entered
/ a protest against accepting the bid for
| the Heine boilers, on the ground that
1t did not comply with the specifications
as 10 the number of square feet of heat
ing surface, and therefore could not, in
| Justice to the Others be considered He
| contended that the Heine boilers only
offered 2,166 feet of heating surface
while his offered 4,50O feet, and their
life would be longer than that of the
Heine- He therefore claimed the con-
tract.
Mr.. Dundan of San Francisco claimed
that his bid on tubular boilers offered
the full power asked for, and he did not
think it fair to accept one which Of
tered only seven feet, while he offered
fifteen. He considered that it would
be an outrageous injustice to adopt the
Heine boilers
Mr.. Leland said that where boilers are
constructed for 150 horsepower the
tube is thin, the circulation rapid and
III a water tube boiler the power can be
got out of 1I5 to feet. His boilers
have a certain established rating, and
he put them in at that basis.
Mr.. Dundan said his boiler could.
with ordinary fuel eraporate thirty
pounds Of water with eight feet Of heat
ing power, and do it better than a water
tube boiler. Under certain conditions
horse-p power can be produced with
four pounds of surface.
Mr.. Moore said that Mr. Leland had
omitted one important point that Mr.
Dundan could not deny. The figuring
on power Of water tube boilers varies
and he had furnished boilers with all
the way from 6 to 101A feet surface. 1t
was allowed on all hands that a water
tube boiler can evaporate more water
IN given time than a tubular one
Tozer said he would like the legal as
rect of the question TO be referred to the
Corporation Counsel and postponed till
Friday night
Kent opposed the motion as child's
play, and wanted to amend to reject all
bids and advertise again.
Davis said that the expert committee
recommended three boilers, but adopted
only two.
Kent's amendment was lost, and To-
GERS motion. changed to next Monday
night, was carried.
The matter Of connecting Mr. Sauces
house with the water mains came up.
and Kent said the Board of Plumbing
Examiners would not examine Mr.
Sauze, as they claimed to have no time
Mr.. Seadler, for the board, said that
Mr. Sauze came before the board ard
commenced to pass an examination. bur
made the excuse that his eyes troubled
him and quit. He set another time to
be examined, but had never appeared.
As Mr.. Sauze wished to connect with
the main the matter was referred to
the Corporation Counsel.
SPRINKLING BIDS.
the bidders were as follows: Henry
Dehn, John Wall. W. A. Glover. Jane;
Finnegan Charles E .Meister, Jacob
KEEPER, Joseph Dias. A. f. Silva. A L.
Rosa, NJ. Jacinto. c. A Smith, Gus
Smith. T. NJ. Burns, Manuel F Silvaro.
G. A. Burns. i. f. Spurgeon. E. Twad-
die, A. Meiss, Frank Gracia, John
Hughes, Joseph Nasimento and An
tcnio King.
Mr.. Meister's bid for the total sprink-
ling was SS.440 but Kent and Devine
wished to divide it UP SO that no one
contractor could have more than one
district Leonard also favored the dis
tribution between different bidders.
Tozer said that Meister's bid was
81, 165 less than the aggregate Of all the
lowest bids of the others and that the
hid should be accepted.
Devine said that If the bids could not
be distributed legally he would move to
reject all bids. Kent seconded the mo-
tion.
MIR. Meister said he paid taxes here
and was entitled to ds fair treatment as
anyone else.
Several members claimed that some
farmer was going to furnish the horses
and they wanted to shut out outsiders.
and give poor men in the city a chance.
Kent said he ordered the provision for
distributing the work put in the speci-
fication. but it was not done Pennish
wanted to know by what authority he
- - -