The herald., 1897-04-28
in good taste for us to express an opin-
ion. Yours truly,
HARPER & REYNOLDS COMPANY.
WHAT MIR. DAVIS SAYS

| CnarleS CdSSdl DdNls Hldue tiS lOi-
| lowing statement
The hardware controversy arose sew
eral meetings ago, when I asked how 1t
was that the board was buying hardware
of others than Harper & Reynolds Co..
with whom we had a yearly contract.
The chairman of the building supplies
| committee, stated that the committee
would not recognize that contract be-
cause Harper & Reynolds had broken 1t
by over-charges. l asked what right he
or his committee had to ignore contract
of the board. He maintained that the
committee could ignore it and would
never recognize it; and he claimed fur
ther that the contract was invalid.
An examination of the two hardware
| bills, aggregating about $780, which had
been bought from Furrey G. Co.. showed
that about one-fourth of the bills was
for hardware, while the balance was FOR
plumbing materials. 1 asked Harper
& Reynolds to make an examination OF
the bill for the purpose of ascertaining
what their prices would have been under
the contract as compared with those in
the bill which had been paid. They
made me statement, explaining that 1t
had been hurriedly made, but that 1t
was substantially correct, which showed
that the prices at which they would have
been bound to furnish the goods under the
contract were at least 20 per cent below
the prices paid. stated this to the board
in opposing the paying of other bills
made contrary to this contract. for the
simple reason that the city was paying
prices very much above those at which
it seemed we could get the goods, and at
the same time violating a contract with
a reputable firm.
The building supplies committee in
sisted that the contract with Harper &
Reynolds had been violated by Harper
G. Reynolds in their over-charges; and
that therefore 1t had no further exist
ence. They claimed, too, that it was in
valid because the contract provided for
all other articles than those specified to
be furnished at wholesale rates. The
committee admitted that they did not
believe the over-charges were made in
tentionally, and yet the alleged over
charging was the main ground upon
which they insisted upon an abrogation
of the contract, and that without giving
Harper & Reynolds any opportunity to
meet the charges before the open board
Why the committee want to do away
with a contract because possibly 1t
would not stand if brought to test in
the courts, / cannot see. Harper & Rey-
nolds are ready to carry ii out and give
us all of our hardware, excepting the few
articles specified in the contract, at
wholesale rates. Why we should refuse
to buy at wholesale rates while Harper
& Reynolds are willing to sell at those
rates, and far below the prices which we
must pay otherwise, is problem which
is beyond my comprehension.
The present methods of buying arti-
cles not included in the yearly contracts
is entirely unsatisfactory. Both the
building supplies committee and the ed
ucational supplies committee. so far as
I am informed, have entirely ignored
the rule requiring advertising, and pur-
chases have been made by the chairman
of the respective committees wherever
they saw fit to deal.
1t was to correct this method of buy
ing. which is open to objection of every
kind. that I introduced the resolution
modifying the rule and providing that
all supplies amounting to over fifty dol
lars should be advertised for, and that
for supplies under that amount there
should be a posting in the office in the
board of education in order that all who
chose to bid might have an opportunity.
This controversy has brought an issue
simply as to whether practically all the
supplies of the schools shall be bought
by the charmen of the supplies commit
tees from such dealers as they choose
and without regard to prices, or whether
the whole matter of supplies shall be
opened up to the competition of any busi-
ness houses who may choose to bid.
MR. WEBB's STATEMENT
Director Webb, chairman of the build
ing and supply committee, was the last
one seen. He said;
"In regard TO the contract with the
| Harper & Reynolds company, made by
the previous board of education, the ar
| ticles specified in that contract were
only needed to the amount of about s26
and yet $2100 worth of other articles were
purchased within the five months for
which the board had no contract in ar
| ticles specified.
| Even in the matter of the articles spe-
| Gifted the contract demands on file in the
office of the board show that in no one
| single instance was the contract price
| charged, but in every instance a greater
| one, as the following statements will
| show: "On October II, 1896, 104 feet OF
| stepladders Were purchased from the
| Harper & Reynolds company. for which
SIG was charged, yet in the contract they
agree to furnish stepladders at 11i4
| cents a foot which would amount to
| $l170, making thus an overcharge OF
| S4.3O on this small item.
"On November 2, 1896, demands show
| Harper Reynolds charged 81 so for one
boom stove, the contract price being
given at s2.75. Various orders were filed
for stove pipe at Is cents for 5la inch
pipe, when the contract price calls foi
liz cents for inch pipe.
"On December 81, 1896, wheelbarrows
were contracted for at s1s.20 per dozen:
| yet the charge is made at the rate of s.
apiece, or s24 dozen.
Il do not consider in view of the fact
that so few of the articles were specified
in said contract, that Harper Reynolds
overcharged the old board of education
| intentionally. / do think that the CON
tract being for articles so seldom used
that when requirements were presented
| to Harper Reynolds for such articles rs
We're specified, they never took the trou
BILE to see if the needed articles were spe-
| Gifted or not.
THE furniture and supply committe,
| requested Mr.. Reynolds to appear before
them and when his attention was callet
to the above facts, and also to the state
|