The San Francisco call., 1898-03-18
Proof That No Such Sum Was Saved, Unless to the
 Contractor.
ANALYSIS OF THE BIDS.
Other Little Jobs About the New Ferry Depot in Which Colnon
 Can Be Discerned.

worried by the intimation that a Grand Jury may try to ascertain what he and his associates have been up to. He essays his old role of evasion out the excess of his woe warps his judgment. and all he succeeds in doing is to mis- spell the name of a San Francisco iurist and demonstrate that the presi- dent of the board, however well he may juggIe with contracts, cannot juggle with words. Figuratively speaking the Colnon mouth is open and the Colnon loot is therein.
 The Stockton gentleman claims that the charge of having misused the funds of the State in providing Colusa stone Is false, and asserts that in reality the change was q saving to the State of Sj3,000
 Would it be impertinent to ask where that S53,000 went?
 In q careless reading of the figures of the various bids Colnon's views would appear to be correct. But this is no time for a careless reading. To place the matter in terms so simple that all may understand them the bids of Mo Carthy, who got the contract. and of Mckay, whom Colnon uses for the pur- pose of making his point, are quoted in full:
 Form of proposal for all masonry work according to plans and specifications for union depot and ferry house, San Fran cisco, Cai.
 Sid No. I-Embodying all work and mate rals described in plans and masonry specifications on the basis of the exte- ri6r and interior walls, where indicated laced up with Roman buff brick and terra cotta trimmings, interior grand nave being faced up with wnlte enam- eleG brick to the spring line of arches, and hollow flat terra cotta floor arches (bTick to be as per sample herewith submitted, labeled and marked Bid S4i13.o NO: S26S 900, c. F. Mccarthy s167O 900; differ ence $101, GOO.
 Bid No. 2-Embodying all work and ma terials described in plans and masonry specifications on the basis of using the Roman buff brick and terra cotta trim mings for facing of exterior walls and first story of interior walls, where speci- lied, and facing up entire interior of xgrand nave with white enameled brick Dand white enameled terra cotta trim v mings, and hollow flat terra cotta floor arches (brick to be as per samples here. with submitted, labeled and marked Bid No. 9 for the sum of-J. H. Mckay s274,OOO, c. F. Mccarthy S173,OOO; differ Bid No. S2Embodying all work and mate rials described in plans ana masonry specifications on the basis Of using the red sand clay, mud pressed brlck, ano red terra cotta trimmings for facing o1
 
 walls, where specified, and facing uI the entire interior of grand nave with white enameled brick and white enam- eled terra cotta trimmings, and hollow fiat terra cotta floor arches (brick to De as per samples herewith submitted, la beled and marked Bid No. 3 for the sum of-J. H. Mckay s273, 900, c. F. Mccarthy $16S ,000; difference S1Oo 900. Bid No. 4Embodying all work and mate rialS described in plans and masonry specffcations on the basis of using stone facing for outside of walls and tower in place of Roman buff brick, and fae- ing up interior of grand nave with Ro' man buff brick and terra cotta trim rnings. and white enameled Drlck up tc spring of arches. and hollow fiat terra cotta floor arches (brick and stone tc be as per samples herewith submitted labeled and marked Bid No. D for the sun sum ooo ofCJ H. Mckay }aHan }Solusa stone, 6G1e S230 GOO; difference $53,OOO.
 It will be noticed in the first place that McCarthy'S bids were so mucf lower than those of Mckay as to excite a suspicion that some hint had peer given that the specifications would bt changed so as to enable him to carry out a contract which it is clear. an other contractor would have found ruinous, But this is a minor point There will be time later to consider il with more detail.
 It must be remembered that the . specifications for interior work were l observed that the differences were very large, at first ranging from $101,0 tC sl05 900 on the basis of brick finish while on the basis of stone finish there was difference of only $53,OOO. AS the interior of the building, regardless o1 the character of the outer wall, was tc remain the same, it is clear that the notable change in figures was due tc this material alone, the relative cost of the crude product of quarry or kiln These outer walls are necessarily, then to be considered as an independent proposition, bearing no relation to the inside.
 Mccarthy offered to do the work with the brick exterior for $167, 900, or with Oregon stone exterior for $230, 00Q, an advance of $63,000. Then Mccarthy evidently thought that the stone alone would cost this amount more than the brick alone would cost.
 Mckay offered to build with brick exterior for S26S, ,G00 or with Colusa stone exteriors for $2S3,000, an advance Of only $t5,000 Then 1t is clear he thought that the stone alone would cost this amount more than the brick would cost. The fact should not be lost sight Of that Colnon boasts about having saved the State $53 900 on the exterior walls, when as a matter of record the contractor was permitted to discard material he had reckoned to be worth S63. 900 more than brick, substituting for it a material which the other bidder cited had estimated to be worth $15, ,00G more than brick Therefore it would appear that the contractor had done the saving on his own personal account. If the State saved that money it would Se pleased to see the color of it. rA Colnons unfairness appears in this: cSe quotes the Mccarthy bid and the Mckay bid. which show in their totals a difference Of S53 000 and tries to make the public think that Colusa stone is worth this sum more than Oregon stone. He ignores the fact that in both bids are included much more than the erection of the exterior walls. Elm