Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1898-12-21

Las vegas me btlllttl at, VI kAlpu-
querque, and the New Mexican, of San
ia Fe. The bidders We're represented
by MIR. Steward, for Ell Independence;
Mr.. Allen, for the Optic; Mr.. Albright,
for the Democrat, and Mr.. Hughes, for
the New Mexican. 1t was agreed by
these representatives, at the outset,
that since it was necessary 10 have
some fixed basis to figure from, that the
sembly should be taken as such basis
for all figures submitted. ON opening
the bids Mr.. Steward at once acknoWl-
edged that he was beaten and grace
fully withdrew from the contest, leaV-
ing three bids to be figured upon.
In a recent issue of that paper, the OPP
tic states that the awarding of the CON
tract turned upon the figures submitted
for the folding and stitching of the
bills; that the optics bid was 2 cents
each: the Democrats from l to 8 cents,
and the New MeXican's l to 6 cents; all
of which is correct in a measure, only
as IL Was . anu y ceiltS, ltSpeCllN ely,
higher on composition on the laws and
bills, which alone would amount to over
800 more than the bids submitted by
the Democrat and New Mexican. The
Optic contended that under these bids
the Democrat could charge 3 Onts, the
New Mexican 6 cents, the Optic only 2
cents for folding and stitching each
bill. Taking as the basis the work done
two years ago. which had been agreed
upon, the optics contention is wrong
and entirely beyond the pale of consid-
Grafton, so long as n one bidder had
bid on a running scale. In order to show
where the Optic is wrong, a few figures
will be submitted:
Two years ago there We're printed,
folded and bound 301 bills for the house
and council. These were printed in
lots of 100 each. Under the optics bid
of > cents each, the cost of folding and
binding would be $500. Under the bids
submitted by the Democrat and New
Mexican, fixing 1 cent as the minimum
price. a great difference in the cost to
the government would be effected. Out
of the sol bills printed and bound two
| years ago, only 2S cost more than /
cent TO fold and bind. or a difference in
favor Of the Democrat and New Next
can over the Optic Of $273 on 273 bills.
Counting hat the Optic would charge
2 cents each for the remaining rs bills
for folding and binding, or $50, there
would still be a balance in favor of the
Democrat and New Mexican of $211.
Granting that on the % bills costing
more thar | cent to fold and bind, the
Democrat would charge 8 cents, or $S4,
the difference in favor of the Democrat
would be $3.50; should the New Mexi-
can be permitted to charge 6 cents for
the % bills, or $l6S, the difference in ia
vor of the New Mexican would be $105,
in addition to the 500 gained in the
price of composition, making the OPP
tics bid S205 higher than hat of the
New Mexican. 1t is needless to say
that on the sliding scale bid. neither the
DtI'lttid t nor TIE NEW NltSltdH NbUit
be permitted to charge their highest
price on all bills remaining over their
lowest price.
In regard to the difference between
the Democrats and New Mexican's
bids. the figures submitted for compo-
sition, press work and paper We're very
close, and upon the basis which had
been agreed upon by the representa-
a difference of about $14 in favor of the
New Mexican. AS the New Mexican's
bid was found to be the lowest, the con
tract was awarded to this company.
The Optic also says: The Optic be-
lieves that as a bidder for the legisla-
tive printing, as well as the public, is
entitled to the decision of Secretary
Wallace on the points in dispute" Mr..
Wallace made no decision. 1t was not
necessary, as the Optic was informed
by telegraph the evening of December
16. The morning after the bids Were
opened Mr.. Albright, of the Democrat,
49, tiS' IN - III Stiitt SoiNt
Mr.. Wallace that it was unnecessary to
figure further on the bids; that he had
carried out the figures made the day
before and found the New Mexican to
be the lowest bidder by about $14, and
that he had nothing more to say. That
is the entire history of the letting of the
contract for the printing for the 33d
Legislative assembly, regardless of the
insinuations of the Optic to the con-
trary.
To show the animus of the Optic in
this matter, it is only necessary to call
the attention of the public to two or
three little incidents. Before leaving
for his home, Mr.. Allen, of the Optic,
Mr.. Wallace he was satisfied
that his paper a outside of the fig
ures of the other two bidders. Later
in the evening a gentleman of Santa Fee,
who had talked with Mr.. Allen concern
ing the letting of the contract, informed
Mr.. Wallace that Mr.. Allen remarked
that in all his experience in submitting
to the different secretaries of the
territory he had never met one who was
so entirely unbiased and fair in his
dealings with bidders as is Mr.. Wal
lace. However, on returning home, the |
Optic failed to give Mr.. Wallace any
for the fairness which character
lied his management of letting the