The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-06-06
NEW CREOSOTE COMPANY
THE BOARD OF WORKS HOLDS UP
ITS 100000 CONTRACTS.
Protest from Opposition Firms and
Also from Several Interested
Taxpayers.


day morning refused to close contracts
with the Indianapolis Creosote Company.
because several property owners objected,
and made various charges against the COM
pany's organization. The property owners
were W. II. II. Miller, who also represented
General Harrison. and property owners on
Park avenue, who were represented by At
torney w. A. Pickens. The Board of Works
had previously awarded contracts for $500, go
worth Of paving on Delaware, Noble and
Ash streets and Park avenue to the Indian
apolis Creosote Company.
Mr.. Miller read letter from Clarence A.
Kenyon. secretary of the Hoosier Construc-
dianapolis Creosote Company, protesting
against the Board of Works going further
with the latter company. The charges
against the creosote company are that it
had no corporate existence, and no plant
when it bid. The creosote company is COM
posed of NJ. NJ. Defrees, Allen W. Conduit
John w. Cooper and H. c. Adams. Messrs.
Cooper and Conduit are said to be inter-
ested in the Indiana Bermuda Asphalt Com
pany and Mr.. Adams was for several years
agent here for the Warren-Scharf Asphalt
Company. Mr.. Defrees said that the creo-
its own, that it was prepared to carry out
its contracts faithfully. and that there was
nothing peculiar about the concern. The
be ard will probably take up the matter to-
morrow morning. The letter of Mr.. Kenyon
was as follows:
I'm 1885, in connection with the Fruin-
Bambrick Construction Company, I made
tenders TO pave with asphalt New York,
East and several other streets. The Fruin-
g xVoC m ~ IA 1Qr
ana most responsible concerns in the coun-
try and offered TO give a bond double the
81 SIZE OF fb that presGr1bed by the
called before the board and subjected to a
thorough examination as TO whether they
had a plant 70 do the work, when and where
ard how they Were to get the asphalt, how
long any of their 'pavements had been laid
ETC. After such hearing our bids We're re-
Jected because we had not completely COM
piled with the specifications.
Tine specifications for paving Delaware.
Market and other streets, upon which bids
streets should be paved with long leaf yell
low pine paving blocks treated with creo-
sote of a certain kind and in a certain man.
follows: Persons making bids shall show
to the Board Of Works that they have mot
that they will have) proper facilities. ex-
pert workmen and experience to perform the
contract in a proper manner. Samples pro-
posed to be used in the construction of the
work shall be deposited with the Board of
Public Works on or before the day preced-
ing the day for opening the bids
The lowest tenders on the recent work
were the indianapolis Creosote Company.
as the lowest tenders in 1886 were by the
-Bambrick Company. 1t now appears
that the Indianapolis Cresoting Company
had no corporate existence at the time OF
no plant of any kind, either for creosoting
or doing the work. had no cresote, no ma
perts either in making creosote or in treat
ing timber with creosote, and yet expects
TO do all this work itself. They do not in
tend to avail themselves of the creosote
plant that is here erected which has done
work has a supply of creosote. expert men
and all the other requisites on hand to per-
concerns who bid upon the work expected TO
do. 1t further appears that the men who are
back of the indianapolis Creosote Company
are the same men who were not the lowest
bidders on the asphalt work alluded to Of
1856 They are -he same men who protested
that the work should not be given TO the
Fruin- Bambrick Company then. and which,
after a much better showing by that COM
pany than the so-called Indianapolis Creo-
soting Company can make. their protest
to that company. / think all will agree
that the same rule that applies to one COM
aapoiis Creosoting Company did not comply
with the Specifications. II may be argued
that other bidders did not file samples or
show their facilities for doing the work; my
answer is that we had samples on file and
the Western Creosoting Company had sam
Piles on file, and those who have lone WORK
and expected TO have their creosoting done
by that company If they did the work. had
their samples on file and had the evidence
before you OF their ability to perform the
work promptly and have complied with
your requirements. 1t seems to me that TO
allow this company to have this work now
is to reverse the construction of the specifi-
cations adopted in 1896. which at that time
seemed wise TO your honorable body. II II
was the law then and your wisdom and pru-
dence sanctioned 1t. it is also the law now.
and the advanced state OF the season, the
necessity in many cases for the prompt
prosecution of the work, all confirm the
wisdom OF such clause in the specifica-
cause lose its virtue and become vicious
by its unequal enforcement. We therefore
respectfully protest that contracts be not
entered into with the Indianapolis Creosot-
ing Company on these bids; that they have
not complied with your specific regulations
and that the same rule invoked as to others
be applied to this company"