New-York tribune., 1899-08-21
LONG ISLAND CITY CONTRACTS.
MR.. sHEEHAN SAYS HIS FIRM LOST MONEY
BY THE TRANSACTIONS

Long Branch. n. J.. Aug. 20 (speciaD.-John c.
Sheehan, when seen tonight gave out the follow
ing statement about the reported invadity OF the
Long Island City improvement bonds:
Some time after Mr.. O'Bren and myself became
associated in contract business an advertisement
appeared In the Long Island City and New-Nork
papers inviting sealed proposals for doing certain
work in Long Island city under the General I'm
provement law. M OBrien called my attention
to the advertisement and suggested that 1t might
be well to look into the matter
Il advised against having anything TO 90 WIN
Long Island City as said the city was IN bad
financial condition and that it was not safe place
in which 70 do work Of any kind. Mr.. o Brien sus-
gested that obtain copy Of the specihcauohs
and the contract. The result was that we SUP
mitted bid and unfortunately we were the lowest
bidders or we never would have done any work IN
Long Island City. Notwithstanding that we were
the lowest bidders the work was not awarded TO
US The Commissioners took the ground that they
knew nothing OF our firm.
"An the bids were rejected and another bid was
asked for We were among the bidders second
time, and reduced our bid considerably on the
prices fixed in the first bid. We were the lowest
bidders again and the contract was awarded 10
US The contract was that were 20 be paid IN
cash on the estimates made by the Chief Engineer
after 5000 worth OF work had been done
I'VE proceeded with the work energeucaIiy. Be
fore any money was paid to the city advertised
two bids were received. one bid was at par
made by some banking house in Wall Street. ana
the other was below par. Shortly afterward the
CITY advertised some more bonds. and received no
bids The work had been done by our firm. and
the city had not carried out the contract 10 pay
in cash Another sale OF bonds was advertised.
Again there we're no bidders. At this time
there was q second estimate due us for work. We
notified the officials that II We were not paid ac-
cordinr 10 the contract suit would be begun
They advertised once more for bonds. and we BID
on the issue We legally awarded the bonds
AT par as provided by law, and In order 10 pay the
city for the bonds bid in by us we took the war
rants issued by the City Treasurer 20 US for work
and paid for them
Thereafter we bid IN more OF the bonds, which
we were obliged TO sell for less than par. One part
of ESQ OoO we had sell at -. at loss OF SlOOO'
This WAS necessary, as we had 10 raise money 10
carry, or the work he total amount OF Work
done bv US under these contracts amounted 10
$4,000 We calculated on profit OF ~ per oet cen"
larger sum Of money. l do not know WHO HoNS
rs this attack on the bond issue part OF Croker
p4 @T 60n'f know that II is The story was written
evidently 10 injure We have not uoltai -,
interest in Long Island City bonds now. a su-. ,
been begun by US 70 cOnlpel lHe - 40,
us the direrence which amounts TO over $s'vo
''VVbo do YOU think Is back OF the aHegeu Tax
ra vers SUIT to attack the bond issues was as
Don't think any such sun mas peen pSs Sona sry
story Is an absurd one II does noy nlaAS a.
difference about the debt limit OF Loik 5slAIIS a
S,jt1, because we made the contract IN 1890 ahu
the new constitutional! provision apou. uepS I
so held in suit brought by US to test the Oono
issues.