People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1899-07-27


work. These men are not in
the trust and they must be
broken down. In face of the ia, I
that contracts were let in the
same way to Bradford and Foster
as to the Missouri VALLEY Brius c
Co., not only in this recent instance
mentioned; but as almost all con.
tracts are let 10 this company in
this and other counties the company
declared these contracts illegal.
The natural thing for the trust to
do was to secure the services Of "A.
Richards. Through the columns of
his papers, supported by trust
money, he delivered several "opin-
ions" concurring with the bridge
company. The board not caring to
get the matter Of payment for these
bridges into litigation decided to
advertise and relet the contracts.
As part of the plan Of the Missouri
Valley Bridge Co., Jos. Young,
their agent and Richlrd, as HI
assistant, were present Oh the 2nlt
and put in a sealed BID which was
for sl45.5O under the Contract pr c q.
With Bradford and Foster and this
Sl45.50 is the sole excuse for tn,
columns Of vilihcation, SANDER and
Misrepresentation Of the board by
Richards. This bid was neither
dated nor signed. Representa-
tives of other bridge companies
present objected to this irregularity
and on the advice of the deputy
county attorney that this bid did not
comply with the law, the board over
the protest of Richards and Young
rejected all bids and ordered the
county clerk to re-advertise the
bridges, and thus the matter stands.
No one is surprised at the action
of the bridge company. They can
we'll afford to pay Richards liberal
fee as attorney and representative
of the trust to help them hold a
monopoly of the business of the
county and crush competitors not
in the trust. They do not wish to
lose a business which has yielded
them such enormous profits in the
past. The attitude of Richards in
this matter is the natural one for
him for the reason given above and
for another. He is the self consti>
tuted boss Of the republican party
in Sumner county. He controls all
official patronage, federal and state,
and will name the nominees in the
republican county convention on
August s. He can not control D.A.
Espy, the republican member of the
board and because Of this, proposes
to crush him. He has boasted that
he would have Espy removed before
his term expires and it is to further
his political ends as we'll as to help
his patron, the bridge trust, that his
paper has teemed with misrepresen-
tations upon this subject. The
strange spectacle presents itself
of man whose testimony has
twice been impeached before a
court in this county and VINO
would not be believed under oath,
absolutely dominating and debating
every movement and every nomin-
alton made by his party and in
order that such domination may be
complete, becoming the agent and
representative of bridge company
that has robbed the county Of
thousands of dollars and is now
the representative of the trust in
this county. This man with such
a record and actuated by such
motives, maligns and vilifes and
misrepresents the county commits
sioners because of their efforts 20
protect the county against the
trust and for securing for the
county better contracts than were
ever before secured. The fact thai
it has been customary in this
county as in almost every other ir
the state to let contracts privately
and that a better contract wa
thus obtained does not justify tn,
county commissioners in failing t