Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-03-26
REASONS
For Boards Action
Given by City Commits
sioner Paige.
Tells Why GiIsonite Bid
Was Rejected.
Quotes Rowley's Advice as
Precedent
For the Rejection Of the McGowan
Bid.


and the contracts recently awarded by
the Board Of City Commissioners and
the Council for said Improvement that
I feel it is due to the Board that we
should be allowed few words OF ex-
planation.
The law says we should satisfy our
selves and award the contract to the
lowest and best bidder
Now, commencing with the bid Of the
Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Company,
for sheet asphalt: In the first place
their bid was Irregular and then VIC
could not find where tiicy mad ever
laid any pavement, with the exception
| of two very short streets in the city
CT st. Louis, and these two streets were
only laid within the last six months.
Their asphalt is mined In Arizona,
and may be good material for street
paving, but as the residents and tax
payers of East Market street have had
former experience with experimental
pavements, for one, did not consider
their bid the best and cheapest.
AT meeting of the citizens of the
street, held in the council chamber
nearly week after these bids were
opened, they expressed decided SEN
timent to use block asphalt on the
street, and Mr.. Rowley was the strong
est advocate for this material at this
meeting. do not think ne criticised
at that time our non-acceptance of the
Gilsonite bid.
Now we have come to the point
} where block pavement was decided up
OH, not only at the joint meeting of
the Board and the street committee of
the council, hut by large majority of
the tax payers on the street, and we
must ascertain when Is the lowest
and best bid for this material.
There is only one make of block as
phalt which could be used Oh tho
street, and that is made by the New
Castle Block Paving Company
All bidders with the exception of
Mr.. james J. McGowan, received u
bid from the above makers OF asphalt
block, and caused their names to be
placed upon Il sample furnished by the
above firm, and left with our City En-
gineer
Mr.. McGowan did not get a price
from them, neither did he file sam
pie of any other kind of block that b,
proposed to use.
Now, ns l said before, we must as
certain who Is the lowest and best bid
dor, and looking into the matter, W,
find Mr.. McCourt is lower on the OK
cnvatlon, aud all material and work
with the exception of the block.
Now, Mr., McGownn is very genia
and tine young man, but l cannot tin,
whore he has ever had any experience
In laying street pavements Of an,
kind, either as u contractor or work
facts, how could he furaIsh the bloc
for less money than tnn pther contraC
tors who had, presume, received tn
very lowest price they could from th
only makers OF the asphalt block, G,
ceptng, perhaps manufacturer /
New England from which place til
freight would be SO higa tnat he coul
not furnish their blocks at any price
East Market street has been. and
In very bad condition, ana I, as
resident OF the street and representa-
quite large frontage on same and ;
n member of the. Board of Commission
ers, would not feel justified In awnr
ing the contract to any parties who n