Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-07-31
MONOPOLY ALLEGED
The McCaul Company Again
Writes Secretary Shaw.
CLEVELAND BUILDING
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
INTO METHODS THREATENED.
Statement That Real Contractor is
John Pierce, Who Has Work for
Several Other Structures.
: &}fEz&!!$ So!
CLEVELAND BUILDING

The Charles Mct'aul Company of Phila-
delphta, the concern that has been In cor
respondence with Secretary Shaw protest
ing against Tie award of the contract for
the Cleveland. Ohio public building to
Bradley K Son of New York. have sent
another letter to Secretary Shaw. In addi-
ton tn this. they threaten congressional
invest igatio OF the whole transaction 1t
Is asserted that they have protested to
President Roosevelt and also assured him
of their intention to bring about con-
gress.onal Investigation if they do not get
what they consider justice. 1t Is said
that the firm is sufficiently strong In Phila-
delphia to cause congressional investi-
CATION which, If made, would be directed
against the manner of letting the con-
tract and against Secretary Shaw person
ally
The McCaul Company charges that the
contract for the tiey Gland building Is really
to John Pierce who. it is declared. has Il
MONOPOLY of the public building business
of the Treasury department. They cite
the fact that Pierce is the contractor for
the New York. Chicago and Indianapolis
public buildings. Other coDtractors are
said I" he joining with the McCaul Com
pany in preparation for fight and to be
looking up the letting of former contracts.
Just where the matter will stop is not
known. At the Treasury Department 1t
is stated that Secretary Shaw has no fur
Their comments to make.
The letter Of the McCaul Company last
Sent to Secretary Shaw is as follows:
Alleged Unfair Quotation.
Eve were very much surprised at see
Ing your favor of July 81 in the newspa pers
before It's receipt by US. and we had
given no CO." espondence whatever to the
press. our 81 .'rise WAS heightened by your
charge that had resorted to the public
press as the forum in which to try
case We We're Furthermore astonished that
In giving your reply to the press you
should have misGuoted our letter
You certainly cannot consider it fair to
quote part of Il sentence a completed
one, and in this manner attempt to make
II appear to the public that we approve
OF the action of your department in this
matter We shall not C-iticise this action
any further than to cal Your attention
to IT. as 1t is so obviously unfair that we
would prefer to believe that it was steno-
graphic error rather thar an intended mis-
quoting upon your part
The complete sentence Of our letter re-
ferred to was as follows: We quite agree
with you that we have no fault to find that
the contract for the sandstone building
was let To another party, ii that as
far rs your department had gone. but. as
stated in our former letter a clause has
been inserted in the proposed contract.
agreeing TO pay Bradley & Son the differ
ence between their bid for sandstone
d
ing. in the event that it is built Of the
latter
You. however. quoted the sentence as
follows: We agree with you that we have
no fault to find that the contract for the
sandstone building was let to another
party thus making 1t appear as II the SEN
tence ended at the first comma. Then
you comment upon It, as solving the ques-
ton. showing approval our part OF
the action of the department.
I'VE note that you say that the differ
ence between your bid and Mr.. Rradley's
is only So 500, hut do not see how you
have been prejudiced by this nominal dis
count
Are we to understand that because we
are only s. 500 below Bradley & Son that
that offers an excuse for awarding the con-
tract to them? If So what becomes of the
precedents established by your predeces-
sors. which respected and secured the
rights of the lowest bidder? If 81 800 is too
small difference to consider. what sum- In
your opinion, would be sufficient in order
10 entite the lowest bidder to considera-
ton? If this Is the practice to be adopted
by your department in this case and in the
future does 1t not make favoritism the test
of securing a contract?
Pierce the Real Contractor.
I'VE assume from what you say In refer
ence to the bid of Bradley g. Son being in
the interest of another. that If proof WAS
brought home to you that the bid was in
reality IN the interest OF John Pierce who
has Il present monopoly upon work in your
department. as indicated by his having the
present contracts for the New York Chi
cago and Indianapolis public buildings that
such fact would have weight with you In
determining the present question If you
desire to ascertain that the bid of Bradley
& Son is in the interest of John Pierce won
can readily do So by asking any RESPONSE
BILE mercantile agency. and their report Will
satisfy you Of the fact.
AS you seem to be impressed with the
Thought that the good people of Cleveland
Will probably secure through Congress n
change TO granite. if your depa rt,nent does
not make the change, why should you not
make proper provision to protect US as the
lowest bidder for granite if such change is
made?
What we complain of is that as every
Tact, from the plans of the architects ;he
amount of the present approximations
which You do not say are insufficient for
granite. and the sentiment of the people
OF Cleveland indicates that granite will be
used that the present awarding OF a con-
tract for sandstone has too much of an APP
I"arance OF being done for the purpose of
depriving us OF rights as the lowest
bcdcr IN the interest of one who nv some
method. seems 10 enjoy monopoly of the
l&rge contracts from your de par,ment
We also note your answer that We need
give ourselves no anxiety about the char
sCter OF granite II granite Is used and
that IT is a part of the business OF the de-
partmrnt to protect the government II
however. you should decide to change to
granite as you using the price for
granite given by us we feel that we have
the right to inquire whether the provision
specifies the granite AS being equal In quail
ity and kind to our sample
II you have made no further provision
thih Tor granite at price, without
specifying the kind and intend to contract
In that way, then the contractors could sup
ply such granite as would be most salts
factory To themselves. and it would be
sufficient reason of itself why you should
not make such Il contract
I'VE would. therefore. In order that the
matter may he closed as far as your de-
partment Is concerned, respectfully request
that you inform US as to the terms of the
proposed contract. and wheth you actual.
~ intend have entered into a contract
such as has been indicated by your letter"