The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1903-08-18
Here It Is, Read It Right. "

Here It Is, Read 1t Right"
Under the heading of "Read it Right"
the Gazette publishes an article contain
ing so few of the facts in the case, that
it would be utterly impossible to read it
anything like right.
The Gazette is usually so outSpoken
and fair, never pervertlng facts through
fear or favor, we are convinced 1t has
been imposed Oh either by having been
given misrepT esentations of the facts,
or else only part of them, in connec-
ton with this much talked of question
of furnishing the new Courthouse.
The Gazette starts out with the state
ment that there was but one bidder be-
cause only one bid was less than the
sum under which all had been told to
bid, that one ''lone bidder" being Mr..
Hinton. Here is where the Gazette has
been either imposed on by intentional
misrepresentation or the concealment of
part of the facts.
| Now let's take it for granted that it is
! true there was only one bidder, which
however, we do not admit, and will
show does not contain a shadow OF truth.
However, if it were true, that with four
reliable parties bidding, only one came
within the limited price and that price
was for goods the committee had all
! signified was such as would be satisfac-
tory, and none of the others had bid
within 81 300 of that price for satisfac
tory goods, would it not seem to all
right thinking people that this lone
bidder" should be awarded the contract.
So much for a supposition.
| Now for some facts that can be easily
obtained from more than one of the
committee.
Instead of there being only one bidder
there were four bidders within the linn
itation for bidders as defined by the Ga
z tie, that is, within the limit of $1,000.
These were The A. H. Andrews Co.. of
Chicago, Robt. Mitchell, of Cincinnati,
Dinner q Sons, of Dayton, and j. T.
Hinton, of this city, each having in
bids under So, 000 In the light of these
facts we fail to see why the Gazette
should say there was only one bidder.
| AS to why Mr.. Hinton bid only 81 ,995
instead of 81, 999 go, either of which
would have been within the amount, we
cannot say. We suppose, however,
| that it must have been either that Mr..
Hinton uses an adding machine that
cannot be run any higher, or that the
standing of his competitors made him
lose his nerve and he was afraid to ask
any more.
We agree that "all the rant about Mr..
Dinner bidding $4,000 is the worst of
rot" as there is no plausible excuse for
considering Sc, 900 bid when one has
been made at 81, 900 less for equal if
not better values by party equally as
reliable.
Now some more facts. The bidders
were all told to bid on goods that would
come under $4,000. Two of them,
Mitchell and Andrews. put in one bid
each under that amount and one each
considerably over Dinner bid on three
grades, one under that amount and two
over. Mr. Hinton bid on three grades,
a under ha amo ant n W how many
ny bidders were there?
! Still some more facts. The bids of
Mitchell and Andrews and Dinner that
were under So 200, were for goods that
the committee said they did not want
and would not consider. Mr. Hinton's
two lower bids were for 81, $50 and
So 900 But these also were for goods
the committee would not consider, as
were also the goods in Dinners two
| lOWeI DIuS vi |O,OOO anu Pt,OOO. ANOW
with these facts before US We are
willing to Omit that there ought to be
only zone Iona bidder" left in the ring,
and that one Mr. Hinton.
| If the lowest bids are to be consider
ed, then Mr. Hinton's bid of $500 is
| lower than Andrews, Mitchells and Oh
mers lowest bids of 1890, 4,940 and
81, 800.
| Oo11 k6oco lc fhot Tho p
| tee consider desirable are to be taken
into account then only the highest bid
of each one comes within the limitation.
Only one of these, Mr. Hinton's, is
within the limit of price.
If Mitchell and Andrews were sent
home because their bids were higher
than Dinners, can anybody explain
why Dinner wasnOt sent home because
he was higher than Mr.. Hinton?
Does anybody know why two bidders
were retained instead Of four?
The last raw at which the Gazette
grasps is as weak as all the rest of the
f1imsy fabric of excuses for this unrea-
mIttee considers Mr.. Hinton's bid Is too
high. This cannot apply to all the com
mittee, as two at least have expressed
| Gl0uoOINCS do odtlS1Ou Will l1AC OAU .
This position of the Gazette seems
ridiculous in the light of the facts.
In the first place the committee, with
? the assistance OF their architects, esti-
mated that it would take about $4,000
to furnish the goods required. Four ex-
perienced and responsible furnishers
: made bids on the goods, and all but one
have asked more than this amount fol-
the goods wanted. Mr.. Hinton alone
has agreed to furnish satisfactory goods
9 within the amount. The next nearest
y bid under the amount made by any 9th
er bidder is only about 5000 less and is
3 for goods that are not wanted at any
3 price. This don't look like Mr.. Hinton
7 can be much too high, considering the
. quantity and quality of the goods to bt
2 furnished.
g We understand that Mr.. Hinton Ii
3 willing to put up cash guarantee o.
the full amount that the goods shall bt
satisfactory, and is willing to leave thu
/. whole matter to the entire court or thu
+. people at large What more could b.
g asked? The bids were all made in goet