The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-12-22

opinion is that whether this influence was to be improperly used or not. 1t was an improper contract The work to be done was of a public character and the contract should have been awarded sole ly on the intrinsic merits of the bids for the work
 "As the bids were supposed to be sealed and competitive. and the awarding of the contract to be based on the bids-a mat ter solely for the commission to consider and decide, and outsiders were not sup posed to know anything about what was going on-it Is difficult to perceive just what services, advisory or otherwise, Mr. Drennen could perform, and equally as difficult to perceive how the work, con- petitvely awarded, could possibly admit of payment of so large a sum as $10,000 out of the contract price.
 How 1t Looks.
 'This is the way the public looks at 1t, and it looks that way to me. So far as the commission is concerned I have no idea any member of it was ever in the slightest degree influenced by MT Dren- nen in awarding of any contract for this work, but the contract is, on it's face, an improper one, and should be attacked vigorously in the bankrupt court and every possible fact showing what MT. Drennen was expected to do and what he did should be brought out and exposed to the light
 Nothing at all improper may have been done under this improper contract but even this would be a good thing for the public to know"
 Commissioner Thomas H. Motion said;
 Mr Molton,s ReooIlection
 My recollection is that MT Drennen appeared before the commission two or three times in behalf of Burkhalter Donelson and Pennington. l am sure, however he did not suggest or attempt any unusual method or means in trying to procure these contracts. He was too well acquainted with the personnel of the commission to have thought for one moment that they could be influenced by any unfair or dishonorable means.
 'As to what services he was to render to secure, directly or indirectly, these con tracts and earn $1O,OOO l leave the contrac- tors to answer. I also leave 10 them to say whether or not they bought a gold brick"
 Regarded 1t as Joke.
 Commissioner James Gillespy in an in- terview said:
 "I heard something about this matter at the time of the last city election but 1t was always regarded as a joke The idea that MT. Drennen could or would use any unfair influence with the commission can be regarded in no other light. The con- tracts let to the construction firms were cancelled without a stroke of work be- ing done.
 President Frank Y. Anderson said
 T suppose MT Drennen is referring to the contracts of two years ago. If he Is, it is well known that the contracts were never undertaken by the three firms mentioned. Their original contracts were cut down considerably, and finally award ed considerably changed from their first proposals. Trouble was then had in dispos- ing of the proposed bond issue and it was finally settled to turn the bonds over to the contractors in payment of the work. They were unable to dispose of these bonds and the contracts wer cancelled entirely. New advertisements were issued and an entirely new contractct let to c. M. Burl- hatel & Co.
 Honorable Men.
 "The commission Is composed of as hon- orable men as I ever knew and any re- | flection that their decision in regard to the awarding of the contracts was unduly in- | nuenced is, of course, absolutely without 1 foundation and false. l do not know nor | l member of the commission was approach ed in any manner, shape or form regard l ing the awarding of the contract"
 Commissioners James J. Smith and E. J. Smyer were also seen yesterday and asked for expressions They preferred not to be quoted on the subject.
 Secretary's Statement.
 Referring to the minute book of the G1p iact, Smyer yesterday afternoon gave out the following statement as to the awarding of contracts by the commission:
 "The Jefferson county sanitary com mission on May 20, 1902, received bids from the Donelson Construction com pany, C. M. Burlshater X Co.,, and the Pennington Construction company for the construction of the entire sewer. Their bids aggregating over s300,0O0 and the commission at the suggestion of Chief Engineer Julian Kendrick decided to re- advertise for bids on the grounds those received were too high.
 ''On June 20, just one month later the second bids from these three firms on the contract were open by the commis- sion. The engineer, after looking over | the bids told the commission the price | for excavation was all right, but the | bids of $2.6 per lineal foot for construc- tion were too high. He estimated the | construction should not cost over $2.52h l per lineal foot.
 Revised Bids.
 "On July 1 the revised bids were sub l mitted by the thr ee contracting firms, | the bids being about s9S00 less than the | first bids. The commission agreed with | the contractors that should they accept | the contracts they would be required to buy at par the $3O0,000 per cent thirty | year bonds issued by the sanitary com mission to pay for the work of building l the sewer. This contract was executed | in July and a bond made by the eontrac- | tors with a guarantee company were | given on August IA.
 "The contractors notified the commls- | sion on September % they had sold the | bonds, subject to the approval of Dillon | & Hubbard bond lawyers of New York. | These lawyers took hold of the matter | and advised the contractors to have the | sanitary commission bring a suit in the | chancery court to test the legality of the l bond issue. and to appeal the case after | decision was rendered in the chancery | court to the supreme court. This was | agreed to by the sanitary commission and | the suit was entered on an agreed state ment of facts. The chancery court ren- dered a decision favorable to the bond | issue and on appeal to the higher tribunal | this decision was affirmed.
 ''rhe contractors were furnished with l copies of the opinion of the court and | these were forwarded to Dillon & Hub | bard. Later the New York lawyers ad- l