The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-09-03


18th. The time between his arrival on
August 18th and august 21st. when he
saw MIR. Chadwick for his first and only
interview. he presumably spent in In
vestisating the bid his firm had sub
mitted. AT all events, when he went
to see Mr.. Chadwick on the 2lst and
had the fifteen-minute interview he
took the position that IL the board gave
him the contract he would take II
and execute 1t. just as his firm had
executed many other conttucts fop
tho city; but he also informed Mr..
Chadwick that he did believe his firm
had made It's bid too low.
but stand by what they did"
he said ~ never ran away in my
life. and ] never will. I'll take the
contract and execute 1t if you give
1t to me"
This statement by Mr.. PIERCE assured
the board of immunity from injunction
or other legal process should the low
est bid be rejected. To have this
assurance on record explains, 1t Is
ASSUMED, Mr.. Chadwick's action in hav-
ing the statement taken down In
shorthand.
Awarded to Joint Bidders.
The next highest bid was joint bid
by the Macarthur Bros. & Co. and Win
ston g. Co. 1t was S12.eG9.775, just 81
354,3f5 higher than the PIERCE bid.
Chief Engineer Smith advised the board
that these two firms could safely es-
say the work at the figures named
The bid was about 100000 lower than
Mr.. Smiths estimate. And on August
&c the board formally gave the con-
tract to the Macarthur Bros. and Win
ston &c Co.
The announcement caused unusua.
,s,.t,, !
same firms, two years before, though
next to the highest among six bidders
had been awarded the contract for the
Cross River Dam IN Westchester coun-
ty by the Aqueduct Board on the rec.
ommendation of j. Waldo Smith, Their
Chief Engineer OF that board, and the
reports OF consulting engineers.
The award of so big contract to
outside contractors, who had never
done work in this city and were next
to the highest among six bidders. caus-
ed such Indignation that the defeated
bidders banded together and took the
matter to the courts. 1t Is now await
| ing final decision by the Court OF APP
peals. In the trial of the suit 1t was
charged that Chief Engineer Smith had
been connected in some way with one
of the favored firms. This allegation
was one of the things which had ex-
cited comment over the award. It was
denied by Mr.. Smith on the stand
and in an affidavit. He declared tina,
neither he nor any member of his
family had ever been connected with
the winning firms. He denied unde,
oath that he had dominated the &C
ton of the board in awarding the
contract.
| That another case so strikingly sim
| liar in many OF its features woult
arise so soon. involving the same firms
| and the same engineer. was no
/ dreamed OF by local contractors. Th
explains the great surprise with which
they learned last Tuesday mornin,
that the Macarthur Bros. & Co. an,
/ Winston 6: Co. had been awarded TIL
/ s12,669,775 contract, although not thu
lowest bidder.
Many contractors are as interested
! in the outcome Of the present cas-,
as they are in the Cross River contract
| They say that unless the Mayor or tn,
Charter Revision Commission take!
| hold of the matter that there Is it'll,
| hope of keeping the two firms out o
the contract. as the powers of thu
| Water Supply Board are almost su
preme The Mayor can dismiss mem
bers of the board on charges afte
trial, but unless this is done quickl.
lit is believed the board will appeal Il
| the courts and compel the Comparable
| to register the contract.