The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-27
CHI LDREN PERISHED IN
 FIRE IN MONTREAL SCHOOL

ments. The oliver and Bangs bid at 75 per cent. was rejected as not sat- isfying the specifications of the invf- tation. Mir. Macarthur and his asso- ciates. not objecting and preferring this course to an invitation for new bids. MT. Oliver was allowed to perfect his bid with new associates and new finan- ciai responsibilities, but this permission did not in any way change the situa- tion from what 1t would have been had Mir. Oliver's bid in It's present form been presented on January 12, the day fixed for receiving the bids.
 Under the invitation for bids, the reserved power exists in the Commits sion to reject all bids, and the first question is whether 1t shall do so. The purpose of the contract was to secure. in the building of the canal, the ser vices of the best. most experienced and most skilled contractors in the coun- try at the least risk to them. and at the least expense to the Government. An investigation into the two bids above mentioned shows that this pur- pose of the Government has failed. In each bid the contractors of experience, whose personal services in the work are what the Commission has sought. have made arrangements to divide the profits under the per centage bid with bankers or others, whom the contrac- tors have had to look to for the needed capital, so that the contractors who are actually to do the work have ar- ranged to accept a comparatively small proportion of the profits accruing under the contract.
 "In other words. the Government by this arrangement is made to pay high ner centage for the use of capi- tai which 1t might Itself have furnished at A much lower rate. while the per centage which the contractors are to receive for the real benefit they are to confer on the Government are reduced to very meagre and perhaps inade- ouate compensatioN No contract can ultimately operate to the beneht or the Government in which the contractor energy. skill. experience and personal supervision of the work are not aoe- quately paid for.
 stevens Against Oliver.
 MT stevens the chief engineer who proposed the form of contract whicn with notifications was adopted, ahVis- es against accepting either bid because acceptance of either would not III ms judgment accomplish the purpose nc sought. The considerations stated are by themselves sufficient to require a reflection of all bids and a chance Tn the proposed form of contract
 ..One of the chief reason for adopting the contract as proposed was that III its main features it was formulated by Mir Stephens who was expected to SUI periyse the work as chief engineer. He had had experience with contracts of this character and he had eighteen months actual experience with the work on the isthmus. Less than ten days ago I received letter from MT. stevens In which he asked to be entire ly relieved from work on the canal as soon as he could be replaced by com petent man and that person could be- come familiar with tho work. l have accepted hIs resignation. The with drawal ot MT. Stevens takes away the special reason mentioned for proceed ing under the present form of the con trac.
 Tn order to secure continually in engineering control and management In the future, I have decided to request you to assign to the office of chief en- gineer, Major Goethals. member or the corps of army engineers. It Is not my purpose to interfere with tho ad- mirable work now being done by the present assistant chief engineer. Mr. Ripley and the various heads of the de- partments The work of construction is moving on well and will continue to do so.
 TWO other competent members of the engineer corps, Major Gaillard and Major Seibert. will accompany Maj. Goethals to the isthmus and assist him in his labors. They will be appointed on the commission.
 I request the commission to take the formal action necessary to reject the Mac Arthur and the Oliver bids in accordance with the power reserved to 1t in It's invitation.
 Very respectfully yours,