Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1908-09-10
MAI mIpee DEAL.


tsl;sssssr gss<sssase1a. Ssss. y: AT
+ sys.&.. z,ss.znl s. LIE BArd Of
slcs-7.r can Z sss5c.zsrs- assd Nay 18th
~. .as ts2ssssir@ contracts tes
..s.s!asss All bridge repairs acre ls.s-
Csos - ,sss s.<el hssi1s ACROSS
issxTs. e-tss. II see.sgsl
sasasalp ~ rzncs - sl-ssis 10
ss,e 4s-se,s. ssesa hirsaSe ts
.~>en ssc.soas 1ni 2
s3srssllir laa- r1rse = i-ian q,
ss-ss >se.o,ai S.sel bridge ~
.usen sections ana 2
township lsa. range - l..i5s %
Gzsslns hrsdse on SECTION II.
township -, range 81. lss 90
Approach fox Fischer bridge
la~nship Isl. range So 30 Q,
The Law states very plainly that !cr
~c,k amounting 10 Sic, OF more The
pu's.ie must be allowed TO compete on
the 5ob-biss 10 be adTertised FOX in
.Ls county papers Apparently no
one h1d any chance 10 lid. and the
nos, Of the people did not even know
The bridges were 10 be built The
contract Was lei u Hennepin Bridge
Company.
Late. 90 me Hennepin Bridge Com
pany. pursran. u the contract. con-
s.,ucted one bridge asross Beaver
creek. and had the material for the
tvs bridges across Castail creek ship
ped u Pollock Just ahout this time
tie people 81 the Ninona district woke
up 10 The fact that the bridge con-
tracts had been let. had not been ad-
yeYtised for. they had not been coz
snifed as TO where the bridges were to
be placed. and that. in fact. the sole
object seemed 20 be 70 locate the
bridges so as TO make more contracts
available to the favored company.
There vas no complain, from the
people in the Cat,ail country On &C.
count Of the contracts being illegally
let-because the people didn't know it.
In the meantime the people At Lin
ton began 10 sit up and take notice,
much 70 the discomfort. it is said, OF
some Of the county officials In the
absence OF States Attorney Lynn,
Attorney Coventry. his deputy. took
the matter up, and expressed his SEN
siments very plainly in regard 70 the
deal. Though the material for two
bridges WAS already at Pollock and
one bridge completed, the protests
against such loose methods Of doing
business grew 50 strong that at the
July meeting the following resolution
vas unanimously adopted:
-sOn motion OF Commissioners Kul,z
seconded by Commissioner Sherwood
TIA. portion Of contract with the
Hennepin Bridge Company. dated
May u, 1908, relating to new bridges
vas Ysconsidered and declared null
and yoid-all members voting aye"
Then On July 18th and for two weeks
following that date. an advertisement
headed Proposals for Bridges APP
pared in the county papers, and. 10
spite OF the fact that the law plainly
states that Specifications fer such
work must Re published, the only
thing referring u that part Of it in
the advertisement was the line stating
tina. Plans and Specifications can be
seea at the Office IT the County Audi.
Tor. Linton. y. u.
When asked 10 regard u the matter.
Chairman Cleyeyinga is said to have
explained it by saying that the county
could do better by letting the con-
tract privately, because the bridge
companies were ali in trust and En-
mons county belonged TO the Hen
nepin Bridge Company. And from
further developments this appears to
be mighty near true, for at meeting
held U consider the bids the contract
vas reiet 70 the Hennepin people for
sl.o5smofe than they originally got 1t
for. Their first bid was s2,24O. The
7o-foot bridge is already built and in
use, and the materials for the others
handy TO use. The last accepted bid
is s3, 49s.
It would seem that, If the bridge
companies are all in trust. the
county might save money by construct
ing their own bridges. They can buy
lumber and bridge timber in the open
market, and concrete piers are not
overly expensive. Is there really any
necessity for letting all bridge con-
tracts, as has been done for years past.
to this one particular company simply
because the county belongs to it?
Who delivered the bill OF sale? Are
there not other companies willing
to bid against the trust? 1t is true
that a representative of another bridge
concern was present and submitted
bids at the last meeting, but do not
the county officers admit that it was
al bluff? II the first bids were not
illegal, why were they cancelled and
new ones called for? II the Hennepin
Bridge Company could build the bridge
In May for q, 24O, why we're they given
the contract for identically the same
work , couple Of months latter at an
increased cost to the taxpayersof over
81, 600? When the county auditor