Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1908-10-22

manner.
| That they lad violated the Law IL
that they had not published the speci
ncations OF the various bridges to b
built. allowing opportunities for I'M
limited crookedness IN case Of collu
sion between the board members and
the bidders.
That they had repeatedly let the
building of bridges to a notorious
member of the bridge trust. at exor-
bitant prices, in total disregard Of the
interests Of the people whom they are
supposed to represent. and in viola
ton OF their oaths Of once
During all this time not a word OF
explanation had been vouchsafed to
the people by the board through any
OF the newspapers OF the county So
far Is the public is concerned, the old
lvanderbiltian declaration Of the
people be ID" seemed to govern
the men Who have almost unlimited
power in the spending Of the peoples
money.
Not only did the commissioners
make no explanation after the lirst
Record article vas published, in July
last, but they added insult to In
jury" al their August meeting. 80 far
as the taxpayers OF Emmons county
are concerned, by opening alleged
bids" for bridges one Of which had
already been built The publication
asking for bids had been made in
an effort Of the commissioners to
equirm out Of III. mess they had got
ten themselves into by their illegal
aad peculiar action at the May meet.
ing. when a contract was let to the
commissioners pet, the Hennepin
Bridge Company. without having
complied with the law in inviting
competitive bids. At that August
meeting the proposals for bids for
two bridges lone already built) were
opened Even In an effort to cover
up their tracks the commissioners
had rot come anywhere near comply
ing with the law, in that they had
published the notice but four weeks,
when the law says it must be pub
lished thirty days (six weeks), ana
also in not publishing specifications,
as required by Law, SO that all bidders
might know that they were bidding
under the same specifications.
And then, as climax to the mis-
cradle course Of Law violations, they
paid $1,0,s more for practically the
same work than had been accepted at
the May meeting
Down in the Winona country Com
missioner Sherwood offered as an
excuse for the board in paying more
than thousand dollars more to the
Hennepin Bridge Company at the
August meeting than the company
offered to do the same work for at
the May meeting that we could not
reject the bid because Auditor Pitts
had not put paragraph to that ef-
feet in the call for bids which he pub
lished after one Of the bridges had al
ready been built This is silly con-
tention, for the reason that the Law
Of North Dakota authorizes the board
to reject any or all bids, and 1t does
not require line in the auditors
notice as to whether the board will
or will not reject bids. That right is
theirs, regardless Of the notice invlt-
ing bids. II the bid had been for
$50 900 would they have had to ac-
cept it? Mr.. Sherwood's contention in
that respect is too contemplate for
serious consideration.
At the August meeting, after the
pet Of the commissioners. the Henne-
pin Bridge Company, had been Illegal
ly given $3.50 for building bridge
which WIS illegally let and illegally
paid for. the auditor told Chairman
Cleveringa that the price vas more
than q thousand dollars higher than
the company had offered to do the
work for at the May meeting. Where
upon Mr.. Cleveringa said to the aud
itor: That is not your business. You
keep still about It,"
And, after the Record had for
months prodded this courthouse
combination that has been playing
fast and loose with the interests Of
the county, and had been unable to
get word from them In explanation
although special meeting had
been held In the meantime-they nm.
ally conclude that something must
be done In the interest Of the candi-
dacy OF their friend and advisor. Mr..
Herolz. So. at their meeting last
week they instructed the auditor TO
amend the minutes" Of the August
meeting so that the bid for the bridge
already built would read that twenty
feet Of approaches" were to be built,
thus seeking to show that the s1.05s
presented to the Hennepin Bridge
Company at the August meeting was
for approaches" not ordered at the
May meeting-approaches that would