Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-04-28

/
American Bridge Company. !
The Phoenix Bridge Company.
Rroyn. Kctcham Iron Works.
Berlin Construction Company.
| 1,he Boston Bridge Works, Incor-
porated.
:, Chelmsford Foundry Company.
The Canton Bridge Company
G. w. 6, F. Smith Iron Company.
New England structural Company
Boston steel and Iron Company. -
Eastern Bridge and Structural Com
pany. ......
Maeuuier & Jones Company.
United Construction Company.
y Springfield Construction Company.
New England Bolt and Nut Com-
pany. t
j. T.. Croft & Co.
Smith & Lovett Company.
! l.. M. Ham & Co.
| Fletcher & Crowell Company.
| II. P Converse s. Co.
| Milliken Brothers.
lowering & Garrigues Company.
| James H. Tower. ".s:
| CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN-
| DATIONS.
| Comment on the moral meaning OF
these methods and transactions would
seem superfiuous; but as they were
defended at the public hearings of
the Commission and asserted to be
common and entirely proper incidents
of business life, and as these prac-
tees have been freely resorted to by
some of the largest industrial corr
porations that the world has ever
| known, the Commission deems 1t
proper to record it's own opinion. 81
The Commission dislikes to believe
that these practices are as alleged. es-
tablished by the general custom Of the
business community; and this defence
Itself, if unchallenged, amounts to a
| grave accusation against the honesty
of present business methods.
To answer an invitation for public
or private work by sending in what
purports to be genuine bids, but what
in reality are ,collusive figures pur-
posely made higher than, the bid
which it is known will be submitted
by one of the supposed competitors Is
an act of plain dishonesty.
To support these MISREPRESENTATION
by false affirmations, In writing that
4 the bids are submitted in good faith,
and without fraud. collision or con-
nection with. any other bidder, is a
positive. and deliberate fraud; the
successful bidder in the competition is
guilty of obtaining money by false
pretenses; and the others have made
themselves parties to conspiracy
clearly unlawful at the common law.
Where, as in the case. of the "Bos-
ton Agreement number Of the most
important manufacturers and dealers
in structural steel in this country, in
Guiding the American Bridge Com
pany, one of the constituent members
of the United States Steel Corpora
ton, have combined together for the
purpose of raising prices by>means of
collusive bids and false representa-
tons, their conduct is not only repug-
nant to common honesty, but is plain
ly obnoxious to the Federal statute
/ known as the Sherman or antitrust
law. s.. ....4'...
The commission believes that an ex-
ample should be made of these men,
and that the members of the, Boston
4 Agreement" or at least all those who
in, October and November. 1906. en-
tered in the fraudulent competitions
for the Cove-street draw span and the
fsrookline street bridge. should be
brought before a Federal grand jury
for violation of the Act of Congress
of July g. 1890. The three years
limitation for participation in these
transactions has not yet elapsed, and
the evidence obtained by the COM
mission is so complete that there
should be no difficulty in the Govern.
ments securing a conviction In this
case
This recommendation applies to the
officers and directors of the following
corporations. as well as to the cor.
pOratfons themselves, viz: =.
American Bridge Company OF New
York
The Pennsylvania Steel Company
New Jersey Bridge Company.
; New England Structural Company.
The Boston Bridge Works. s(Incor.
, porated). . q, sy
Eastern Bridge and structural Com.
pany. ~
Berlin Construction Company.
The Canton Bridge Company.
The droton Bridge Company. FL
Owego Bridge Company;
/ The King Bridge Company r
rIeueICk W. cdges 1OT Belmont lfOT
, Works. +
So far as the pecuniary interests ol
: the city of Boston are concerned, the
. Commission recommends that an ac-
ton be Brought In the state courts tt
, recover the money out of which thu
city was defrauded in the boiler rel
pair contracts Of 1904 and 1905, In the
, hreproofing contracts. ana in /. the
, Broadway Bridge transac tion OF 1902
! and that suits be. brought In the
United States Circuit Court for the
District of Massachusetts against ali
, the members OF the ''f3ostun Agree
ment'' who competed for city work, To
recover the triple damages allowed In
such cases by the provisions Of the
, Sherman Act -
For the future, the ComfnIssior
, recommends that before any contract
is Iet. whether by public adveftisenen,
or BY private Invitation, Tor work e.
\ ceeding SI0oo Ii azaaaii Aha aontrsc,
tor be required 10 fttrpish state.
H. -