Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1908-07-02
A PECULIAR AFFAIR.
Some Three Thousand Dollars Worth
o1 Bsllges Ordered by the County
Commissioners Without In
vltlng Proposals for Bids.
An Action That Is Entirely illegal and
tie Contamination Of Which
Will Not BE Allowed.

For couple u weeos there has been
much comment in the southern part
ri the county, caused by one u the
most startling acts on the part ~ a
group OF county officers that II has
ever been our duty 10 chronicle.
At = special meeting held on May
18th last the board let the following
contracts for bridges, as shown by the
minutes oi the meeting:
One 7O-foot steel bridge
across Beaver creek, In sec
tion %, township l32,
range "a. ...... ...... e l,25V 90
One s5-foot steel bridge be
tween sections and ..
township 40, range g. $50 90
One !0.foot steel bridge be
tween sections !. and o,
township 100, range 10 l.753 90
Now, the peculiar pafl Of this pccu
liar case Is that not a line in the way
OF proposals for bids has been pub
lished. No opportunity was given to
competing bidders. The contract was
let TO the llcnncpln Bridge Company,
Of Minneapolis. In addition, without
publishing proposals for bids, and
without inviting competition in any
way, the following bridge repairs were
let to the same company.
Raising bridge on section "a,
township l322, range 76. Ia9 no
Approach for Fischer bridge,
In township III, rage a.. 22O 90
The total Of this work as illegally
let Is s4,Gl2.00 The worst u it is that
two Of these bridges on Cattai creek.
east ~ Winona, are said to he located
IN the wrong place, ard residents OF
the neighbofhood say that another
bridge will be necessary IN order THAT
the Two bridges may be u any use
whatever. II Is also c!aImed that by
= purchasing ~ condemning small
strip ~ land near the creek the build
Ing ~ one bridge would be sufficient.
Now, the Record does no. imagine
Tor a minute that the members VI the
hoard are governed BY corrupt motives
In the leaAt. Ali the commissioners
but the one In wliose district bridge
Is located must he governed largely by
information and advice received from
others But II must be apparent u
the gentlemen composing the board
that such proceedings AS this will not
answer. Here we have 1862 Oh TO be
expended without shadow Of law for
so doing. True, the present board
may say that they are doing it foi the
best. But Is II not very dangerous
precedent 10 establish. Although, the
present board Is honest, ii might hap
pen that . dishonest majority might
some day sit In the board and this
majority could point 10 this action as
precedent for dcspciling the county.
Assistant States Attorney Coventry
interviewed Auditor Pitts regarding
the matter, and was Informed by that
Official that Nobody but yon and
Strccter are making fuss about IL. .
or words TO that effect. but the audi.
tor Is wrong A great many people
IN the Win0na ncighbprlinod practi-
cally all Of them are making a very
big fuss about 1t. The Record editor
knew nothing about IL until lie heard
u down In the southern part ~ the
county ten days or 50 ago. How could
nc or any other taxpayer know any
thing about IL, when the auditor,
minutes did not recount the fact that
the bids were let without due process
oflaw: The writer has no more IN
tcrest In the matter than any other
taxpayer, and not nearly as muci, AS
those who would year after year have
tn use the bridges. Neither docs NE
care TO get into n row with the county
commissioners, who have the namin,,
Of Official papers, or the auditor md
treasurer, who can and do steer The
lob work To this or that ollicc, as they
may see III, but the Record las never
hcSitated rs every old-tlmer I'm the
county knows Ito give the facts 10 it's
readers whenever It's editor thought IL,
his duty so 10 do. And we donot SEQ
how cconld retain The confidence of
our subscribers and do otherwise
MIR. Coventry, acting as states al.
tofhcy In the absctce uf MIR. I.vnn
says that lie will require tile law Ia lc
complied with, because IL is his du,y
TO do so. And We believe every fam
minded citizen viii sustain la 50 do.
ing
The auditors excuse for the LETTING
Of the bids without complying with
The law Is that IL VAS To head on some
bridge trust az Their But why N the
work was secured az II lower price Nv
letting the bid ON the sly could not
The lIcnncpin Bridge Company ibid
lust AZ low In cOmpetltioh With uthc,s:
but To US II seems that There is ne
possible valid excuse for doing a thiui