Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1910-06-10
ms NEVADA A CRAFT sCANDll7

Is there to be a scandal in tn,
building of the new state prison
May heaven deliver us.i There i
so much scandal in other cities anC
states that we have become mealy.
mouthed writing about it, never
thinking that possible graft would
be found in our own door-yard.
But here come reports that are
sicklied DER with The pale cast OF
suspicion, and not very pale either.
Nevada is building a ley peni-
tentiary-that is, will build it if
the money holds out; but the be-
ginning is not very suspicious.
Among other requisites of a prison
r prison cells, of course. The
state board of prison commissioners
advertised for bids for cells, EN-.
bracing in the advertisement exact
and complete specifications. The
bids have been opened and on a job
that was to cost on the outside less
than $500, 900, here was a difference
of $50, 900 beween the highest and
the lowest bidders. All the bids
were from reputable houses, and all
accompanied by certified checks
guaranteeing that the work would
be done according to specifications.
AS between the reliability of the
bidders there was no choice, and
under these conditions it was
naturally expected that the board
would accept the lowest bid. But
what vas the result? After many
meetings of varying duration, with
the eager and gracious represent
atives of the bidders at all times on
the ground with the glad hand and
the whispering voice, the award
was finally made-and made not to
the lowest bidder, whose bid was
S106,8 45, but to the firm which bid
$191,SSO
The state prison board comprises
the attorney general, the secretary
of state and the governor. When
the vote was taken the governor
moved to accept the lowest bid
that was defeated, and the two op-
posing members voted in the face
of the governors protest, to accept
the bid that called for an excess of
$4,000. And what made their
action ever more reprehensible
was that the state engineer had
reported to the board that the lesser
bid in all respects complied with
requirements of he advertised speci-
fications, that the bidders had furn-
ished a bond to do the work and do
1T under the supervision of the
state engineer. He also RECOMMENDED
that the lesser bid be accepted by
the board.
The two members of the board
who voted for the "sweetned" bid
made no explanation except that
the makers of the bid were a Reno
firm while the others were out
siders. But this is not sufficient.
We're the bids approximately the
same, or yer there even $40, 900
difference as against a home firm,
we would have approved Of the
award. But home sentiment can
not sufficiently explain the action
of the board in making the sue.
cessful bidders a present of $685.
900. This must be explained on
some other hypothesis.
The story from Carson is that
when the successful bidder was
thanking the board for the con-
tract, Governor Dickerson spoke up
and declared that the contractors
had nothing to thank him for, as
he had voted against giving them
the bid and considered the award
an outrage on the state. This was
Just like Dickerson. Always square
always honest; always fearless and
outspoken; and If we mistake not
he will resist the award, throw it
into court and show up the vermin
in the wood pile il such there be-