The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-07-29
FAIR PLAY,
BROAD ST. PAVING

To the Editor Richmond Nirginian;
| In the interest of fair play, and IN
3justice to all the taxpayers of Rich
nond, / hope you will publish TINS
letter to the good people of Richmond
The firm of /. J. Smith & Co, lnc.'
have been grossly misrepresented by
statements made by the Washington
Asphalt Block and Tile company In
reference to the bids for paving Broad
street. And the misrepresentation, II
1T accornpfishes its purpose, can have
no other effect than to fool few
Broad street merchants into aiding
the Washington company in getting
twenty mine (29c) cents per square
yard more for asphalt block paving
than the ]. J. Smith company, Inc,
contracted for; that is. on the present
appropriation, il this outrage on the
people can be successfully carried out,
the taxpayers will be paying six thou
sand, three hundred and eighty 90,
$500 dollars more than they should
pay out of this .fty thousand t$5o,-
000) dollar appropriation for the pro-
posed pavement OF n few squares on
Broad street
The Washington company are the
sole distributors of the asphalt blocks
for this territory and sell their blocks
directly to paving contractors, as well
as by contracting for paving.
The l. 7. Smith company, Inc, De
came a customer of the Washington
company in 1910. and obtained price
on asphalt block according to the FOL
lowing letter:
Washington, u. G., Feb. 3, 1910.
"Messrs. L. J. Smith & Co, Richmond
Va.
Dear Sirs,--For any work that may
be let in Richmond for the year 1910.
calling for asphalt blocks, we. the
Asphalt Block and Tile company, agree
TO furnish YOU with said blocks, i've
inches by four inches by twelve inches,
for the sum of one dollar and forty
two cents (s1.42) per square yard, l.
% b. Richmond, and also agree not 10
give any person for said blocks any
price on blocks, except ourselves, nut
If there is any competition from any
unforeseen sources not now known
both your and our firm will have power
and it is agreed that prices may and
will have 10 be changed.
Yours truly,
(Signed) p. MALONEY, Pres,
washington Asphalt Block and Tile
Company"
The I. J. Smith & Co. Inc, in pur-
suance of this letter, would bid on
asphalt blocks in competition with
the Washington company for paving
the streets of Richmond, and the con
tracts for laying asphalt blocks IN
1910 were awarded To the |, ], smith
& Co, Inc.
After the time specified in the above
letter had expired the L. J. Smith x
CO. Inc, continued to purchase as
phalt blocks at the price quoted ABOVE
in 1911. aud laid same in Richmond.
When bids We're asked for in l9l2
for paving seven squares on Broad
street. I. J. Smith IL Co. Inc. knew
that the Washington company had. a
few weeks before. agreed to pave
Grove avenue with asphalt blocks for
two dollars and twenty cents (S220l
per square yard, this being tho price
paid to the |. j. Smith * Co. Inc.
for the same pavements laid in 1910
and 1911.
When the bids for paving Broad
street were opened It was found that
the l. J. Smith S Co, Inc. were the
lowest bidders on smooth paving. they
having bid two dollars and fifty-four
cents ($2.54 per square yard on as
phalt blocks. while the bid OF the Al
/
pavement was two dollars ana nifty six
cents (s2.56) per yard. and the bid
of the Washington company was TWO
dollars and eighty-nine cents ts2,Ssl
| per yard on asphalt blocks, or thirty
| five (35c) cents higher than the bid OF
| +. J. Smith & Co. Inc, or seven thou-
| sand, seven hundred ST7o0) collars
/ on these few squares of Broad street
The street committee awarded the
! ~, X
for asphalt blocks, they being the low
est bidders; but somehow the Wash
| ington. company seemed to arrive al
| the conclusion that the award was
made to !. j. Smith Il Co. me, not
| because they were the lowest bidders
on smooth pavement. but rather be-
/ Carse the committee was unwilling t6
| pave Broad street with any othei
! pavement than asphalt blocks. and i'm
mediately the Washington company
conceived the scheme of refusing tc
/ seti their asphalt bfucks to t, ], Smith
! Il 90, Ire, at any price, feeling sure
that the street committee would be
I-forced to award them the contract al
their bid Of two dollars and eighty
nine cents ($z.s9) per square yard
and In this way they would hold III
the city for seventy seven hundred
($7.7oo) dollars, or nearly fourteen Ga
per cent more IMAM illt l. d. .1iiitlh ~
Co, Inc, bid
IL has been shown TO the street com
mitiee by overwhelming proof that tn'
Washington company manufacture,
their asphalt blocks in 1908 at ninety'
two (92c) cents per square yard, an'
In 1910 and 1911 they sold these hlocFl
to I. j. Smith & Co, Inc, at one dol
lar ana forty two cents (sf42D pc
square ward, delivered in Richmond
and in 1912 they sold these blocks n
their own yards In Washington for or
dollar and twenty-four ceats (sl.24
per square yard, or plus freight 4
Richmond OF twenty and one mai
go Lee cents per yard. making ON
dollar and orty-four and one-hai
cents tSl.44 1-2} per yard, delivered Il
Richmond. Thus the price had al
yanced In 1912 two and one half cent
q 1-2c) per yard over the price o
1910 and 1911.
The /. j. Smith a. Co. Inc, AMI IN
Washington company laid these block
in Richmond without a concrete foun
J dation In 1910 and 1911, at two dol
lars and twenty cents ts2.2pl pc
square ward, and the Washington com
pany Is now laying these blocks o
Grove avenue, In Richmond. at tn
same price.
The specifications for Broad stree
call for six &C inches) OF concrete foun
dation, which would add twenty 81