The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-12-12


Bidders Not ON Equality.
! The franchise. he contended. ola ho'
put all bidders on an equality. since
IL delegates all questions OF route ana
extent to the Committee on Streets. II
does not provide a contract so clear as
to be enforceable by mandamus. IL
makes 10 provision for the mainteh-
ance Of adequate service at reasonaoie
rates throughout the term OF the gran
nor does II require the maintenance OF
the property.
Claiming that the bid was made
quats. for the rights granted. MI. An
derson asserted that the lienrico COM
pany proposed now TO operate an eieO
eric plant 10 make up It's dehcIt o.
$4,000 on its railroad. Quoting
from reports 10 the corporal non
Commission. he asked the Mayor
whether he was prepared TO sign the
statement that company which was
practically insolvent on its own sworn
statement was better prepared 10 give
service 10 the community than some
other bidder
Not Valid. Says Judge thristia"'
Judge Christian, representing AT
thur Upper & Co. rose TO coircc.
statement made on the floor OF me
Board q Aldermen. saying that ne
had never given an opinion thar the
ordinance In question was valid
Il said" he continued. that whether
il was valid or not. my clients had
bid with their eyes open. and with iulI
knowledge Of its contents. They bid
on the ordinance before they asked my
advice as TO its validity. and are pre-
pared 10 stand by their bid.
Would YOU mind" asked Mayor
Ainslie. telling US VIVA; your opinion
OF the validity Of the ordinance is?
81 advised my clients" answered
Judge Christian. that had grave
doubts OF its validity. Later I came
TO the opinion that the ordinance was
invalid, but / advised my clients tnat
in my view they were estopped from
pleading that because Of their bid. MY
people are willing 10 take their chances
on the opinion Of the City Attorney
and I will help them to sustain its
validity as far l can
Puts In Upset Bid.
ION the night that bids were re-
caived one Of the firm Of Arthur Lip
per & co. was present with money
for bids in packages of $4,000 each-
The only reason we did not increase
our bid was because our only oppo-
nent. the Richmond and HenricO Com
pany. bid only $40. and it seemed alb
surd 10 bid against ourselves when We
were already 500 times the highest
bidder. We expected TO go very much
higher than we did go.
The award of this contract TO the
lowest bidder for the reasons set forth
is an outrage on the right OF my
clients. Is IL any reason because they
are operating a street car line at
loss of Sis 600 a year. which. in the
opinion of many well-infOrmed people,
will always be losing venture. that
the city Of Richmond should couple
this franchise with that of corpora
ton on its own showing already run
ming heavily IN debt. My clients are
under no such handicap. and 1 have
shown that they are financially able 70
carry out their undertakings. l haven't
thought ii proper TO go around button
hOiing Counciimen for my clients. but
do feel that we have been unfairly
treated when we bid in perfectly good
faith and have shown our ability TO
carry out any agreement we may enter
into. 1 have a telegram from Arthur
Lipper & Co. confirmed by letter.
authorizing me. IL the franchise is re-
advertised, to Increase their bid by
$4,000. or. in other words. to offer
the city $4,000 for the rights 1t is
proposed to give TO a company already
losing money heavily at Its nominal bid
Of s1O.'
Discusses Veto Power.
recess was taken until o'clock.
when Mr.. Kelley opened for the Hen