The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-11-28

i ~@-~$
Five-We take up in detail the article
published by the Emporia Gazette un-
der date OF October 20, 1914, which said
article was written by 81. e. Bowman
as admitted by him. We find no evil
dence of any partiality or favoritism.
either political or personal. in the
awarding of contracts by the board OF
control or by any member of said board.
| The Overall Contract.
] Six-We find that at the June letting
J in 1913. when it is charged that over
alls, which had formerly been pur-
chased at $4.47 per dozen. and Jumpers,
which had formerly been purchased at
$4.45 per dozen, were let at $3.50 per
| dozen for overalls, and $l0.5O per ooz-
en- for jumpers, the board of control at
| that time was composed of H c. Bow
man. chairman Sherman Elliott and
w. e. Brooks. the said Bowman and
| Elliott having been members OF said
board for years and experienced In the
letting Of contracts. and the said w. -.
Brooks being then new and inexpert-
enced member. and that whatever
censure should be imposed On the board
for the letting OF that contract must
fall equally upon Bowman, Elliott ana
Brooks but We find that the Jumpers
and overalls purchased at the higher
price were far superior in quality to
those of prior purchases by the board,
and we find from the evidence that the
purchases of the higher priced gar
ments have been matter OF sound
economy and business prudence. the
same observation should be made con-
corning the letting Of the overalls and
jumper contracts at the December let
ting in 1913. except that Stance Meyers
had taken the place OF Sherman Elliott
on the board.
seven-We find from the evidence
that the higher price paid for linen at
the December letting, 1913, was justt-
fed by the superior grade OF goods. In
reference to the statement made by
H. c. Bowman in the article in the
Emporia Gazette, in which he charged
that Topeka bidder who bid sixty
nine cents on the linen at the December
letting claimed that he had price of
fifty-two cents from a broker on the
linen that was awarded to a Fort Scott
firm al seventy-five cents, We find that /
said Topeka bidder, was, from his own
testimony, resting under the misappre-
tension as to the linen that was bought
from said Fort Scott firm, and that said
Topeka bidder had no price of fifty-two
cents upon this linen as he had claimed
when making his statement to H. c.
Bowman.
Exercised Best Judgment.
Eight-On the charge that potatoes,
hay and sugar have not been pur-
chased in accordance with the statu-
tory requirement, and that the state
has lost considerable money on these
items on that account, we find that 1t
has not been common for the state to
purchase potatoes and hay at the reg
ular semi-annual lettings and that the
methods pursued by the present board
are in substantial accord with those
which have been pursued by the board
in past years. AS to the failure to
purchase sugar by semi-annual con-
tract. we find that the board in the
- l,~l H>H
that sugar was going down In price,
that that was the consensus of opinion
of men experienced in that trade, and
that in fact it did go down for some
time, the board thereby saving a con-
siderable sum OF money through its
determination not to let sugar con-
tract at the December letting in 1918,
war or from other reasons not de-
velOped in our investigation, the price
of sugar has risen very materially
within the past few months and did
SO very suddenly. and that
suit the state has lost money through
the policy of the board in not letting
a contract for sugar at it's semi-an-
nua1 letting in June, 1914. Your COM
mittee doubts the wisdom of the pol
icy of refraining from purchasing a
staple like sugar at the regular semi
annual letting but we do not mean to
substitute our judgment for the judy
ment Of the board on this subject and
we have no doubt that the board did
exercise its best Judgment and only
followed policy of prior years.
Brooks Wholesale Company.
Nine-On the matter Of the relation
OF w. E. Brooks to the Brooks Whole
sale company of Fort Scott, we find
that said Brooks had been the pro-
prietor of the Brooks Wholesale COM
pany of Fort Scott for a number of
years; that about two months before
he became a member of the board of
control he sold the business outright
to his two sons, rs years old and 80
years old, respectively, and that his
two sons gave him promissory notes
therefor in the sum of $4,000, and
that since that sale by him, Mr..
Brooks has not participated in the
profits of that business in any man.
ner whatsoever; that he has received
payment of $1,000 on those promis-
sorry notes. We further find from the
evidence that during the years when
Mr.. BROOKS was proprietor of that
business 1t netted him from $4,000 to
$4,000 per annum, and that since he
sold the business to his sons he has
received no profits of any character
from the business. either directly or
indirectly. We do find, however, that
In his correspondence as chairman of
the board of control with business
firms with whom he used to deal that
he did occasionally refer to himself as
a member of the Brooks Wholesale
company. and we find from the evil
dence that he did SO in the belief that
the state would receive more consid-
GRAFTON from these firms because of
the fact that he had been their Gus
toner when he was member of the
BROOKS wholesale company. We fur
fvan
company was not a bidder at anv of
these semi-annual lettings, but we
find that three small items of goods
have been purchased from the Brooks
wholesale company (a) five bushels of
seed corn at $2.S5 per hushel, at the
acf ~ n ID a<ay.