The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1915-04-08
VOLUME xxx. NO. Is.

bridge contractors, but it always
seemed almost impossible to avoid
the existing conditions. The county
has number of times rejected all
bids and re-advertised and some
times have been able to lower the
former bid, but usually the lowest
bidder of the previous letting was
the one who got the job.''
Hon. A. V. Sanders, auditor of
Kanabec county, writes as follows:
'No bridges we're let during the last
two years except by day labor con-
tract. Prior to this. it is noticeable
that the Security Bridge Co. of Min
neapolis vas always the lowest bid
der and contract awarded to them.
Every bridge let on contract since I
! commenced as deputy auditor were
let to the above mentioned bridge
company. 1t seems to be an &C
cepted fact that bridge companies do
make combines.''
Hon. T. A. Bailey, auditor of
Pipestone county, writes: "Will say
that in the past three or four years
this county has not let any contracts
for bridges for the reason that it was
impossible to get what We considered
a fair bid. I could not make the
direct statement that the bridge
contractors are in a combination,
but myself as we'll as the county
board are fairly we'll convinced in
our own minds that such is the
case.''
| Hon. J. A. Stennes, auditor of
Chippewa couny, writes: 'While
positive proof is lacking, we have
always understood that there was
tacit agreement between the
different bridge companies, and that
the state was divided into territories
in which the particular companies
should get the jobs, although the
rest usually met and submitted bids.
However, since at present all our
plans are made by the highway COM
mission and We have an engineer on
the job, we have in nearly every case
had independent bidders.''
Hon. A. G. Shogren of Lac Qui
Parle county writes the committee:
!" 1t mas seemed by the way things
have gone in this county, as if there
were some understanding among
bridge men as to who was to have
the contracts for bridges in this
county. One man has received the
contracts for erecting nearly every
bridge in this county for the last
twenty years or more. The last two
or three years, there seems to have
been some competition at bridge let
| tings, but before that there did not
seem to be any. Three bridges have
been let to new concerns the last two
years at competitive lettings, but be-
fore that time it seems that even
when there were other bids SUBJ
mitted, the lowest one was always
that of the party who had usually
built the bridges here''
Hon. Theo. Peterson, auditor of
Waseca county. writes: cup to the
time that we commenced to con-
struct concrete bridges under the
supervision of the highway commits
sion, we seemed to be at the mercy
of the large bridge companies A
certain firm then known as A. Y.
Bayne & Co. built our bridges for
probably twenty years. There al
ways seemed to be lot of competi-
tion and number of bidders, but
when everything was over, this firm
was the lowest bidder, and it always
appeared to me that they were in
collision. Since we got away from
the big concerns, our work has been
done to great extent by local
people. Last year it was all done by
local people, they outbidding outside
competition. -
Hon: j. L. Johnson, auditor of
Renville county, says: ssYou ask
me if think that the bridge men of
this state have apportioned the
counties to the various bridge COM
panies. Will answer the same by
saying yes I don't think that
there is any question about it what
ever. There is every earmark possi-
BILE. except the absolute proof of it.
Our understanding is that a certain
Minneapolis company is supposed to
have the northern half of the county
land another one the southern half of
the county. The county board with
my assistance have worked hard to
break it up, and we have succeeded
to large extent.''
Hon. John Boss, auditor of Waba-
sha county, writes the committee
"After looking up past contracts for
bridge construction and past bids on