The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1915-04-08

number of bids or attempts to secure
new bids, would have each time the
lowest bid and eventually secure the
contract"
The conditions that prevail in
Minnesota are not peculiar to this
state. Under date of March 81, 1915,
the state engineer of an adjoining
state wrote this committee in part
as follows: ''According to informa-
tion that l have received from vari-
Gus sources, this is about how the
bridge trust has been managing
affairs in this state up to the present
time. The leading contractors enter
into an agreement or have an under
standing. They apportion the coun-
ties among themselves, and when
bids are called for, the contractor
who owns that county, submits
the lowest bid, which is very much
higher than it should be. The other
contractors, just to make the thing
look good, submit higher bids. Then
the successful bidder pays the others
enough to cover their expenses in
submitting bid. If the local So
called 'butter in submits a lower
bid than the contractor who owns
the county, friendly board of
county commissioners or Of supervis-
ors will reject all bids and call for
new ones. Then the favored con-
tractor submits a low bid and gets
the contract. After he gets it the
plans are changed to provide for adj
ditions, upon which a handsome
profit may be made.''
Only a few years ago the combine
of bridge contractors became so no.
torious in the state of Ohio that
quite number of individuals and
bridge companies, were indicted by
the grand jury of Lima, Ohio, on the
charge of ''conspiracy against trade;''
convictions followed. The cases
were carried to the supreme court
and we're affirmed by that court.
The Engineering News, comment
ing upon this case said: "a bridge
pooling prosecution in the state of
Ohio ended June 18th with pleas of
guilty by eight bridge construction
companies to the charge of conspir-
acy in restraint of trade. The prose-
cution was directed against a high
way bridge pool Of kind that has
long prevailed in the business Of
building county and town bridges.
The pool contemplated the attend
ance Of agents Of some Or all of the
several companies at each letting at
which the job would be awarded to
one Of the members in accordance
with systematic allotment of work
and adjustment of the several bids to
suit. The bids being thus based on
a. secret understanding, they were
made high enough to yield normal
profit to the company to whom the
work was allotted and in addition
yield fixed amount to each of the
other companies in attendance"
There was also a prosecution of the
bridge combine in Illinois, convic-
tions secured and fines aggregating
$1,000 paid. Louis H. Burrell, who
conducted the prosecution, under
date Of October p, 1914, wrote in
part as follows: 1.-The American
Bridge company incorporated under
the laws of the state of New Jersey,
and covering practically all of the
bridge companies in the west, had a
regular pool agreement fixing the
amounts to be paid to each concern
which, appeared at bridge lettings,
and providing that the successful
bidder should pay to the others stip-
ulated amounts, and providing a
schedule or scale of amounts to be so
paid. AS result Of these prosecu-
tions the bridge companies sub
divided themselves and in 1905 the
bridge concerns in Illinois, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Minnesota and possibly
some other sta ties, had contractors
pooling agreement whereby the terri.
tory in Illinois was parce]led out and
it was known before hand who was
to be the successful bidder in that
territory upon each letting. A scale
of pools was agreed upon to be paio
to bidders who appeared at lettings
for the purpose of making it appear
that the letting was competitive. II
this county I made a careful investi
cation of the records for period O.
ten years. and it showed that tn
lettings all went to one concern; tha'
the other bridge concerns had hat
representatives present, but in each
instance bid higher than the con
Germ to whom this territory was par
celled.'
In the fifteenth biennial report O.
the state engineer of Colorado TO