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

nation just far enough to satisfy our
selves that there is such an under
standing or combination among GER
tain bridge contractors, though such
combination is not as general
throughout the state as three or
four years ago. In fact, an officer of
one of the large bridge companies
operating in the state freely ad-
mitted that few years ago, there
was such combination. but claimed
that there is no such combination at
the present time. We are, however,
of the opinion that the. combina-
tion still exists wherever local con-
ditions will permit. Local boards
and officers are often imposed upon
and led to believe there is fair and
open competition, when as matter
of fact, bids submitted are ''dummy
bids'' or ''straw bids,' except the
bid of the company to whom con-
tract is awarded.
A specific instance of this kind of
work is furnished the committee by
the auditor of Itasca county, who
wrote the committee in part as fol-
lows: II find, from search of the
records in this Office and by inter-
views with members of the board of
county commissioners of Itasca
county, that the commissioners are
we'll satisfied with the bids that
were received from the various
bridge builders during the past two
years. To prove that there is fair
and open competition, the auditor
then proceeds to give a list of the
bids which we're submitted for the
construction of six bridges in his
county on August 26. 1913, and
which were all awarded to the Hen
nepin Bridge Company of Mime
apolis. 1t did not seem to strike
the auditor as being peculiar that
this particular company was low bid
der on each of the six bridges, nor
did it occur to him to look up the
competitive bidders, who were
North Star Bridge Co., Twin City
Bridge Co., Massillon Bridge Co.,
Western Bridge Construction Co. and
C. G. Sedgwick
This committee does not hesitate
to assert that the bids submitted on
these bridges, other than the bids of
the Hennepin Bridge company, were
''straw bids'' and submitted for the
purpose of giving the impression that
there was fair and open competition.
AS far as this committee is able to
discover, the North Star Bridge COM
pany, Twin City Bridge company,
Massillon Bridge company, Western
Bridge Construction company, and
C. G. Sedgwick combined. con-
structed less than a dozen bridges in
the state during the last four years.
Practically all bridge work, in Itasca
county has been done by the Henne-
pin Bridge company, and informa-
tion received from reliable sources in
the county, is to the effect that it is
generally believed this territory has
been allotted to that company.
| 1t is rather significant that during
the last two years, all contractors for
bridges in Aitkin county costing in
excess of $500 have been awarded to
the Minneapolis Bridge company !;
while in Norman county they have
all been awarded to the Security
Bridge company of Minneapolis; in
Wilkin county they have all been
awarded to the Great Northern
Bridge company: and in Mcleod and
Wabasha counties they they have all
been awarded to the NJ. A. Adams
Bridge Company. .-...
This committee has received COM
munications from large number of
county auditors, in reference to
this alleged combination of bridge
contractors, and we quote therefrom
as follows: -
Hon. H. J. Welte, auditor of Polk
county, says: "1t has been our ex-
perience that in nearly all cases the
bidding on bridge work has not
shown the competition that it should
have. 1t has not happened in many
cases that there was no competition
at all, but when a*number of bidders
we're present, almost invariably the
same company was the lowest bidder.
AS we understand it. in other coun-
ties some other member of the same
list of bidders would get nearly all
the bridges there. 1t appears that
the work is divided into districts in
this way, so that there would be
very little competition. -
Hon. G. L. Kennedy, auditor of
Blue Earth county, says: Il feel
sure that few years ago there was a
combine of the bridge contractors.