The Columbus courier. [volume] (Columbus, Luna County, N.M.) 1911-1920, 1916-12-22

the bid and left the office, later
he came back and said he would
like to leave the bid with us
Mr.. Sherman then informed him
"Iou may leave il here if you
wish to" Later Mr.. Samuels
and Mr.. Pollard appeared before
the Board and urged the rejec-
tion of the bid already accepted
and the acceptance of Mr.. Sam
uels bid. The Board unanimous
ly decided that they could not do
this but that as the contract had
yeen awarded TO Mr.. J. p. Sher-
man and he was notified it must
so stand.
There are a few things how
ever, which now that the matter
IS open to the public, might be
explained.
First. Why Mr.. Samuels had
two certified checks when only
one contract was being let?
Sccond.-Why, if his bid was
on the basis of Sl4.20 per yard
or S85200 for sixty yards and
only 10 per cent of the amount
was to be put up, one check was
for $4,000 and another for
$4,000?
Third.-Why Mr.. Samuels
stated to Mr. Sherman that he
did not think he would want to
bid, but if he did decide to do so
he would have Frank bring the
bid in the first thing Monday
morning if he was un-informed
as to the meeting time and was
not aware that the meeting was
called for 10 o'clock?
Fourth.-Why he waited until
the late hour to present or offer
to present his bid? More than
an hour and a half after the sea
led bids had been opened.
1t is correct that J. p. Sher-
man is "A brother of Fred Sher-
man. member of the Road Board.
1t is also correct that he resides
at Corpus Christi, Texas. 1t is
also correct that he pays as much
taxes in Luna County as does
either Of the other biders. 1t is
/ also correct that ne has had more
years experience i'm concrete
work than either of the other
biders Che is not a brick layer)
/ 1t is also correct that for the past
ten years he has been employed
exclusively in concrete road
bridge and other concrete work
The Board does not feel that
/ they lost to the taxpayers OF
Luna County Sl62.C9 by reason
of letting the contract to j. p
Sherman, but rather that they
saved the taxpayers S732.0O by
reason of letting the contract t
Mr.. Sherman and not to the +
Paso Bridge & Iron Co., who are
the contractors on the stee
work for the same bridge.
The letter of Samuels & SOl
insinuates that the action was
by Sherman and Heath, but tn,
facts are that the Board wa!
unanimous in the position taken
If the position of Mr.. Samuel
lis true and that it is not neces
sary to have the bid in by tn,
hour Of meeting of the Board
. then some one else coulG nav
presented a bid at 10 o'clock a
night or at any other hour be
4 tore midnight and previous bid
would have to be discarded an,
/ The other accepted.
The Board does not charg
fraud as to Messers. Samuel 1
Son, but i'm view Of the fact tina
they had two certified checks
that they had two bids, that tn
certified check for $4,000 wa
greatly in excess of the amour
| bid; and in view of the fact tina
they waited to present their bi
until after the other bids ha
been opened and there had bee
time for them to become infoI
med of the amount thereof; i
appears to the Board that the
are hardly to be taken seriousl
in their contention.
CHARLES HEATH,
Chailma
FRED SHERMAN,
Secretar