New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1918-01-29
RETURNS TO
ATTACK ON QUIGLEY
Continued From First Page.

Asvere received April 9Th and 9Th. On
#ApriI 9Th the board notified bidders
w the rejection of all bids. Nothing
Further was heard from the board
zoublicIy until they were requested to
report to the common council as to
#he cost of the work. One bidder on
@xpril 9Th agreed to complete the
Building in sixty days and the board,
&see page 1877 of the municipal rec
abrds of 1917 as of April 1st) says
#hev expected the barn to be COM
hIeted in about sixty days, allowing
considerable leeway. 1t should have
been done by July list. Under date
III December IS the board reported
ID the common council it (the barn)
MFas done, inviting them to inspect it,
me bills for carpenter work show
hat work started past the middle of
Nav and stopped the latter part of
November, a period OF between SIX
Mhnd seven months
Il On April 9Th, when the board re-
#efved their bids they knew then, if
hot before, that the building was 60
4 ng to cost far more than their re-
@uested appropriation, their rejecting
Ut bids shows that. If they desired
&unity at the city meeting on April
NJ 7th of having their case stated and
Recurring a larger amount. Perhaps
his honor's attitude that publicly he
WAS for economy as he announced in
Il he press and at the meeting also,
hat he was in favor of cutting out the
Park street paving and the allowance
Tor the south west engine house. New
- ho ie tnI tyun
IS recommending or agreeing on a
line of procedure by the charity board
by letting the charge of the work to
IN close business associate by the day
with the consequent course pursued
Bly the board, with the results herein
let forth.
IA Why did they keep still? Why did
hey not let their work that was bid
hn to the lowest bidder who was per-
Rectly competent and responsible,
hereby saving, as the bills Of cost
low show for that same work APP
groximately~ $4,000 or $4,000. It would
8een that they deliberately set about
10 conceal their position, and by the
method they pursued in doing the
Fork hoped to slip along without
kheir predicament being found out, or
ut any rate being noticed until their
$eport was printed in July, 1918, at
(which time no interest would be taken
~ it, The way the bills came in with
Rther bills and no one took any
notice or knew which were for the
barn from month to month and no
account was kept of barn cost, they
Aame pretty nearly slipping through.
There must have been someone VINO
knew of this besides the board and 1t
aHas kept pretty quiet. Such conduct
u consider reprehensible, and men
who operate that way either through
$gnQrance or purpose are not tit to
hold office in my opinion
a The documents in the Charity De-
Aoartment office show that two bids
&vere received on April IS and 10 fol-
@aking charge of the work on the
Aarn. I found no evidence nor was
II ut told that any was solicited. Nc
ne of the several former bidders
aero consulted so far as [ could learn
- this new proposition, the man who
- selected, am informed, was rec
Mmmended by one of the board, put
H. his bid and referred to his honor,
SIC mayor, as reference. This party
rs known as an intimate business and
6olitical associate of the mayor and
lad not previously, so far as known,
@een consulted or submitted figures
IA this work. Three charity officials
Ole me that being O.K.'d by the
mayor who had often employed him,
Mhey closed the contract with him as
@ho records show on April 20, three
laws after the city meeting gave them
80 money to work with. The one
@ 4har bidde~ acpidopta11v heard of t[n
Mnpposed intention of the board to
- the work by tho day, solicited a
Mhance to bid, and put in a prico OF
Soc per hour, as against tho mayors
friend at 81 per hour, but Of course
@nsy out on the excuse that he did not
&ave an outfit to carry on tho work
and the other party did. This did MOI