St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1920-12-04
DAVIS ANSWERS
GRANT'SLETTER
ASTOPOLICY OF
ACCEPTING BIDS
Letter To Farmer Gives Mr..
Grants Views of Com
missions Attitude.
Mr.. DAVIS
GIVES REPLY
Question Of Actual Saving
to Parish Discussed at
Length By Both.
S.ide.l, La, Nov. so, 1920.


Editor St. Tammany Farmer
Referring to letter of Mr.. E. q
Davis and editorial published in s.
Tammany Farmer November 9th
1920, relative to action taken by St
Tammany Police Jury at their meet
ing November 18th, 1920, authorlz-
ing acceptance Of bids for roads
A, D and c.
Mr.. Davis letter says:
"At their meeting on November
9th, the Police Jury had before them
the Road Commissions recommen-
dation to reject these bids, for which
the Commission gave the following
reasons. The Otal lowest bids fo4
the construction of this entire road
aggregated $443,196.27, half CT
which was to be borne by the parish,
and amounted to $221,59S.13. To
meet this latter amount the parish
has set aside $171, $50, making a de-
fcit of $50, 0,048.13."
AS reply to this statement, l refer
TO the recommendation of the Good
Roads Commission to the Police jury
as published The reader will find
this paragraph:
1--WE would further advise that We
have every reason to believe that II
new bids are called for, lower prices
will be made. Reductions in costs
OF construction and materials are be-
ing reported, and this does not seem
to be the time for rushing into con-
tracts"
That paragraph contains the rea-
sons for the recommendations by the
Commission that the bids be reject
ed. All Of the Commissions com
munication preceding that paragraph
was merely a statement of financial
conditions.
A request was made by me for ac-
count of the Commission that its
recommendation to the Police Jury
be published as a part of the record
OF it's proceedings at the meeting OF
November 9Th, 1920, and the Presi-
dent of the Police Jury stated that
1t would be done. Why it was not
done, ! cannot say. Had it been
done as promised, there would have
been no occasion for me to publish
this record on my own account, anu
by 80 doing, disturb the accustomed
equinimity of our CoViagton friends.
My letter to The st. Tammany
Farmer and Slidell Sun dated Nov.
20, 1920, referred only to ths re3-
ord as it stands. The record speaks
for itself. Mr.. Davis is a party to
that record At the time he signed
the recommendation of the Com
mission to the Police Jury, he was
very positive in his statements, as
far as l could understand them, that
the bids should be rejected for the
reason that they were too high, and
should be re-advertised for the rea-
SoR that he believed considerable
lower bids could, and would be filed.
All the members of the Commission,
We're Of that opinion when it's rec
OmmendatiOp to the Police Jury was
written and signed by them, and
believe a majority Of the Commits
sion members are still Of that op1n-
ion, as Mr. Fatherree stated to me
unreservedly after the action Of the
Police Jury at their meeting NOV,
19, 1920, that he had not changed
his views at all. Mr.. Davis has not
mentioned the matter to me since
that time, and | did not know that
he, as a member of the Commission,
felt any differently about the Com
missions recommendation, until L
read his letter of Nov 25th.
However, the record as signed by
Mr.. Davis has been published in The
st. Tammany Farmer of Novembe
9th, 1920, and along with it in
same issue of The st. Tammany
Farmer, goes Mr.. Davis letter AMI
the editorial in that paper, all OF
which can now be considered by the
taxpayers on their merits. | have
also received a letter from Mr.. Davis
under date of Nov. 25, which he is
at perfect liberty to publish If he
sees fit to do so.
! am dealing with the record and
Its relation to the resolutions adopt
ed by the Police Jury. Therefore, L
have no comment to offer at this
time on those portions of Mr.. Davis
htter and The St. Tammany Farmer
editorial which do not relate to the
record. | am not seeking, and do
not wish newspaper controversy or
notoriety. but will not shrink from !
pupllc discussion or any matter per-
tanning to the expenditure of the
GOOD Roads funds, if, and when, 1t |
becomes necessary.
have not heretofore lodged, ana |
VIII not in the future try to evade !
my full share Of responsibility tor /
any expenditure from this fund au-
thorized or recommended by the !
commissioning long as | remain a
member of the Commission. Like
wise whenever the Commission IN |
the performance of the trust conf !
mltted to its keeping is deprived o. |
any voice in the administration OF
That trGSt. | VIII not hesitate to call
pubic attention to the situation. l
would be false to the trust to the
commits ion and to myself if | per-
mitted either politics, expediency or