Arizona republican., 1922-02-25

II will be well for those who are interested in
city paving to look for dark design against
House Bill p Mr.. Kirnbalrs bin to secure greater
competition in bids for city paving by simple amend
naent OF the Improvement Act which lobbyists In
the interest OF paving company have been juggling
for the last ten years. The kinba bill passed the
house yesterday by unanimous vote. II is feared,
though, that it will be stubbornly opposed in the
senate. It is doubtful whether the necessary two
thirds 10 carry the emergency clause can be secured
there In case it should not receive the required
tvo-thirds vote it could effective within
ninety days and no doubt, the referendum would be
invoked to hold it up until the first Of next year.
In anticipation however OF the early effective
ness or it, several miles Of paving in Tucson for which
Tie city government the point Of asking for
Lids have been held up. Phoenix, we believe, would
do we'll financially follow this example.
The Improvement Act, as we have said, has been
constantly subjected outside manipulation for the
purpose of throtting competition, for the entrench
ment Of monopoly. We know Of no other legislation
IN the last ten years engaged the atten-
lion OF well known and skilful lobbyists. But no
lobby has ever appeared for the taxpayers
Necessarily the lobbyists have moved indirectly
and in the darkness They could not Of course.
attack the proposition that there should be the ffeest
competition but they have succeeded by devious
means not understood until it too late to pre-
vent competition. The very provision which con-
stitlte. the Kimball amendment mysteriously
lost a. few years ago somewhere in the progress OF
the bill That amendment provides for the asking OF
bids on alternative plans and Specifications
The opponents of competition cannot Of course,
hope to play the same trick twice They are now
proposing something else lethal antidote Tor the
Kinball amendment in the so-called hve-year guar
antv clause which would effectively bar every
snail contractor and, for that matter, every large
contractor who would not choose to maintain plant
wear after year in the locality Of the guaranteed
paving
THE judiciary committee OF the house has prop
.rI, reported unfayorabIy upon House Bill which
,a oroend the Improvement Act by including this
,arantv provision but we understand that the lob
,,.4. bope TO attach it to the Kimball bill in the
senate.
= rovides that the contractor shall furnish
,,d "a keep the paving in good condition for a
riod If five years and to make all repairs result
t from, the use Of defective materials or workman
rim without cost to the city" Now, guaranty is
,a,.s attractive and without COST to the city" Is
,,,bIv attractive But it would not be without cost
- he CITY. The cost would attach in the very
trninr in the first cost A contractor would be
ro 10 omit that, especially when freed from COM
sfton by the barring provision he could make ms
ures whatever he might choose.
And there is no need of this costly guaranty
t,ios have engineering departments ana inspectors
anard against the causes Of the need OF repairs
hiot are enumerated in the provision oetecuVe
,.+erials and workmanship II the citys engineer
,ng department is competent and if its inspectors
,ost md capable, there will be neither defective
ia, nor workmanship. That is why the city
. ne salaries Of engineers and inspectors
80 have said u small contractor could no
bond for five years such useless aht
.tt.uou. contract. The anah contractors Woui'
- ,,,t ~ the field Of competition and 90 would tA
drgp ~ N st a-@---A--4A--4-4.----'