Jasper County Democrat, Volume 7, Number 43, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 January 1905 — SLICK WORK, BUT IT FAILED. [ARTICLE]

SLICK WORK, BUT IT FAILED.

Some Unrecorded History Relating to the Former Letting of the County Stationery Contract.

There is an interesting Story connected with the first letting and later rescinding of the order of letting of the stationery contract in this county. It seems that on the day of letting three bids were tiled, one by the Burt-Terry-Wilson Co., of Lafayette, who have had the contracts here for several years without opposition —it being generally believed that the big stationery firms of the state have divided up the territory and do not encroach on each other preserves, thereby practically defeating the purpose of the present law governing the letting of contracts for such supplies—a Terre Haute firm, which, it would seem, is not in the combine and the editor of the Rensselaer Journal, the latter bidding on the local class only. On examination of the bids it was thought that the Lafayette firm was somewhat below the Terre Haute firm as a whole. Some of their items were as low or lower than the cost of the raw material, without any printing whatever. Envelopes at $1.50 per thousand, etc. The board made an entry of record awarding the contract to the Lafayette firm. Then agent of the successful bidder, we understand, asked to take the papers containing the bids to another room and copy them, saying that he had no copy of his own schedule. This favor was granted him, and when next the auditor saw the schedule of prices he found that the figures had been raised on a great many items that would have, made a great difference in the total of the oontract. For example, envelopes that were to have been furnished at $l5O per thousand were now $4.50, and a proportionate raise in a great many other items, while both the bid and bond of the

Terre Haute firm was gone altogether—they having no representative on the ground, having simply mailed their bid—and neither have turned up at this writing. v Auditor Leatherman called the attention of the commissioners to the matter, but if they were visibly shocked at the exposure there is no evidence to that effect. Nothing in paiticular was done except that the auditor on his own responsibility wrote the Lafayette firm regarding the matter. He got no reply, and later telephoned them, but the only satisfaction he got was that they would speak to their agent about it when he came in. If they did so they made no report to Auditor Leatherman, nor did they say anything whatever regarding it. At the regular meeting of the commissioners in January Mr. Leatherman informed that body that if the matter of awarding this contract was in such shape that the board could not rescind the order, that he (Leatherman) would get out a restraining order against it; that he did not propose to stand for any such methods. Then the order was made rescinding the former order. So much comes from having an honest man in the auditor’s office, and it is not likely that any more slick work of this character will be attempted with him by the gentlemen implicated in this affair. Mr. Leatherman is not saying who changed the figures and made away with the papers in the Terre Haute bid, but someone did it, that’s certain. The same thing is said to have occurred at Monticello and Kokomo, we understand, where the same Lafayette firm was after the contracts.