Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 55, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 October 1910 — MORE ABOUT THE BURK BRIDGE. [ARTICLE]

MORE ABOUT THE BURK BRIDGE.

I'he Republican editors as usual, use the “argument" used by most editors when they' have no other way of denying facts by calling The Democrat editor all sorts of liars in our article in Saturday's Democrat regarding the Burk bridge "improvement.” Of course the people from all sections of the county are not able to have ocular evidence of who has lied, but those who have seen the work know that the Democrat told the absolute truth. As an example of the Republican s “ duplicity on matters concerning the interests of tire taxpayers in this instance we quote its own words from its write-up and commendatory article of the work in its issue of Sept. 27, and again since The Democrat’s article of Saturday : Sept. 27—“ That Mr. McColly gave careful attention to the specifications of the contract that there cap be no doubt. The writer visited it a few days since and inspected it thoroughly. Mr. McColly has done more than he was bound to do ♦ * * the result is a solid grade that will be a big improvement over the old frame ram-shackle.” Oct. 18—“ The engineer found it advisable to authorize one or two minor changes) in the specifications with the belief that it was for the best results. The changes did not cheapen the work nor favor the contractor. ♦ * ♦ the road is open and has hever been closed except.for a short time when gravel was being hauled. Babcock’s article is published for political purposes and is false with the expectation of deceiving the people and creating distrust of the commissioners.”

Now this sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The quotation from Oct. 18, especially. You remember the Republican used the same argument to excuse the steal of over S4OO in the Milroy tp., bridge matter. It said the county hadn’t lost a penny by reason of the change in specifications in that the bridge and it was worth every’ cent it had cost. But here is an admission that there was some changes in the ■specifications in the Burk bridge improvement, which the same authority said Sept. 27 had been given careful attention. But the changes didn’t cheapen the work nor favor the contractor!” The specifications called for this piling to be cut off 8 inches below’- the ground and the plates placed back on the top of the piling, then the stringers put on and the planking placed on the stringers. bringing the planking on a level with the earth so that botl the piling and the earth and the planking would each have a porportion of the weight of the grade and help to hold it up. The piling, instead, was cut off above the ground, and when the plates, stringers and planking were replaced it left a hollow place underneath and o' course the whole thing gave way when the dirt and gravel was put on. We do not th : nk.there is person so ignorant in Jasper county as to say that it did not cheapen the work or favor the contractor to cut these pilings off above the ground instead of 8 inches below. We think all will agree that it would make quite a difference whether they must excavate about each of the piling to cut them off below the surface of the ground or shriply saw them off above the ground. J Mr. McColly sub-let the Contract for cutting off this piling to Emmet Pullins and Philip Durant for S3OO. They worked five, days themselyes and paid out $29 for other labor,' and figure that they made clear above their own labor $245. It certainly made a difference to them as to this “slight change in specifications” whether it did to the original contractor or not. We are not blaming them, however, for following the superintendent’s instructions or making a good thing out of the contract. We are blaming the contractor for not following the specifications as adopted by the commissioners and which he bid on; the superintendent for authorizing or permitting any such change, and the commissioners for allowing the claim of $1,785 to the contractor without personally going out and inspecting the work. The Democrat was wrong 'in one particular, however, in its report of this work. We said that is was currently reported that the contractor cleared SI,OOO

on his contract. We since have it from a most reliable, source that the amount cleared was $1,250, But had he complied with the specifications it would have been perfectly legitimate had he cleared $1,700. The commissioners knew, however, that this work should have been done for about half the amount of McColly’s bid, and as but the one bid was filed and that at such outrageous figure, they should have rejected it and re-advertised the work. Now we have just a few questions to ask the Republican about the last previous improvement to the Burk bridge, made five years ago: 1. Was the extension built 140 feet long, as required, or did the taxpayers pay for 140 feet and only get 110 feet? 2. While the Pan American Bridge Co. appear of record, as the contractors for said extension, was it, S. E. Luce, or one of the county’ officials the real contractor?

3. Who it that contracted for the piling and planking furnished, and did the “contractors” really drive the 532 feet of extra piling for wihich they were paid 60c per foot? 4. The contractors were to be paid (-'c per foot so piling driven beyond a depth of 35 feet, we understand, and if the piling was none of it really driven more than 9 feet, why wete they allowed $319 for “extra piling?” (The Democrat is informed by a map who was on the job all the time that none of the piling was driven over 9 feet.) 5. Who really received the sl,479 wihich this “140 foot” extension cost the taxpayers of Jasper county? 1 6. As it is an easy matter to determine whether the county got the 140 foot extension paid for, instead of but 110 feet, as alleged, will the Republican editors not go out to the bridge and measure the extension and then tell their readers the true length of same? 7. If the county paid for 140 feet extension and got but 110 feet, did the reduction benefit the contractor or the county, and did it cheapen or enhance the real cost the work to the contractor? The taxpayers of Jasper county regardless of political affiliation would like to have the Republican answer these questions fully and honestly. Will it do so?