Show 4 S TAKE TAICE YOUR CHOICE CHOICE t oTE 4 4 In Its Its' Its S. S effort elfort to get on the to right side of or the thc paving question th thud 4 I Tunc June lC it- it was seen Been by Moran anti and sides Ies both ih bo i. i I Tribune gets s on on Tr for him next morning spoke M Thompson and next tiny day spoke 4 Mayor y r ompson t Juno 17 it was vas seen cen by lay lne 1 I against Moran S was asked of Tom Toni Taggart chairman chair chair- rascal What do 10 you ou call cl a 4 4 t man o of the I e De Democratic l notional national l com Y YA I 4 mal A rascal rascal Is Otto ono who will wi not sta tta stay bought was vas time tho ready 4 i-i i f f S of or June S 17 From the thc lie Tribune estimates of engineers on- on 4 As a rule time the architects are aro on a alow alow fow low basis and amid and thc time bids of contractors balls usually exceed the time c estimates tom tors tor is but In iii thus this thIs thIs' Instance time the reverse rever o iS the case A question has humus arisen as ns to tho the queston authority of or time the board and amlI power pom-er powe the time bids works to reject bils of or public contend that the bids bills und some somo to tho tIme I been heen submitted should have havo t with s such ch council city cily wih cl as the board desired S the time council to make malec and allowing to lo pass upon the tho lie mater matter Espe- Espe pas urged with regard I to emIly cally l is this regal tIme the calY bids for tho ho worl workmen on on Second South This Ilmis Is the time fl first t I been heen asked aske for this bids havo have 4 T work anti and the thc lie offers s made by the time contractors were Moran A IS 30 Barber 30 a d difference dif dif- f- f of or 11 11 ference in favor famor of oC Moran 1899 1 citizens and a number Many lan council desire of or the time 4 of members I that this work should bo be preceded T with without cell delay and contend 4 t that lint as this this- this is time the original bl bid It 4 should tat not bo be rejected but should bo be acted upon at once 4 The present bids of P P. J. J Moran orn for fat the time work on tho time three streets 1 already referred to compared compare T with wilh the bids formerly made IJ by him wih for the tho same ame work wont show a 4 decrease of oC 84 5 the Tribune IH tH 4 The Time fI figures presented b by Mr 4 Moran in Iii il behalf of his ImIs bid showing show show- 4 ing Ing- favorable comparison between t them and the time estimates made b by bythe the cl city cily engineer make malic a fair showing on their face so o far as J 4 tho the comparison between his fig fig- figH H 4 U 8 and l the city engineers engineer's esit- esit H 4 mates are aro concerned but hut that thai is H Hnot 4 not tho the p point The Time point Is Is how do o Morans Moran's fI figures figure ure in his recent i bid compare wih the Limo ures of the Iho Ember Braber bid biti hil of April il Apri 11 th which tho council rejected Time Tho i Barber Barbel 11 bid referred to lo amounted on the time whole work worl to j the time present Moran bid amounts f 4 for Iho tho same work to lo 4 a difference of In favor Cavor 4 of time the city under tinder time Iho Barber hid bid of April 1 11 th compared with the Moran bid of Juno On this showing shoving it seems scents a clear elor case casc that lint i tho tIme board of public works wOI-ks did pet per rl right ht In the lie Moran 4 bid and amid that lint an any appeal to tho tIme 4 council counci to reverse erse Ic tho the board of public works on this point should be futile tute 5 |