THE FIRST $1,000,000 105 
engineers, the necessary reservation for directing the work 
—a matter so vitally important in park improvements of 
that character. 
UNDER ENGINEER'S SUPERVISION. 
In the second communication inviting bids, this right of 
direction by the engineer in charge was noted in the speci- 
fications and “any work directed by the engineer should be 
included.” It was also provided that all “tools, machinery, 
ete., must be satisfactory to the engineer,” and that bids 
should state “upon what percentage of payments actually 
made to the employés and for materials” the contractor 
would undertake the work. 
Six bids from all those to whom this communication was 
sent were received. These were also opened at an executive 
session of the board. The contract was, on the same day, 
June 9, 1896, awarded to the Messrs. Shanley, whose bid, all 
things considered, appeared to be the most favorable. All 
the commissioners, I believe, concurred in this view, which 
was also in accord with the recommendations of the chief 
engineer. As soon, however, as the action became known, 
there was a “hue and cry” directly. 
Whether right or wrong, the commission was taken se- 
verely to task, both by some of those whose bids had been 
rejected and by the press. One of the bidders in a published 
letter wanted to know: “Are not the books and records of 
the Park Commission public documents and open to inspec- 
tion at any reasonable hour? Are not any moneys expended 
by the Park Commission under such contract expended con- 
trary to law, in direct violation of chapter 181, laws of 
1894?” 
COULD NOT SEE BIDS. 
The writer went on to say that he had “called at the office 
of the Park Commission and asked to see the twenty-three 
bids received June 3,” and “was informed by the secretary, 
