Chicago Daily Tribune

COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

THE CONTRACT SYSTEM.

To the Editor of The Chicago Tribune:

Chicago, Jan. 4.--Before condemning the contract system now used for purchasing the county supplies, it might be well to examine it, and see whether the alleged existing abuses are the fault of the system, or want of its proper application.

The purchase of supplies for the county by contract from the lowest bidder is almost identical with the method practiced by the United States Government, in every department of the public service, including the army, the navy, marine hospitals, stationery supplies for the several departments, the postal service throughout the country and to foreign countries--in short, everywhere that it can be applied. The system was adopted by the Government after experience with other methods, and a departure from it now would be an experiment which I venture to say would destroy any Administration which dared to employ "Purchasing Agents" in its stead.

For the information of any of your readers who may not be familiar with the system, permit me to briefly explain it: All supplies for the Poor-House, Insane Asylum, and County Hospital, must be obtained by the persons in charge of those institutions by a requisition based upon the average number of their inmates during the preceding month, showing the probable number to be supplied for the coming month. This must be also accompanied by an inventory of articles on hand. The requisition must be approved (formerly by the Superintendent of Public Charities) by the Committee on Public Charities of the County Board. Upon such approval the Warden of the Poor-House (for instance) may order goods as they are required from the contractor who supplies them, filing with him (the contractor) a duplicate of the approved requisition, in which the quantity of each article is specified, and beyond which the contractor cannot go. Thus the Warden comes into possession of the goods.

Now as to his disposition of them. Before he can make a new requisition, he must state what has been done with the last. For instance, the number of persons subsisted upon the provisions drawn for the last month; or the clothing issued, giving the name to whom; or the dry goods made into clothing, etc., just as a United States Quartermaster or Commissary of Subsistence is required to account for the property intrusted to him.

So much for this branch of the subject. Now as to the mode of purchasing. Cook County formerly had a "Purchasing Agent" instead of the much-abused contract system, and if the latter should ever approach the former in its capacity for dishonest practice there would be ample reason for a change. By the present system of purchasing, the Clerk of the Board is required to advertise for a month (in December each year) for supplies of all kinds. With their bids, persons proposing to furnish goods must deposit samples. With the bids and samples before them the Commissioners, or the Committee appointed by them, award the contracts. At any times there is an opportunity for Messrs. Field, Leiter & Co., or any other dealer in dry goods, groceries, or provisions, either for their own profit, or from the higher motive of protecting the county against high prices, to tender their bids. Such a mode of action would be far more valuable to tax-payers than offering to reduce prices after a contract has been let, and nearly run out. It cannot be truthfully said that ample publicity is not given, and full opportunity afforded to every competitor.

Let us now summarize: First, all supplies are bought by contract, from the lowest bidder, after a month's advertising, upon samples which are deposited with the Clerk of the Board. There is, therefore, no favoritism in selecting the vendor, unless the committee of five members of the Board are all corrupt. Second, the Warden of the Poor-House, or County Agent, cannot obtain the supplies from the contractor in improper quantities unless he falsifies the report of the number of inmates, such falsification being permitted by the Committee, and indorsed by them when approving the requisition. He cannot misappropriate the property after receiving it without detection, unless he has a number of other employees and the County Commissioners' Committee as accessories to the crime. If, as is charged, the present Warden of the Poor-House cannot account for the goods he has received, and "looks confused" when questioned about them, let him be investigated and compelled to show what he has done with the property intrusted to him.

How will the county be benefited by Mr. Holden's plan of a "Purchasing Agent?" Can such an official give any greater publicity to the wants of the county than advertising in a dozen newspapers? Can he buy in small quantities from Tom, Dick, and Harry cheaper than a contractor or can bid? Is one Purchasing Agent likely to contain a larger admixture of unapproachable honesty, than the Warden, the contractor, and the Committee of the Board combined? If by any chance he should feel inclined to accept an interest in selling goods to the county would it be more difficult, than when a half-dozen men must conspire for the same purpose? In what way does Mr. Holden's plan prevent the dishonest use of the property, or its dishonest purchase? Cannot the Committee on Public Charities be changed every month as easily under the present plan as under any other?

I believe that a careful examination of the present system of purchasing supplies, by Mr. Franklin MacVeagh, or by Col. McClolly, or Gen. Tucker, of the United States Army, or by any other competent person, would show that it is far safer than Mr. Holden's plan, which is simply a return to the regime when we had a Purchasing Agent.

If the persons now intrusted with the duty of county almoners are dishonest, the fact can be ascertained by a proper application of the system now in vogue. Purchasing by one man, with unlimited discretion, would not remedy the difficulty, even though he were selected by Mr. Holden.

A TAX-PAYER.