The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-03-02

THE STREET CLEANING OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
DISSOLVED.
FER 20 In The mater If Wa1liams rs The Msvor and
C0mnlozal.y of Nelc York ond A. j. Hackgey-The tempo
rary injunction in this case restraining the Mayor &c
from awarding the street cleaning contract to A. j. Hack
ley argued last week, by Messrs c. OConor aud H.
H. Anderson Assistant Corporation Counsel on the part
Of tho defendants. This morning the Judge gave 10.
cison dissolvng the injunction. Tho following the
opinion Of the Judge Whether the injunction granted in
this should be continued not depends upon
the right Of the plaintiff to the contract for cleaning
the streets, by reason OF his having been the lowest
bidder IN The proposals made. Upon tee Conclusions
at which have arrived it is not necessary 70
slider any other question BY the thirty eighth section
Ct the charter Of 1857 1t Is provided that all contracts
shall be entered into the appropriate heads OF depart
ments, and shall be founded on sealed bds proposals
male in compliance with public notice advertised in such
Of the newspapers Of the city may be employed
when given shall be given to the lowest bidder the
terms Of whose contract shall be settled by the Corpora
ton Counsel as an act Of to the
full performance OF his contract In tn er prescribed
and required BY ordnance Under tbs 50 The lowest
bidder, who in all things else complied With the statu
and ordinance and the adequacy sucicncy Of who
security was approved by the Comptroller, acquired
LATED, and Of which he could not be eas
deprived. The result of an examination OF tb'
to be employed, end determiniug the contractor
figures alone The act OF 1860 Session Laws 1917
nyased this pov on N reference TO coaracts for clcai
changed the mode OF awarding them. By the fourth
section OF that act Is declared lawful for the Mayor
and Common Council TO author 20 and make, T.
be maze any agreement agreement, contract c,L
tracts for cleaning the streets Of New York, for and
during term Of years. not 10 exceed ve II is also de-
carcd that the proposals for such contract shall be adj
vertscd ia such newspapers may be designated by
the Common Council and that the contract contracts
SHAH be awarded az IN the Judgment Of the Mayor
and Common Council shall be for the interests of tho
city. In conformity TO this statute resolution wa
passed by the Common Council. directing the CT
Inspector 10 advertise proposals jor the contract
cleaning the streets, and annexed such proposals. to
resolution. The advertisement accordingly MAI
and the contract awarded to the defendant Hlckley,
though he not tho lowest bidder There fact
ALLEGED arraknipg tho Mayor and Common Council f..
The cxerc OF their discretion n the stated
charges OF rprudenco or corruption made. The 81
Of 1857 whom the shall be given, but leay
IL 10 be awarded as In the Judgment Of tho Mayor
Common Council should be for the interests Of the cit
IL imposes upon them tho duty OF exercising their
mcn 10 reference TO the bids made and the person with
whom the coutrc. should be made and though and the
thoy cannot be construed together. has already
peared that by the latter act the lowest bidder takes
Mayor and Common Council are I, examine
the bids, aud TO employ their Judgment in
ces.rming to whom the contract should be gwen one
pcwcr TO the Mayor and Common Council ani IL IN the
nature Of special direction on the subjects 70 which IL
related ana which II excerpts from the provisions Of the
charter Of 1851 II follows from this that the Mayor
and Common council were not obliged to accopt the pro-
pcsas u tho plaintiff and that not being entitled 10 tho
contract and the act complained Of not involving any
peculiar damage to his individual interest," he occupies no
such relation 10 the defendants entitled him to
them from pcrfecting the contract (Doote ct al vs.
supervisors Of Brcome, Is MY. Rep, 155 The fact
that tic City Inspector furnished TO the bidders blank
proposals, estimates and specifications, and that the
bimks thus furnished contain statement that "a strict
compliance with The provisions or part title Of the Or.
Guances organ,zrq the departments Of the municipal
aoyerlmt,t PAL sed Nay 3, 1870 and as
ailcndec, viii be observed aud required ia all cases.
70 % a. sS ae a ss no ss the
any right, mresc uocn the Mayor and Common Coun.
Ell any duty OF obligation except that gr wing out Of
the provisions az the act OF 1890 assuming such state
cnt Of the City Inspector 10 have authorized Dy
che Mayor and Common Council and for the reason that
the ordinances referred 70 were only 10 be enforced
Tar as they were applicable 10 the resolution and propo
ses published end IN which resolution and proposals.
wac nowhere stated that the contract would be given to
The lowest bidder do not feel called upon 70 express
any opinion upon the manrcr In which the Judgment Of
The aayur ard Common Council has boon exercised In
evnf to The defendant ackey) the contract which the
painlit claims The case a. presents fiself 70 my
mipd on the papers submitted, involves the abstract
question Of the right Of the plaintiff 70 tho contract white
nc seeks 10 SECURE and which, for tho reasons assgne
mink be does not ptssess The injunction must DO =
Owed. IA