New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-09-16

the petition should be granted, and the
work Of laying down the pavement should
be sold to the highest bidder. One
fourth Of the property holders on St.
Charles did petition for the Nicolson
pavement, but as the spirit of opposition
commenced to manifest itself in a rather
lively fashion, a petition was presented
pretending to represent one-half Of
the property holders. The charter pre-
scribed no rule in this respect, and
the friends Of the measure proceeded at
once to advertise for sale the contract for
paving the street with patent pavement,
they contending that the petition of ma
jority precluded the possibility of any
protest. An injunction was sued out by
some Of the property holders, and the
Messrs. Ogden were retained to defeat
the scheme-frst, on the ground that the
signatures to the majority petition were
insufficient, and that some Of them had
been Improperly obtained; and, secondly,
because the pavement was patent, and,
therefore, could not be sold as piece of
competitive work Who could bid but
the holders Of the patent? While this
demand for an injunction was pending
some Of the signers of the petition with
drew their names from the application,
which it was supposed they had right
to do, as the contract had not been closed.
The prayer for an injunction was with
drawn before the delay stipulated by the
advertisement FOR the sale expired, and
the contract was disposed Of at auction
to the Southern Paving Company. The
work was entered upon and completed in
manner and form characterized by the
Picapne as worthless" The city Of
Jefferson paid her pro rata Of the expense
like man, in thirty year bonds, great
interest being manifested in this transac-
ton by all the Democratic officials. But |
when the company applied to the prop
erty holders for their part Of the expense
they innocently answered with a very
prompt negative. They alleged fraud in
the making Of the contract, fraud in the
execution Of the work, illegality in the
sale of the right, and MI deji. generally.
The law was invoked, and Judge Duvig-
neaud was invited to become the oracle
Of the itigan:s. After long and patient
al u-ha hn o1> |
against the citizens, which is not
} characteristic Of the pelican, the
:ase was submitted. Judge Duvig-
aeaud smashed the contract with single
:uling. The charter required all such
work to be given out to the lowest bidder
It competitive sale, and in this case, as
here was no possibility for competition,
he pavement being patent, the sale was
lull and the contract had 10 binding
orce. The Supreme Court sustained this
'lain and honest Judgment.
The Nicolsen Paving Company thus
ost its hold upon The individual property
lolders Under its contract, it had no J
agal claim upon the city, because the
harter distinctly provided that in all
ontracts for work done upon the streets
therein the property holders were re-
uired to pay any part of the improvement,
be contractor was merely subrogated to
be rights Of the corporation, and could
ever lock to the city for his pay The
w, in the plainest language possible,
autioned the contractor that be should
ither make legal engagement or lose his I
honey. He was in no event TO fall back {
pom the corporation. And this provision i
1e company was bound to know, and it /
id know. It entered on and completed t
worthless" job with its eyes open, and t
has never dared to sue the City of JET q
rson for more than one-third Of the cost
the improvement. t
We have entered upon this historical a
lation-frst. TO inform the city Of New S
rleans Of her exemption from paying the s
aving company its bill of eighty thou s
nd dollars, and secondly, 10 illustrate Il
Nv the Democrats can give on. jobs. IL