The New York herald., 1874-08-01
THE CITY RECORD CONTRACT.

The legal onslaught being made IN the courts on
Mr.. Martin b. Brown TO cancel his contract
for printing the city Record has already been
fully ven ntated In the HERALD through the reports
given o! the conrI proceedings heretofore had In
the matter. There was another hearing in the
case yesterday before Judge Pratt, holding su-
preme Court Chambers. 1t coming up on an order
to show cause why Mr.. Brown should not be en-
joined rom further publication of the paper
aud his contract declared nun and void. There
was quite An array OF counsel in tie case, Messrs
Richard O'Gorman and William F. Mcnamara
appearing on behalf OF William c. Rhodes, in
whose behalf the application is made: Assistant
Corporation Counsel Andrews representing the
Mayor and Commonaty, and Mr.. Strahan defend
ing the interests OF Mr.. Brown. The facts are en-
oraced In a nutshell. Pursuant to printed pro-
posas for bids for publishing the paper, nine bids
were Submitted TO tie Mayor, commissioner OF
Public Works and Corporation Counsel, these
parties being the ones designated to receive bids
and award the contract. On the 18th OF June last
the bids were opened and the contract awarded TO
Mr.. Brown. All the otaer bius were rejected for
alleged informalities. Mr.. Khodes-who, by the
way, Was the former publisher OF the paper-n0w
comes and claims the award, en- the ground Of
being the lowest bidder, h BID being. as alleged,
some $4,000 less than that Of Mr. Bro@n, and the
latter the second highest OF the lot.
Mr.. OGorman, wfo opened the case, proceeded
to read the complain. recltng the facts as stated
above. lie said That after the opening OF the bids
and before the award OF the contract Mr.. Rhodes
sent In printed protest against any award being
made, and asked hat new bids be received, through
rhc proposals not being according TO the ordinance;
but that no attention Was paid TO 1t. He read an
affidavit setting forth that The loss to the city was
$4,000 through giving the contract to Mr. Brown
ther stated, was based upon Mr.. Rhodes being
taxpayer, ana his right under The law OF 1872 TO
bring On action to prevent Of the pubic
money by Its onlcals
Mr.. Andrews denied that Nj. Rhodes was tax
payer denied failure TO comply with the require
menis OF the ordinance, and that there had been
any colIusion or fraud ia making the award. The
ing that OF Mr. Brown Was irregular aud mad TO De
rejected: - .,,a ,,.. ~. .nsr.. ., ~ p.o,n
IN substance the same as that submitted On
behalf OF the awarding board.
Having got through with this preliminary skIr-
mshlng tir. O'Goimsn entered on his main aryu-
ment He insisted that the answers were based
wholly on Information and belief; MIR. Rhodes bad
sworn he was taxpayer, and this should end this
part Of the controversy. BE contended, however,
that TO- the purposes o! this acton II was not
necessary ior man to own loot OF land on the
isiand, but that everv man who lived in New York
was taxpayer and part and portion Of the com.
monalty.. The city officials were the peoples trus
trustees to account. He could not blame Mr..
strahan for making out as strong case as he
ton Counsel Tor his enor, to permit waste OF the
city's monev. In the present case the difficulty
lay IN the proposals, these being fatally detective
Judge Pratt asked If the proper remedy would
not be mandamus 10 compel proper proposals.
Mr. OG0TWAD S6ld that this wOuiu not meet
the case. After reading various statutes bearing
on this question he showed how the proposals
were defective In not complying with the 0rdf-
nance. Mr. Rhodes put in his bid according to the
proposals. Another man gets MS specific direc-
Hons a1d his bid Is pronounced regular and ac-
cepted, no matter now much lower all the otner
bids might be. In this way 1t was the easiest
thing In the world to cheat the city out OF hun.
dreds oil thousands Of dollars The law Is compiled
with but the city Is deirauded.
Judge Pratt-What would be the effect OF stop
ping the publication OF this paper
III ~.
ernment
Mr. OGorman-Not at all. But the duty OF the
Court IL to enforce the law, regardless OF conse-
TueDces. Let the gentlemen who have brought
about this state OF afIairs be held accountable.
Let them put their hands In their
pockets and Fay for the publication OF
this paper until the award for printing II 10
properly given They have done the mischief Let
them undo 1t. II was the duty OF the Court to stop
this matter brought about through errors OF public
Odlcias.
After some further discussion Judge Pratt took
the papers, reserving his decision.