The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1877-05-30


last Thursday afternoon. There was fair
attendance, every section being represented.
Beyond ordering the following two copanluni-
cations publlsHed. no business Of particular
Interest was transacted
70 ne That don Gsiisg 7cs-R sgssF 4ssee;oi on
The Committee appointed BY your Association 10
stone work At Rocksfeow Eats bridge, and also tie
Slower bridge having extended 10 the duties assigned
he sd III Ssss s. an
mination Of the vouchers and from information re-
sum Of q 925s0 Nj soaay the engineer appointed
SeTs i only 30 5sSo cubic s yards wh shows IL
county has been overchoged tor s. s10o cubic yards
amounting to the sum Of $500.
Your Committed having been Invited by the Commits
tee appointed by the Board of Freeholders to Invests
that the County had ovepaid for work done whether
Intentionally not and desiring that an Investigation
the April term Of our Court and produced witnesses
the purposes Of an They can only say
Alter the adjournment of the Grand Jury. and after
the engineers report Solidays had been made public
the Committee Of Board Of Freehoders invited your
Committee meet with them for the purpose Of taking
Testimony of the parties accused and other persons who
might have knowledge Of the subject At the first
ing, ]. H. Clark, j. y. k0ckafeilow, and William SUIT
phin were and gave evidence. An adjournment
was then had AT the second meeting when your Com
mittee expected that J. n. Sharp, OF the Bridge
Committed, and Dennis Reafdon, the CONTRACTOR WHO
were present at the former examination and took part
in the investigation, would be examined they
prised at their appearance with counsel and their Oh
lection to further examination, e they were to be eSa
Your Committee being satisfied that no further inves-
tigaon would be had, having offered to produce the
witnesses before examined to give the parties accused
chance for and having that the
contract be produced which refused the examine
ton was closed fer want Of witnesses. WY
Your Committee sorry to say that they have not
been able to get the written contract paper that should
have been before both Committees, and which had
been in the GrandsjurV and in the bunus
Of the treeholdefs. The contract should have been
produced made for the benefit OF the public or
supposed to be- and public property. They cannot
why the Committee OF Freehoders did insist on
its production as it was alleged before the invesgaon
that work done than had been paid for under
Your Committee are of the opinion that ali nnbie
work should be done by 10 the lowest
sible bidder and that the public should have chance
to put in their bids not done otherwise The evidence
far given does show that anybody knew the
contract except part of the Bridge Committee and the
contractor that il was private AFFAIR." ring within
ring Mr.. Sutphin, member of the Committee never
saw the contract aud by his testimony did not
know the contents thereof
Your Committee are of the opinion that the County
has oyerpad FOR the stone work at least $500 and that
in the grouting from $500 to $500.
Of the Freehoders have been able report under the
cireumsan not having the evidence Of The contractor
holder who superintendent the work tseems their
report that they have arrived the conclusion that The
County paid for i6T cubic yards and the balance the
tract which is Invisible, Tiny must have to the
charitable conclusion that such was the ease
Your Committee in the absence OF the contract and
being unable to get the evidence Of those who knew all
get of the opinion that the job by contract
and the contract price cubic yard $780, that the
there IS Making the sum Of $3.50 overpad in small
bridge over mill race, without taking account of deiec
Your Committee representing the Tax payeas' Asso-
citation attended the meeting OF the Freeholders upon
their meeting for settlement aud meeting Of new
Board and asked that the contract for bridge Rncka
fellow Epts mill be produced II was stated at the