The New York herald., 1879-07-01
TIE COURTS.
Some Of Ex-Commissioner Van Nort's
Sewer Contracts.
GROSS IRREGULARITIES UNRARTHED.
A Case Of Grasping Usury with Precedents
Few and Far Between.

Mr.. Van Mort, eX-Commissoper OF fuDhc Works'
in April 1873 few days prior to the signing OF the
charter Of 1878 by the Governor and hve days ater
assing of the charter by the Legislature gave OUT
z. contracts, Ave being for sewers in Sixth and
Seventh avenues. the amount OF the contracts ag-
eregating $500 O0O he invited bids from only four
ontractors The bids showed that each contractor
the lowest bidder on the contracts respectively
awarded to him and the highest every other con-
tract Except by these four men no bids were made
and between them they secured all the
contracts. After the 1st of May. when the
charter of 1873 went into effect. the contracts were
executed and dated back. Mr.. Van Mort states that
kept them locked up in his safe from the 22d of
April the goth of July, 1873 when he filed them in
tho Comptrollers Office thus making them known
to the public and that he then delivered them to the
contractors, who in July and August Of that year
began work under their contracts Ii is claimed
by Messrs. John G. Shaw and Charles 4. Miller Oh
behalf OF William Raymond. who petitoned to have
the assessment vacated levied pursuant to this con-
tract that the contracts not having been delivered
until after the charter took effect were void,
and also void because they had not been
made in conformity with the provisions
OF the charter that the suretes should be approved
by the Comptroller, and that they should sign the
bids of the contractors 1t was also claimed that the
contracts were not egal and valid to bind the
city, because not in conformity with the require
ment OF the charter as to public letting. Upon the
hearing in the case before Judge Barrett 1T was
shown that the Commissioner OF Public Works had
not during year and half previously given out
contract for sewer of any magnitude at public
letting for greater price than So 30 per foot,
for SIX months afterward while these contracts ran
from $l1 to $12 per foot. 1t was also proven that
the work was most improperly done. The contract
called for 'nserts to be placed in the sewers. for
which the contractors were to be paid 81 60 per
toot and it was shown examination of the sewers
that tor two-thirds of their length the 'inserts'
left out although the contractors paid for
hem; that IN some places for whole blocks these
inserts were omitted, and that otherwise the sew
crs were imperfect. The opinion Of Judge Barrett,
rendered yesterday, is given in full below:--
"When this case was argued we were not aware that
it had been resolved to take the opinion of the higher
court without regard to the present result. and
whether intended fer the satisfaction OF the parties
tenso We do not presume that views will
aid the appellants court, and it is
now understood that the case, however
decided will go up. it may be sufficient to state in
general way the conclusions at which have
rived. They these:-First, the petitioners have
substantially established the facts charged; sec
ond. no completed enforcibe contract in ex-
istence at the time the discretionary power was
taken from the Commissioner; third, the contracts
made and entered into after the charter of 1873 be-
came 'aaw in disregard OF its ninety section are
void ourth, the so-called contractors, as well as
the Comm issioncr understood that the preminaries
had rpened into binding contract at the time
specified in the second conclusion: fifth. the forms
resorted to were simply to enable the Com
missioner, in case the power was taken from him by
the Governors signature 20 the charter which had
passed both houses to deliver the contracts subse
luently. as though they had been really completed
before; sixth, the prices were greatly exorbitant
the contracts were given out in unusual and ir
regular manner. in great haste and under circum-
stances peculiar and suspicious to justify the
conclusion of attempt to take advantage of the
existing forms of law to nulify, rather forestal
~ eslative will. and to impose excessive burdens
cA property owners in the interests of few
favored contractors; seventh. the assessment must
be