New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-24
REMOVAL OF STREET DIRT.
AN INJUNCTION BY JUDGE VAN BRUNT.
COMMISSIONER coLEMAN's PROPOSED CoNTBAcT
ENJOINED.


COMMISSIONER coLEMAN's PROPOSED coNTBAcT
ENJoINED.
Judge Van Brunt granted an injunction in the
Court OF Common Pleas yesterday restraining
William K, Grace, Allan Campbell and Thomas b.
Asten, AZ members of the Board OF
Estimate and Apportionment, from approv-
ing or delivering any certificate that the
Board had approved tho terms and conditions of
the contract for the final disposition of the street
sweepings ashes and garbage prepared by Com
missioner Coleman; the latter is also restrained as
co-defendant from rewarding such contract
Thomas kcarns who does business at Seventh-aye.
and One-hundred d-thirtysecond-st., is the COM
painant. The order is returnable on December %
The complaint rectes that the omolai nant is
taxpayer, and it quotes from chapter 367 of the
laws OF 1881 the powers and duties of the Street
Commissioner. 1t then states that on November 23
hessrs. Grace, Campbell, Asten and Coleman met in
the Mayors Office William Sauer, president of the
Board OF Aldermen, being absent and without the
latters concurrence collusively and wrongfully,
and IN fraud Of the rights of the taxpayers of the
city" agreed that Coleman should make
contract for special disposition of
the street-sweepings, etc, and that Messrs.
Grace Campbell and Asten signed certificate that
the Board of Estimate and AppOrtOnment had
that day approved the terms and conditions of
special contract.
On December,s 8, 1882, the defendant Coleman
says the complaint advertised that proposals would
be received at the Office of the Department of Street
Cleaning until December 20, and such advertise
ments contain clause that blank forms OF the con-
tract might be obtained on aud after Iues1ay
December 7. As n matter of fact, Mr.. Keams de-
cafes further that he is informed and believes that
that day, but that this statement was misleading,
as December z, 1882, aid not fall on
Tuesday, and subsequently Coleman changed
such date without any authority from The
O ISt q
December 2. 1882, at II O'clock noon, when the
forms could first be obtained. On December - the
Board puTpOrted To amend the unlawful aud yOld
certificate of approyal.Of November %, by making
the time for the commencement Of the proposed
special contract to be February |, 1888 but this
alleged amenGatory certificate was not signed by
the president of the Board of Aldermen The follow
ing day Coleman atachcd to his advertise
ceiving proposals was extended to December
20, 1852, and the date for beginning Work
TO February l. 1888, in lieu OF January l, as con
tanned in the former advertisements, bnt without
changing the dlte when the form OF contract might
be obtained from his department, which date had
heretofore expired
the Board OF Estimate and Apportionm. mt should
be restrained from approving the contract made by
Commissioner Coleman, n copy of which Is given.
1t is alleged that former attempts to have tue
street refuse removed by contrict have sub
ee9ed the city to osct Loss ana G HHgat2n; dMar@s
such a contract is shifting the respon-
sbihty by the Commissioner upon contractors 1t
is also stae that the proposals Tor the contracts as
amend ii have rot Ueen advertised IN any news
paper for ten day, nor can such advertisement be
completed by December 2O, WDen Coleman pro-
poses award the contract, because OF
the intervention of two sundays and legal
holiday between the 1ith and 26th. The
other counts allege the lndehnltenesS OF
the contract the impr vldenee IT permits or ana us
general IucOmpletcness. The uuhZttlOn OF the
tweuty-eight scOws ami two tugs owned by the
cIty is not provided for The contractor Is required
In furui IN ONLY ESQ 600 sureties, whereas the sum
| l. IN Iary ID Il
the propo>ed contract for the repairs OF docks OF
oumps used by the contractors nor for dredglng.
The complaint WAS sworn to before JOhnA: carney
NoIice of the injunction was served on Cominis-
sioncr Coleman IN the afternoon and sent to Mayor
Grace III the evening; AiildaVlts ny CaPlaih WIZ
lams and Inspector IhOrne are Appended 10 tne
complaint testIyng their belief that the work OF
puttiug the street refuse Oh sunken lands III ihe
city would be more than PAD Tor by tue increased
yajue OF the lands
Cnm,nissioner Coleman seen at the AstOr
uouse last ey ening by TRIBUNE reporter. lie said
mat the complaint appeared 10 have been made
for the purpose of finding fault with the Street
Cleaning Department and preparing the puoHc niln
for changes in that aud other departments which
are contemplated by politicians at the next
ss.,ou of the legislature lie said that the action
Of the three members of the Board OF Estimate and
Apportionment who were present at tue meeting
ed was perfectly legal, as due notice had Oeen
given to all the members, and three formed
onorum "Ou this point continued Mr. Coleman
. | nave the opinion of Corporation COqnsel Ah-
dre,ys In regard to the date, Tuesday, December
- heiug changed to tuesday, December ~ the
error i'm the former date was due To cIuical error
d. the clerk of the Board The specifications were
the same as appeared in The CITY hccord ard no one
was kept in ignorance of them, bit on the contrary
eyen fuller information a5 to the WOrh 10 De u0he
was given to any one that called at my office. The
time for receiving bids was extended In order to
glye contractors longer time to bu. lrH BOARD OF
aldermen have nothing TO say as 10 tnc ulakin2 Oh
fern, and spechca.lons for cOntl acts or removing
tIe street dirt. l believe that it can he done con
.iderably cheaper by reliable cOnIact9r WIN pat
| snt dumo scows than by the city. The Department
has two tugs and thnty scOws, and has to employ
| large force of men. This patronage the poulcans
| rnyct The scows and tugs belonging to tho city
cond he auetioned OIL at certain times OF the year
At fair prires and tue city would be the gamer by
| Iettjng the contractor do the work.