Beverly banner. [volume] (Beverly, N.J.) 1877-1964, 1885-10-10

1t is falsely stated in a vile editorial
of The Enterprise it is alleged that the
outgrowth of the Presidents opposi-
ton to the Solicitor lies in the fact that
the committee had contracted for the
erection of water works at cost of
about $21 900, and that he (the Solici-
tori was ordered to make the contract
for $27 800 for the purpose of piping
streets not mentioned in the original,
which he fatty refused to do. The
contract price under the specifications
was S22,575. which embraced only
about one mile of pipe and thirty-fve
hydrants, which the committee to
whom was referred the sealed proposals
proposed to increase to about three
miles Of pipe, and the fire hydrants
from thirty to thirty-five for the same
price as that contained in the sealed
proposal of the lowest bidder for the
aggregate amount of $2,66S.07, under
the following section of the published
specifications;
"The Common Council for the City
of Beverly reserves the right to reject
any or all bids, or to accept a bid for
the whole or any part thereof, or to in
crease or diminish the amount, plumber
or quantity contracted for twenty per
cent. at any time prior to the compile
ton Of the contract"
Which proposed increase, increased
the amount of the contract price to
$25, 24307, an increase of only about
half of the reserved twenty per cent.
The committee specifically stated i'll
their report and resolution annexed
thereto all the above facts, and desig-
mated all the streets in which they
proposed to lay the pipes and the
courses and distances thereof, which
report was short time afterwards
given by the President to Mr.. flanders,
Che having received a copy of the
specifications, who requested him to
write a contract, which he promised to
do, and afterwards said that he could
not write it from the specifications.
He was asked what else he required,
but did not answer. He remarked
that the amount stated in the report
was larger than the amount Of the pro-
posal when he was informed that the
increase was authorized under the re-
served right in the specifications. He
made no objections, and promised to
have the contract ready at certain
day, and when called for ON that day
he gave only a general refusal and
petulantly returned the report. Since
which time he has not been requested
to write the contract.
The Act of April 81, 1876, requires
the contract to be read in council as
sembled for approval or rejection by a
majority of the whole nulnber present ;
and if approved, to be so endorsed by
the President and signed by the pro-
per officers. Hence, if any dishonest
amount was put in the contract for
any improper purpose, its detection
would be inevitable. THE shameless
herald of the lie" is therefore as stupid
as maliciously false for the purpose of
stigmatising those who requested him
to write the contract, and has but one
idea uppermost in his mind-a deter
mination not to care what he says, pro
vided he keeps clear of the truth.
The chief cause for the discharge of
Flanders was his refusal to ask the
Court for rule to take testimony,
and his refusal to allow Mr.. Hugg, his
assistant, to do so; without which tes-
timony the case of the city will be lost
on argument. If we could obtain that
evidence he could not obstruct the
further proceedings of the casejor de-
feat it by incapacity or by any other
means. As to his refusal to write the
contract being the reason for his dis
charge, it is small crafty Pigment of
distempered spleen to divert attention
from the true cause. His refusal was
more pleasure than pain, because
the expected labor of its revision would
have been more than the original writ
ing of it, and the request to write it
was but an act of grace. B.