The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-07

mean to say that you cleaned this thor
oughfare nine days afterwards, as this
bill sets forth?"
"Yes, siFn
''What else did YOU clean?''
Grand street, Pavonia avenue, Grove
street and Palisade and FRANKLIN ave-
nuesp
"How great distance would the por-
t1ons of the streets you cleaned makeW
81 don't know"
ABOUT TWO MILES.
Chief Engineer Ruggles was recalled
and he said that the distances mentioned
by Cook would make about two miles
in ALL
Martin Finck, recalled, stated that pro-
posals were received in December, 1887,
for. removing garbage and ashes
and clearing $50 miles of paved
streets; that bids were received December
2, and that Henry E. Murray was the
lowest bidder. The contract was not
given to him because he and his sureties
could not be found. John H. Keeney's
bid was the next lowest, but it was in
formal and does not appear in the min
utes.
"Did the Committee try to find Muir
ray?' the Prosecutor enquired
''The members did, and found out
that where the sureties claimed to live
there was nothing but vacant lots.
w Cll; II IL uOb u uc JiidJ IL - d CuStODt
for contractor to send in lower bid as
feeler?" Mr. Winfield asked.
''If SO, | don't know it.
''Do you know Martin Curley, Patrick
Brady or Alonzo Pettit?'
mo, sir"
who was the third lowest bidder?"
Henry Byrne."
"Why was not the contract given to
him?"
Because of an irregularity in the agree
ment, believe"
''What was it?'
"The agreement" said Mr.. Finck,
''stated that Philip Tumulty of-(the
word of printed)-Philip Dolan were
"of'' should, no doubt, have been
"and"
"The bids were:-Murray, 1850; Kee-
ney, s21 ,343: Byrne, 81, 1854; Patrick Rehil,
So, 300" said Mr. Finck.
why did not the Board award the con-
tract to Rehil?'' asked the Prosecutor.
FUNNY REASONS.
because when the Board of Finance,
Mayor, and Board of Works met to discuss
the project of a new pump for high service,
on December 80, the street cleaning con-
tract came up, and the Mayor said that
the contract ought to be awarded to Fran
els G. Meehan, whose bid was $40, 200 be-
cause he thought the work could not be
done IOf less. lQaU WAS Ule only reason
Mr. Finck could recall.
"Why did not Norris E. Sullivan, who
bid s24 450, the next lowest bidder, get the
contract?"
81 don't know
Dennis Byrne, who bid S25,500, also
failed to obtain the contract, but for what
reason the witness could not tell. Joseph
H. Mailly, who bid $26, ,935, did get it, and
by resolution of the Board he was in
structed to perform the work while wait
ing for the Finance Board to concur in
the award
The Board of Finance did not concur,
and an opinion from Corporation Counsel
Blair was read by Mr.. Winfield, which
showed that the Board of Works acted
against his advice, and that the contract
should have been awarded to the lowest
bidder
The Prosecutor next brought mp the
contract for cleaning receiving basins
Ex-Judge Garretson objected and said
that there was no count in the indictment
that touched upon this contract and he
did not think his clients should be made
to defend themselves.
Mr. Winfield explained that he had
shown an overt act on the part of the de-
PENDANTS, and that this evidence was ad-
missable to corroborate it.
The Court admitted the evidence, and
then, remarking that it was four O'Clock,
adjourned, and the testimony was re-
c11mad this morning