The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-05-24

cessive, they would concur subject to the ap.
proval of the Mayor and when he approved and
not until he did could Jane Doe and Mary Ann
Roe sally forth as full fedged, signed, sealed
and stamped corporate employees 10 labor Tor
their 81 so per diem This may seem ridiculous,
but 1t is Just such q case as might actually
occur II may be claimed that some bills could
be submitted In these cases. So they could, but
contem plating a strict enforcement of the rule,
a resolution must also be passed. for do not the
inspectors on improvements present sworn bills
for service rendered and is 1t not held that their
employment must be supplemented by resolu-
1t is quite reasonable TO conclude that COM
mittees should be rested with certain discretion
nicely draw the line where the discretion of a
committee should meet with a subsequent
ratification or when objection to its action would
be justified?
When a rule is sometimes abrogated, as it is
shown that o has been, continued abrogations
beget greater flaxity. consequently appoint
ments are occasionally made by committee
when It would seem better that the Board
should have taken the initiative.
Your committee well knows that all appoint
ments made by committee for temporary en-
plovnent must be ratified by the Board This
ratification was made when the wages of these
men was ordered paid Without such resolu-
tion they could not recover for their services
This rule has been sustained by Judges Douglas
and Dayton in the District Courts where suits
have been frequently brought to recover wages
for such temporary employments.
A DISTINCTION.
l. the case cited by His Honor the Mayor,
Lewis VS.. Jersey City the Supreme Court clearly
drew the distinction between an ''office" and q
Temporary employment" they held that John
Mclaughlin, who had been put to work by a
COMMITTEES, held no 'office," but his wages hav-
ing been ordered paid by the full Board, that
this was ratification of his temporary employ
ment. In that case it was not a question of
salary or of appointment but whether NC
Laughlin held an "off1ce" which would entitle
him to the benefit of the Veteran Act"
An inspection of the payroll, to which obJec-
tion has been made, shows that John Kelly and
Tim Harnley and Patrick Connors, with four
others did laboring work on the streets. That
the number of days made by each man ranged
from twelve to twenty-four and that they were
each to receive the sum of So per day. The fact
that they each labored the number of days set
opposite their names is not questioned Under
the prevailing system they were appointed by
committee with full knowledge that their en-
ployment could be in like manner terminated at
any hour of the day.
Now John and jim and Patrick, ETC., are but
laborers They were not appointed for their
knowledge of law or ethics and if they were
possessed Of the necessary qualifications IN their
branches, they might have objected to being
appointed as laborers
This they do realize: That they rendered their
services and that they should receive their pay
That conclusion we believe is irresistible and
your committee would therefore recommend
that when the obligations of His Honor. the
Mayor, shall have laid over for one week as
required by law, that the resolution be then
taken up and passed notwithstanding such
objections.
E. A. DUGAN,
W. X. Cook,
JOHN F. MADDEN,
STEPHEN p. YoE,
G. j. SoMERs.
That these men will and can recover
their money has virtually been acknowl-
edged by Spencer Weart He realizes
that the. course he, pursued was illegal,
and he is anxious to take back what he
said. Mr.. Weart is being ridiculed more
than Mayor Wanser, and 1t is the inten-
tion of the former gentleman to get out
of public life as quickly as possible.
"A HOT SHOT.
AS soon as the above report had been
read by CLERK Bouton yesterday, the fol.
don:-
To the Honorable, the Board of Street and
Water Commissioners
GEyTLEMEs-On the 18th of February, 1892 /
submitted a proposal to your Honorable Body
for the building of station house in Greenville.
At that time was doing but little work. and
with the object of k eeping my men and horses in
employment l named a price for said building
which would about cover the outlay and leave
little or no margin for profit to myself, This is
now the busy season of the year, and coupled
with that Is the fact that brick has since in
creased I'm price. IL is unreasonable for You to
expect now to hold me 10 proposal mace at a
time of year when the conditions were vastly
more favorable to myself. Had the contract
been promptly awarded to me at the time my
proposal was submitted the building would have
now been practically complete, and while |
would probably have made no profit, 1 would
have sustained no loss, but there has been so
much delay since my proposal was submitted
that the city can better afford to lose than can
to withdr'" ny bid.
- Respectfully yours
~. CoNDoN.
This communication opened the eyes of
the Commissioners, but they were not
permitting Condor to escape in this man
uer, The proper committee had investi-
gated Spencer Weart's veto, signed by
Mayor Wanser on the matter of the
Greenville station Eouse and had sub
mitted q report, which is another strong
reminder to His Honor that he put his
fingers on hot coal whed he attempted to
handle such a matter.
A CRUsHER-
Here is the report:-
Your Committee on Public Buildings, Docks
and Parks, to whom on May 16, 1892. was re-
ferred the objections of His Honor the Mayor in
order TO ascertain whether the best interests of
the city would be subserved by confirming the
award OF contract for the building of the Fifth
precinct station house notwithstanding such OBJ
jections would respectfully report as follows:-
For a number Of years past, the Police Depart
ment has repeatedly called the attention of this
Board to the pressing necessity of new station
in the GTeenville section. Their opportunities
have been also supplemented by the demands of
the residents of that section. The building at
present occupied as a station is but indifferenty
adapted for the purpose and is utterly made
quate for the requirements of the section.
This Board has always been desirous Of meeting
the demands made upon II for the erection of a
suitable building, but has repeatedly met with
obstacles either legal, monetary or co-officiaL
Some fourteen months ago plot of ground was
purchased and plans were prepared looking to
the erection Of adequate and somewhat
ornamental structure. Bids were advertised
for but the lowest Of the proposals, which were
submitted In accordance Herewith, was con-
siderably in excess OF the amount OF money at
the disposal OF the Board for this purpose
All proposals were consequently rejected
and the committee was directed to
have the plans revived so as to
bring the cost OF the building within tho appro-
printion. Your committee conferred with the
architect and under their direction much that
was ornamental was curtaied and the plans
were otherwise revised so as to comprehend the
erection OF plain but adequate and substantial
building To have curtaiied more would have
resulted IN the production OF a structure at once
inadequate and lily adapted for the service with
the sole merit Of being new.
Proposals we're again invited and the lowest
OF same was again In excess Of the amount at
our disposal
Owing 20 previous experience the Board con-
cIuded that the latest proposals represented the
minimum figure for which a proper bu ilding
could be erected, but that figure being in
excess Of their means legislative action was
suggested and relief finally obtained BY the pas