The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-09-07
COUNTY ROAD In COURT
Unsuccessful Contractors
Try to Stop the Work
On the New Boule-
ward.
JUDGE WERTs THWARTs THEM.
In Trying to Save $3.50 the Jealous
Men Would Make the County
Lose $4,000.

The progress of the new County Road.
backs, has finally gotten under way, was
seriously threatened this morning by the
jealousy of contractors. Messrs. Charles
Thompson and Charles Corbin this morn
ing applied to Judge Werts for writ Of
certiorari to remove into the Supreme
Court. for review. the action of the Board
of Freeh olders in awarding the contract
for the construction OF the first section of
the roal to the Hudson Construction
Company. The application was made on
behalf of Frank C. O'Riley and Patrick J.
Condor.
MIR. Thompson, in making the appli ca
tion, said that his clients were the lowest
bidders for the contract. They bid
$21. .060 while the Hudson Construction
Company's bid was $50 more, or $21, 1,240.
Mr.. Thompson said that the law requir ed
the Freeholders to award the contract
to the lowest bidder, aud if the lowest
bidder was not responsible party, or
there was cause to believe that he could
not carry out the contract. or any other
not be given to the lowest bidder. the
Board should readvertise for bids.
This, Mr.. Thompson declared, had not
beendone and the Freeholders had yio-
lated the law in that respect.
A QUESTION OF THE FUTURE.
He further said that a greater question
was involved in the case than the mere
$50 difference in the bids. II the Free
holders were to be allowed to go on in
this manner and ignore the lowest bidder
as they had done. no contractor would
feel warranted in bidding against the
Construction Company.
Judge Werts said that he could not
consider anything that Mr.. Thompson
thought would take Dla in the future
and that phase of the case was dropped.
Mr.. w. ID. Edwards appeared for the
Construction Company and opposed the
application. He showed how there was
more involved in the case than the ap-
parent $3.50. Many of the property own
ers along the route of the Boulevard in
Bayonne had given thirty feet of their
property on Avenue A, Bayoane, to the
Freeholders for county road purposes.
upon condition that the contract for the
construction of the road should be
awarded and work commenced before
September l.
The bids had to be opened and the con-
tract awarded at a regular meeting of
the Board. They were not received until
the last meeting before September l. If
there was any delay In the matter and
the TN cV work was not commenced
lose that property. in which case they
would have to purchase IL at a cost of at
least $50. 600. The owners were already
reDenting this generosity and were want
ing TO know why it was that they were
not paid for their property when others
were receiving damages along the other
sections of the route.
LOSE $4,000 OR SAVE $3.50.
When the contracts were opened 1t was
found that there was only $3.50 difference
in the bids. In their anxiety to
save the county the $4,000 worth
of property, which they had secured
alton which of the two lowest bidders
was best prepared to begin the work.
They found that the Construction Com
pany had large force of men, together
with horses, carts and tools on the
ground, being engaged on large contracts
for the railroads which are being built in
that vicinity. So thin king that as be-
tween the $4,000 which the county would
save in property and the $50 which it
would save on the contract, it would be
better to save the $4,000, they awarded
the contract to the Construction Com
pany.
After listening to considerable further
viewed the arguments which had been
submitted and said that under the cir
cumstances he did not think that the writ
should be allowed. The loss OH one side
was SO trifing as compared with that on
the other that he did not think he would
be warranted in stopping the work aud
placing the county in the way Of losing
the property it had acquired He would
therefore deny the application.
Mr.. Thompson said that his client did
not bring the suit because he had lost the
contract, but in order to have the ques-
tion settled whether the Board of Free
holders could ignore the law and award a
contract over the head of the lowest bid
uers without readvertising. If they could
DO that there would be no use of any
ones bidding against the Construction
Company. His client was, therefore, will
tngs to take the writ without stay in
order that the question might come be-
fore the Court.
Mr.. EDWARDS OBJECTED.
Mr.. Edwards objected TO chat. He said
that it would be impossible to get any
contractor TO go on with the WORK while
the matter was In the court, and the Free.
holders would lose all they had sought to
gain Dy their action.
Judge Werts said that it seemed to him
that the correct construction of the law
was that the Board, should readvertise
If they rej-cted the lowest bid unless it
was evident that the lowest bidder
was au irresponsible person or unfit to do
the work, but under the circumstances,
he would not interfere. The Board of
Freeholders, however, now had notice
of the construction the Court p. aced upon
the law and should govern their award
ing of contracts in the future accordingly.
He then formally dismissed the applica-
tion.
Judge McGrath and Norman Rowe ap-
peared for the county. 1t was said that
the suit grew out of family jealousy
Frank O'Riley. one of the applicants is a
cousin of one of the members of the Con-
struction Company, ana was trying TO do
all in his power to embarrass aud delay
the work of his more fortunate cousin.
D0NNELLY ASSOCIATION.