The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-05-20

sioners, subject only to the approval OF the
Mayor. The contracts in question were
approved by the Mayor OF the city at the
time OF their execution.
THE CASH QUESTION.
Secoud-As to the uuty of your Board
TO make appropriations to meet the re-
qulrements of such contract. This IS
also provided for in Section eleven (11) OF
Chapter one hundred and thirty-four Q34)
of the laws of eighteen hundred and
ninety-one QSSD, where 1t Is enacted
land the Board of authority in any such
city having the power and charged with
annual tax levy or tax ordinance OF SUCH
city shall appropriate the amount neces-
sary each year to pay the cost OF such
lighting or the fulhllment of any such
contract or contracts"
This enactment makes the appropria-
tion mandatory upon your Board. The
Legislature has the right by general
laws to compel such appropriation. 1t
has been done in many cases. as.
for instance, the appropriation
for the Free Public Library. for
State School purposes, for various
salaries, etc., etc. Indeed, as you well
know, there is comparatively little discre-
the make up Of the greater portion Of the
annual tax levy. | deem this state of
affairs deplorable, but 1t is the law.
APPROVAL OF BONDS.
Third-As to the approval of the bords.
Under the new charter of eighteen hum
dred and eighty-nine QS89). Section thir-
teen Q3), it was provided
That whenever in any city the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners provided for in this
act shall make any contracts for opening, grad
or the construction or repair of any sewer, for
the faithful execution of which the contractor
shall give bonds, said bonds shall first
be approved as to sufficiency by the Board
of Finance provided in this act, and no con-
tract shall be binding upon the city or become
effective or operative until said bonds are SO ap-
proved by SAID Board, and no such contractor
shall commence any such work or incur any ex-
pense whatever to be paid by the city or by as
sessment upon property as the case may be.
approved of the bonds proposed to be
given as aforesaid; the President of said
Board of Finance shall have power to examine
the proposed bondsmen under oath, if he shall
desire or shall be SO INSTRUCTED by the Board;
but the Board shall not be bound by any state
ment that may be made by any such proposed
bondsmen, but shall have absolute discretion In
the whole matter; this provision shall be re-
ferred to in any advertisement inviting bids for
any such public work"
This as you Will see refers only to street
and sewer contracts and not to contract
for lighting, but even this power of the
approval of bonds Is invested In the
Board of Street and Water Commis-
sioners under Section seven ~ of Chapter
one hundred and thirtv-four Q34 of the
Laws Of eighteen hundred and ninety-one
QS91). These are the specific matters to
which you have directed my attenbion.
Other matters have been questioned in
conference with the members of your
Board and to them wish also to allude.
THE CONTRACTS VALID.
The contracts were not entered into un-
til April, eighteen hundred and ninety
fur f12QDl nj rhau mn tha
cost of such lighting from the beginning
of the fiscal year of eighteen hundred and
pinety-one 189D being to that extent re-
troactive. / think no stress can be laid
upon this point, however, because the
prices named in the present con-
those provided for in the con-
tracts for the previous year. which
the Courts would construe to be In force
until new contracts were made or the
lighting discontinued hereunder by or
der of the city. 60 the city would gain
rather than lose by having the contracts
retroactive.
AS to one of the contracts
or electric lighting complaint has
been made that the bid of a
rival company. the Jersey City Electric
Light Company was rejected on the
grounds of intormality.
even If the bid had been accepted, tine
amount bid was higher than that of the
company to which the contract was
awarded, so no substantial injury was
wrought to the city by such rejection.
1 find upon the whole that under the
law these contracts are valid. l so con-
sidered them when presented to me for
approval. At the request of your Hon
able Body, 1 have re-examined the
whole question with the same result.
do not mean, however, by this opinion
to concur in the policy of the Board of
of Street and Water Commissioners in
awarding such a contract for such long
term. l think their action was unwise,
but ] find it is within the law. But if
your Honorable Body deem it wise aud for
the best interests of the people to have the
question reviewed by the Courts,
you have ample power in such case under
Section 80 of the Charter of 1871 to en-
ploy additional counsel by resolution in
case you desire TO test the power of con-
currence of your Board In these contracts.
Personally 1 should like to have the
whole question of your concurring power
settled by the Courts.
Respectfully submitted,
w. ID. EDWARDS,
Corporation Counsel.