The Jersey City news., 1892-05-21
Light and 4HE LAW.
Finance Boards Gas Ger
tiorari Suit Begun
Before Judge
WertS.
TESTING AS TO CONCURRENCE
Collins & Corbin Meet Bnmstead
and McGee-Rule to Show
Cause.
TESTING AS TO CONCURRENCE

Inc oOuru OF FINANCE ndS loSI uO bilhe
in applying to the Court for q decision
concerning the validity of the notorious
gas contract. Today Messrs. Collins q
Corbin applied to Judge Werts for writ
of certiorari to have the contract between
the city and the Gas Improvement Com
Dany reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The lawyers represented the Board of
Finance. In making the application for
the writ Lawyer Charles L. Corbin said
that the charter provided that the Board
of Finance might bring suit on its
own behalf aud might appoint
counsel. The Finance Board condends
that 1t has the power of concurrence In
contracts calling for the expenditure OF
money. The matter was referred to the
Corporation Counsel who gave 1t as his
opinion that the gas contract as it now
stands is valid.
MIR. Corbin added that the charter re-
quires the Board of Finance to sppropri-
ate money for lighting the streets. and
therefore the Board has direct interest
in the contract. Mr.. Corbin said that the
concurrence in the contract by the
Board of Finance was one Of the ques-
tlons that would be argued If the writ
was granted.
THE CONTRACTS.
GlaDcing through the contract he said
there were three contracts, one oil con-
tract and one electric light contract.
Each of them contained provisions not
authorized by law for they bound
the city for more than five years.
The act provides that the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners, and
the Mayor may make a contract for
period not exceeding five years. Under
the existing contract the Gas Company
takes possession of all extensions that
are to be made from year to year,
which means that the contract will
run for ten years instead of five years.
Mr.. CorDin claimed that this provision
was not authorized by the advertisement.
and that the contract was not In accord
with the advertisement, as it should be,
Section 159. Laws of 1891, provides that no
contract for materials or supplies shall be
valid unless duly advertised and sup
ment to this in the laws of 1873 demands
that an approximate estimate or the
work, material, etc, ETC., must be pub
lished in the advertisement, which was
not done in this case.
tract to the Court and also
the resolution of the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners
awarding the contract He said theie
was nothing in the advertisement or
resolution concerning the time of the
Contract and thatthe contract con tained
provisions that were not authoriz ed by
resolution or advertisement. In conclu-
sion the lawyer remarked:
LAS this application comes before the
Court from Board In the city govern
ment which makes the appropriation, we
think the writ should be granted. The
Board desires to know its own powers.
We want stay for we do not desire to
plunge the city into darkness"
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. William G.. Bumstead representing
Corporation Counsel Edwards who was
unavodablv absent, said that the Cor
poration Counsel would not object
was granted, providing the matter ,ould
be argued at the June Term of c urt.
Lawyer Flavel MCGEE. on behalf of the
Gas Company, opposed the application
for the writ of certiorari vigorously
and asked the Court to grant a
rule to show cause why the writ should
not issue instead. with power to take
testimony He said that if the writ should
be granted IL was doubtful if the Gas
Company would want to assume the risk
of furnishing light to the city while the
matter was in litigation, which might be
fer year.
Ex-Mayor Collins objected to the rule
and insisted that the writ should be
issued.
Il don't see that it makes much differ
ence which is done," commented Judge
FWerts. After some further argument.
Judge Werts granted rule to show
cause, to be argued at the June term.
Ex-Mayor Collins here said that an un-
reliable paper had published story to
the effect that he instigated this
case and induced the Board
of Finance to contest the contract. Mr.
Collins said this was untrue and the first
knowledge he had of the case was when
his firm was retained by the Board
of Finance. The Corporation Counsel
would have had charge of the case, but he
had rendered an adverse opinion and
could not.