The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-12-08
ASPHALT CONTRACTS
Judges Dixon and Albeit
Hear the Argument in
MI. MCDermott's Suit.

Justices Dixon aud Albeit sat In the
Court of Chancery. this morning, as
branch OF the Supreme Court aud list
ened to the argument on the application
of Allan McDermoI5 for writ Of GER
tiorari to remove the proceedings OF the
Street ndWater Board awarding the con-
tracts for the paving of certain streets with
asphalt to the Barber Company into the
Supreme Court for review. Mr.. McDer-
mott. who made Gha motion. opened the
case to the Court. He related the cir
cumstances under which the contract
was awarded as his main prooo-
ston that the Board of
Street and Water Commissioners. was
oDllged to award the contract to the low
est bidder. In support of this proposition
Mr.. McDernlott quoted from the various
acts OF the Legislature giving the board
cognizauce and control of the paving of
streets. Then he showed how the
paving of streets was classified
first paving to be pail for, In whole or in
part, by assessment of property for special
benefits; second paving, the cost of which
Is TO be borne by the city at large.
The state, Mr.. McDermott declared,
compelled the beard to award
the contract to the lowest bid
der, and in giving it to the Barber
Company the Commission ars went be-
yond their statutory powers. The section
OF the City Charter which the commfs-
stoners claimed gave them discretionary
power in the matter of awarding con-
tracts did not apply TO the pavement of
streets.
Another point made by Mr.. McDsr-
mott was tnat the contract was not
awarded to the shat responsible bidder
who offers the terms most advantageous
to the city,"
In opening his argument in opposition
to granting of the writ, Corporation
Counsel Edwards attacked the case as
printed by the Prosecutor, which he char
tions OF the evidence, MIR. Edwards said.
had not. been printed. The Corpora
tiou Counsel also gave
history of the contracts. He
said that no asphalt pavement had ever
been laid in Jersey City, and in other
cities much trouble had arisen in part
from the inferiority of the materials used.
In order to guard against that trouble
the specifications laid down chemical
formula which could exclude all inferior
grades. The Board also found
that the bids of both companies. when
compared with the pricss charged in
other cities, were very low and considered
that they were for the lest interest of the
city. Mr.. Edwards then argued at
were legal under the charter.
Then he sought to show to the
satisfaction at the Court that the cost of
this repaving was not to be paid by as
assessment or general tax as it was TO be
paid out of che license fees. After
arguing at length upon that point Mr..
edwards strove to substantiate his propo-
sitiou that the advertisement for the bids
was properly made un Ter section l59 OF
Charter of 1871. He said that the term
THAT responsible bidder who offers the
terms most advantageous to the citv" was
not synonymous with ''lowest bidder" as
cneapuess Is only one element of advaat-
age. He quoted the case of Jacob Ringle
against the Poi,ce Board of Jersey City
tried in 1886. in which the Court, he
claimed. upheld his proposition.
Mr.. Edwards further contended that
the advertisement was strictly legal, and
that the prosecutor had no standing In
court.
An interesting feature of this argu-
ment is that every one concerned in it
this morning has been q law officer of
this city. Judges Dixon and Apbett
were at one time Corporation Counsel,
and Mr.. McDermott was Corporation