The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23
RESPONDENTS ApMITTANoE.


made for work done at Belleyille without
| having previously advertised or given notice
for bids or proposals for such work, The
| prosecutors insist that the action of the re-
! spondents in paying out the said sum OF
| 81 250 so, at the times and in the amounts
| specified, was for the purpose of eyadlng the
| provisions of Section 159, and in pursuance
| of a corrupt understanding or arrangement
| for the mutual advantage of the Commls-
| sioners and favored contractor. The
prosecutors contend that Section 159 is to be
| construed as though it read, ''that no work
| shall be done or purchase of material made,
| involving an expenditure exceeding S50O, ex-
| cept after advertisements inviting proposals
| therefor and contract thereupon awarded to
| that responsible bidder who offers the terms
| most advantageous to the city"
If such construction of the law be correct
then its willful evasion in instances as above
might be accepted as official misconduct on
| the part of the Commissioners, and afford
good cause for their removal from office.
| But apart from the inference to be drawn
| from such construction of the statute, there
| is no allegation or proof that the payments
| in question were corruptly or improperly
made, or that the city did not receive full
| benefit therefor
Your first conclusion is as follows:-"The
money spent for tagging at Belleville should
have been done by contract and l have pre-
viously vetoed the payment OF these bills
and think the manner in which this work
| was done was sufficient cause for re-
moval."
This conclusion resolves itself into three
parts
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY CONTRACT.
A. 1.-The money spent for tagging at Belle
vile should have been done by contract"
This seems to adopt, as legal conclusion,
the construction of Section 159 above men
toned ,Eas contended for by the Prosecutors.
regard the correctness of such construc-
tion as extremely doubtful. l am not pre-
pared to adopt it; especially not, for the pur-
pose of attaching thereto the penalty of re-
moval from office, when, (assuming the
statute to have been violated it does not
appear that the respondents are guilty of
more than misapprehension or miscon-
struction of its terms. For the Belleville
tagging no advertisement for proposals was
made and no contract was awarded. In the
case of the State VS.. Kern % Vroom 266, de-
cided in 1889, the Supreme Court held
"The indictment charges that defendants
unlawfully, wilfully, corruptly and with evil
intent paid or caused to be paid to w. R. G.
for and on account of the sweeping and
cleaning of streets in Jersey City, the sum of
S12,7S4 of the money of the city, without
having previously advertised or given notice
for bids or proposals for such work.
1t will be observed that this Indictment ad-
mits that w. r. C. had done the work for
which the board could have contracted with
him y = There is no averlnent
that the work admittedly done was not
worth the sum paid.
'sThe offense charged as criminal is the
mere payment of public money for work ac-
tually done for the public, without having
previously advertised fer proposals for such
work. But it is quite obvious that the act
thus charged to have been done is no breach
of official duty unless some statute has pre-
scribed rule of duty which has been vio-
lated in doing it as charged.
sAs has been seen the charter of Jersey
City by Section 159, prohibits the award of a
contract for such work without previous ad
vertisernent for proposals and the wilful dis
obedience of that prohibition constitutes
criminal ofense. But there is no prohibition
of the payment of money for such werk ac
tually done fer the city, when there is no
previous advertisement for proposals. This
charge, therefore, shows no wilful disobedi-
ence of any prescribed rule of the charter"
This language of the Court seems to me at
entire variance with the construction of Sec
ton 159, contended for by the Prosecutors.
THE MAYORS VETO.
B. II the Mayor have previously vetoed
the payment of these bills
The grounds of such vetoes are not stated
in the conclusion nor disclosed by the testi-
mony taken. The mere fact that a veto was
interposed and legally overridden does not,
in my Judgment, afford "good cause for re-
meval.
MANNER IN WHICH WORK WAS DONE.
C. 81 the Mayor think the manner in
which this work was done was sufficient
cause for removal"
If. by the word manner, it is intended
that Section 159 required the work to be done
by contract, have already indicated my
dissent therefrom. If on the contrary, it is
a mere expression of opinion, without refer
ence to Section l59, that by contract would
have been the preferable mode. then it was
simply matter of judgment resting in the
discretion of the commissioners, under Sec
tion one, Chapter 134 of the Laws Of 1891,
wherein it is provided: ssThat the said Board
of Street and Water Commissioners of such
city shall have full power, in addition to all
other powers granted by law, in their dis
cretion, in the corporate name and on behalf
of such city, of making contracts and en-
gagements, all of which shall be binding on
such city, in reference to any purpose what
ever connected with the exercise of the
authority, powers and duties by this act con-
ferred, or contemplated to be conferred, on
said board"
lit be meant that the work was improp-
erly or negligently done, l have carefully
read and reread the 332 pages of testimony
and find no evidence that the manner in
which the work was done, was careless, ex
travagant or in any way prejudicial to the
city.
/ am unable TO approve of the first con-
clusion assigned as sufficient cause for re-
moval.
MAYOR wANsER's SECOND CONCLUSION.
Your second conclusion relates to the pay
ment of the sum of 81, ,9S9. SO, in nine install
ments Ito P. j. Condor for 'excavating
School No. 25 site, ~ specified in charge Ne.
/ of Frank o. Cole and Others The pay
ments cover period of tine, extending from
January IL, 1892, to April 81, 1892, and were
Chapter l27, Laws of 1889. There was no
advertisement for proposals for the excavat-
ing and no contract, written on otherwise,
for the work as an entirety
Your conclusion is as follows:-
s'The money spent on the excavation of
Public School No. 25 was license monies
(law of 1889, Sec 90, page 203), but notwith-
standing their source of income, the work
should have been done by contract: the earth
on the school house site was over thirteen
feet above grade, and this was notice of
the large amount of work in sight and there
was ample time to have proceeded by con-
tract and received the benefit of competi-
ton. sA
'.And think the manner in which this
work was done sufficient cause for removal"
Respecting those payments, the conten-
ton of the prosecutors was the same as made
concerning the tagging at Belleville, and
and your conclusions in both instances are
evidently based upon the same view of the
law and evidence.
There was no proof made or attempted by
the prosecutors that the excavating was done
in an improper manner or that it would have
cost less if thrown open to competition. On
the other hand, there is proof tending to