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

Schools Nos. % and "a need not De specl-
fically considered, as no testimony was given
concerning them at the hearing
Public School No. 25 was license moneys
laws of 1889, Section 20, page 203); but not
withstanding their source of revenue, the
work shouldhave been done by contract. The
earth on the school house site was over thlr-
teen feet above grade, and this was notice
of the large amount of work in sight; and
there was ample time to have proceeded by
contract and received the benefit Oh COM
petition
And think the manner in which this
work was don't is sufficient cause for re-
moval.
The work of paving to be paid out or the
license moneys tSec, 8 and 8, Laws OF 1881,
page 259) was carelessly and wrongfully
done; while the Statute of 1891, Sec. 5, afore-
said gives the board a discretion as to the
paving, it seems that the board used none.
The testimony showed that one commission
er, the Chairman of the Committee ON
Streets, etc., acted in supreme capacity, as
regards this work, ordering it as he pleased.
No resolutions were passed previous to work
being ordered, and no public report of the
commissioner was made to his committee, or
of the committee in turn to the board, was
ever made as to the price, or as to the progress
of the paving work in this department. In
fact the public was left without any chance
to have knowledge or base criticism until
the minutes indicated that the work was
done and payment ordered; when the rights
of the city were reduced to the narrowest
limits. Such methods are wrong. In my
opinion this work should have been done by
contract, and the discretion given by the act
covers the questions and details preceding
and stated in the contract. regard the ac-
tion of the board respecting this work as
sufficient ground for their removal. The re-
naming items in this charge were not press
ed at the hearing.
CHARGE NO. 9.
Licenses are payable on and after July L
in each year and for the year ending June
80 following. The city's fiscal year, by
Charter regulation, commences December
and ends November 30 following. The ques-
tion involved in this charge is, whether the
year for the expenditure of the license mon
les commences July or December II If on
the first day of December, the board has a
surplus on the November 30 following; if on
the first day of July there was a deficit on
June 80 following. :.
As a suit is now pending in the court, in
volving this question, deem it wise to ex-
press no opinion. q Much of the work in
cluded in this charge, as it appears by the
items, was under $500, but of large amount
in the aggregate and for continuous pay
ments on the same work. This work should
have been done by contract, for the same
reasons given S0 1NO. l.
CHARGE NO. 3.
The prosecutors allege that the cost of the
work specified therein should have been as
sessed upon and collected from the property
benefited; the testimony showed that the
work done was upon city property which
could not be assessed; they failed to prove
that any work was done on private property.
Therefore none could be assessed. As pre-
sented, there is nothing censurable in this
charge.
CHARGE NO. f.
As to this charge, no proof beyond the
statement submitted was made as to the de-
ficit as to the department. The interest on
the water debt, the labor and the supplies
have been paid for easily during the last
eighteen months. The charge of negligence
as to collecting the water rents is well
made. The Water Department requires
coal. supplies, labor and extensions and the
interest on the water debt to keep it run
ming The water is in immediate consump-
tion, and it involves no hardship to pay
nrornptly. Tie deficit in the water account
at any time should only be fraction of the
current year rents, and the showing made
by the statements under this charge con-
yinces me that the collections have not been
properly or energetically pressed, and the de-
ficit has been caused by inefficient and un-
businesslike management, and this is suf-
ficient ground in my opinion for removal.
CHARGE NO. 5.
No evidence was produced to substantiate
this charge.
CHARGES NOS. 6, z, AND 9.
The board has jurisdiction in the matters
complained of in these charges. In each
case the board acted against the judgment
of the executive of the city, as expressed IL
vetoes, but no evidence has been produced
before showing that their action was
| brought by improper means. :.
AS to charges preferred by Hugh Leslie
Thomas Hill and U. Allen.
CHARGES NOS. 1 AND 3.
| The allegation of delay in these charges Is
owing to the fact that in drawing the con
| tracts, the penalty for non-performance was
| omitted School No 25 has been completed
and the damages for delay have been ad
| iusted The Fifth precinct station house has
not been accepted and the adjustment is ye
| to be made.
CHARGE NO. 2.
| NV views as to the excavation in the sit
| of School No. 25 have been previousl,
stated under charge No. of the charges o
| Frank O. Cole and others.
CHARGE NO. 4.
| The testimony showed that Pearl street a
| its intersection with Greene street, was mar
rowed from 80 foot street on Mangins' maj
| to passageway of abont four and nal
feet, and the encroachment is the earth II MI
| ing, adjoining the Pennsylvania r. K. Coz
| road bed The board has been negligent ane
careless of its duty, in permitting this en-
/ croachment.
CHARGE NO. 5.
The difficulty complained OF under thl
| charge arose, because of plans adopted by {
| former board and involves serious ques
| tion of engineering.
CHARGE NO
So far as the amounts expended for the
work. the same remarks apply as used undel
charge ), of Frank o. Cole and others, as
| to the Inspector The Board in its genera
| of 1891 had the power to appoint. 1t is ;
legal question whether the Inspectors salar,
can come out of the special sidewalk fund
or should have been otherwise provided
Had any work been done on private propert,
| the cost of which was assessed against tn
owner, proportion of the Inspectors salar.
| whold be idcluded in the costs.
l CHARGE NO. z.
No evidence was offered in support of thi
charge.
1 CHARGE NO. 8.
/ Ny views as to this charge are the same
expressed under charge No. OF the charge
of Frank O. Cole and others.
/ CHARGE NO. 9.
The proof at the trial did not estabhs
this charge as presented.
The foregoing conclusions are my reason
which have induced me to remove the sal
Commissioners, viz
/ JOHN F. MADDEN,
WILLIAM r. COOK,
EDWARD A. DUGAN,
CHARLES J. SOMERS,
STEPHEN p. YOE,
and each of them from their Office as mem
lbers of the Board of Street and Water Com
missioners of Jersey City, and in additio