The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-01-24

biguous or doubtful for Interpretation
in this case. 1t is the ordinary grant OF
power, under which it IS settled in this
court, that rights previously acquired
under the power Of eminent domain cam
not be assailed.
The proviso was evidently inserted to
allay any apprehension which might
otherwise nave arisen in adjacent NUM-
cipalities which had heretofore secured
a water supply.
II the body of the act had provided
that the lands and water rights of every
person, by whatever title acquired or
held. might be. -extinguished by condem-
nation, a different case would be pre-
sented.
1t might then with much force be con-
tended that by the exception, in the pro-
viso. of one corporation from the opera
ton of the act its Trainer by the use of
the word person Intended to subject
persons, both natural and artificial, to
its provisions, and that no corporation
could claim exclusion save the one spe-
Gifted.
8. The question remains whether the
contract is valid, if power is lodged in
the city to make a contract?
This court disclaims the right to in
terfere with the exercise of that discre-
ton, which has been conided to the city
officials and to substitute its judgment
for theirs. We are possessed of no ex-
pert knowledge upon the subject of wa
ter supply which will enable us to pro-
nounce with any confidence that the
judgment of those to whom this muni-
cipal scheme is entrusted is not well
founded. We cannot therefore enter in
to the discussion as to the comparative
merits of the several bids under the pro-
posals put forth. In that issue this court
is not the constituted arbiter.
In the absence of fraud or a palpable
abuse of discretion on the part of the
municipal authorities, the only question
for judicial cognizance is, whether there
has been any violation of legal princi-
pies, or neglect of prescribed formalities
in entering into the engagement which
is the subject of this controversy?
TIL charter of Jersey City provides that
no contract for work or materials shall
be entered into except after the adver-
tisement for six days; whereupon the
contract shall be awarded to that respon-
sible bidder who offered the most advan-
tageous terms.
P. L. 1871, p. 1850, No. 159.
In a recent case of the Court of Errors
and Appeals, this charter provision was
held to be dominant in Jersey City.
Board of Finance v. Mayor, 81 Att,
Rep. 625.
In the same case it was held that by
the 18th section of the act of March %,
1891 (p. /, 1891, p. 249), which creates, for
cities of the first class, Boards of Street
and Water Commissioners, and defines
| l1s Nrror o,l l,,+,oe +I4 nnaxTic.ArH IF
the charter of Jersey City, above re-
ferred to, became applicable to the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners.
1t is highly improbable that the Legis-
lature, while the charter of Jersey City
forbid a contract for work and materials
for even a comparatively small amount,
without advertising for bids, intended by
the act of 1883 to remove that check upon
disbursements and safeguard to taxpay-
ers in the contract for water supply at
a cost of seven millions of dollars.
A construction of that act so inimica
to the public policy which has almost uni
versalIy provided this legislative restraint
upon the action of officials in the ex-
penditure of the public funds cannot be
accepted, unless the act will bear no
other reasonable reading.
There is no express repeater in the act
of 1888 of the provisions of the act of
1871. There is no inconsistency between
the two acts; they can stand together,
and must be upheld, if they can be har-
monized.
The later act authorizes a contract for
water supply without specifying how that
contract shall be entered into. 1t is not
only entirely consistent with that. act,
that the contract shall be made as pro-
vided in the charter of 1871, but in the
absence of language excluding that form,
it is the true Interpretation of it. The
14th section of the act of 1891 clearly in
dicates the legislative purpose to preserve
the charter provision of 1871, and to APP
ply it to all contracts.
1t will be assumed, therefore, that the
Board of Works must advertise for pro-
posals, and that the contract must be
awarded in conformity with the pro-
posals.
The city can make a contract only in
the mode prescribed by statute.
In Shaw VS.. Trenton, 30 Vr., 339, Mr..
Justice Magic held that where the pro-
posals advertised required bidders to
guarantee rubber hose for six years, a
contract could not be supported which
was given to a bidder who was not the
lowest, partly for the reason that he
offered to warrant for nine years.
In his opinion he says:-"In my judg-
ment the contract awarded with a war
ranty for. nine years was not the con-
tract for which proposals were asked,
and therefore the competition required
by section 1G7 of the charter was not af-
forded."
AJtbo11oh that o2cp was reversed in the