The herald., 1896-03-12
THAT PAVING CONTRACT
Confident that Main Street In.
junction Will Not Hold
CHAS. McFARLAND'S HAND
Why the Courts are Asked TO Intervene
in the Improvement
The Full Story Of the Official Proceedings in
the nstter is Set Forth -Collusion
Is Charged

The expected has happened and the per-
ennial injunction against the proposed i'm
provement of Main street has material.
lied. EX-City Attorney Charles Nc Far
land has, on behalf of Susan B. WEIGH,
one of the property owners, petitioned for
an injunction against the signing of the
contract for the big job upon behalf of the
city by z. A. Howard, the superintendent
of streets. The complaint upon which
Superior Judge Waldo NJ. Y ork has grant,
ed a temporary stay, is somewhat sensa-
tional, and sets forth, after relating the
preliminary history in the award of the
contract to John NJ. Long, the following
alleged staten ent of facts:
The 18th of July of last year, the coun-
Gil awarded the contract to perform all of
said work to the Union Paving companv at
the following figures: Paving. 10 7-16
cents per square fo>t; curbing, 81 cents
per foot; gutterIng. "a cents per foot.
That after all OF siid proceednys had
been taken and the street superb itendent
was about to enter into a contract with the
said Union Paving company to perform
such work, one w. A. Field brought an ac-
tinn against said Howard and said Union
Paving company in this court, setting up
the irregularity and illegally of the pro.
ceedings; that he was property holder
upon said street and would be damaged by
the issuing of bonds for such work, and
asked that said Howard and said Union
Paving company be enjoined from enter
ing into said contract, aud to perform said
work; that said action was afterwards
tried before this honorable court and judg-
mont was therein rendered that all the
diff .rent steps and proceedings required
by law in reference to said work and con.
tract had been performed, and said court
then held that said superintendent of
streets could not he prevented from enter
ing into such contract.
That afterwards upon October 2Sth, said
Union Paving company filed petition with
said city council declining to enter into
said contract and asking that the proceed
ir1gs be abandoned and that on said day
said city council granted the prayer of that
petition and abandoned the proceedings in
reference to the performing of such work,
and ordered the engineer to prepare new
ordinance of intention to perform the same
wo k
That afterwards on November 27, 1895,
said city engineer presented new orii-
nance of intention, and the council then
passed the same, being ordinance No.
32O4. which ordinance OF intention de-
clared the intention of the said city council
to pave Main street between Ninth street
dNI lnlTtyeStV6utn btit6t WIFI nyQTdunC
cement and broken stone base with asphalt
surface. in accordance with the plans and
profile on file in the office of the city engi-
neer and the specifications on file in the
office of the city clerk of said city. for paw
ing streets, which were substantially the
same as the specifications referred to in
their previous ordinance OF intention, No.
276S.
Such ordinance of intention not only de-
clared the street to be improved to be the
same street and between the same points,
but also that 1t should be paved with
exactly the same materials and in the same
manner which had ,hereinbefore been pro-
vided by said city council in its first ordi-
nance of intention, and also provided for
the issuing of bonds as in the first ordi-
nance mentioned.
That afterwards certain steps were taken
by the said city council by which they as
sumed that said ordinance Of intention had
been passed, signed. posted and publ he'd
in the manner prescribed by law, and that
the notice of street work had been posted
as required by law, and on January z,
1896, said city council assumed to have
jurisdiction to order the work described in
sad ordinance of intention performed, and
on that day did pass an ordinance. No.
1892 ordering said work to he performed
and requiring the clerk to publish the same
as required by law and also to post aud
puDllStl proposals 10 perform sucu WOrks
That afterwards the clerk did publish a
notice of such proposals requiring the bid
ders TO hand in their bids by the Goth day
of January, and that on that day there was
handed to the clerk of such council two
bids to perform such work npon Main
street as required by such specifications.
That on said date such city council with
out giving any reason wha or without
having any reason for the same, instructed
the city clerk to return the two b DIS I'M
opened to the parties who had deposited
them and to again advertise for bids to he
opened on the IOtn day of February,
1896; that such city clerk did then return
said two bids to the bidders unopened and
afterwards published and posted a notice
inviting proposals to be handed in by the
ION day of February to perform such
work; and on said day two bids OF pro-
posals were handed in to the sa d city clerk
and were opened by him in the presence of
The said city council, and on tina, Oath day
OF that month the bid OF John L. Long,
one of such bidders. was accepted and he
was awarded the contract to perform such
work at the following figures. to.wit:
Paving, ~ cents per square foot; 'curb-
ing, 36% cents per foot; guttering, 80
cents per foot.
Winch award of contract was signed by
the mayor and posted and pub ished in the
manner required by law. and that said P.
A. HOWaid, as street superintendent or
said city, is row threatening to and unless
restrained by an order of this court, will
enter into a contract with said John L.
Long to improve said street at the prices
last mentioned.
Plaintiff says that the total number of
lineal feet to be improved upon said street
is in the neighborhood Of l 200, and that
the cost of improving the same under tine
award to John L. Long at the figures bid
him will amount to more than $4,000
upon the whole street than the bid and
award of the Union 'aving company here
in before referred to.
Plaintiff il iIfo med and believes, and
upon such information ana belief alleges,
that among the bids presented to the city
clerk and to such council on the 10th day
of January, and which bids wers returned
by order of the council unopened, there
was bid at figure much lower than the
bid of defendant, John L. Long, and that
if -ucn bid had been accepted by said city
cou ,cil and the award made, that the cost
OF performing such work upon said street.
would have been at least $4,000 less than
the cost of the work as it il now proposed
to he dona by said John T. Long.
Plaintiff II Their says that the action of
sa d city council in abandoning proceed
ings and in setting aside the award OF con-
tract to the Union Paving company after
said proceedings aud award had been de-
cded by this court to be valid and accord
%H., -,