Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1897-06-10
FRgEHoLpERs poiNcs.
JUSTICE GUMMERE's CHARGE TO THH
MERCER COUNTY GRAND JURY.


MERCER COUNTY GRAND JURY.
} The scandal of Mercer county during tn,
past six months has been the doings of thu
Chosen Freeholders in the general man
agement of the county business especially
10 the construction roads.
These acts have been the subject O
official investigation and the facts brought
out at the investigation are now before the
Grand Jury. Justice Gunner, in charging
the Grand Jury last week, laid especial
emphasis of these facts, and we make the
following extracts from his charge
II appears, he says, from the report of the
investigation commission that in the build
ing of the Chambers street road the esti-
mate has been exceeded several thousand
dollars that il was built from is to SO feet
wide instead of Is feet, as the specifications
called for, and if the Freeholders were
aware of that fact they should be indicted.
The report says that materials that were
never used were paid for, and the Justice
charges that if this is true it was cheat OF
the boldest kind and the men guilty Of
| practising 1t should De lndlcteO,
BOUGHT WITHOUT BIDS.
In the bills rendered by the contractors
who built the Chamber street road extras
were charged and paid for. The Justice
called attention to The fact that the law re-
quires that all mater ais used in the build
ing of public roads shall be purchased
| through bids La this case the Freeh0lders
had paid the bills without making an effort
| to comply with the law. He goes on to
say that the law requires that money paid
for road building should be paid by the
Board of Freeholders upon a certificate OF
the County Supervisor and County Engi-
neer. According TO the report the Free
holders had ignored the law, and If the
Grand Jury found the report to be true all
mem ers of the Board are guilty and should
be indicted.
| The report says that county bonds were
issued in anticipation of the collection OF
taxes with which to pay them uff, and that
the money had been used for other purposes.
The charge of the Justice says that if this
/ is true every Freebooter knowingly voting
| for the expenditure of money so raised is
crimiDally liable and should be indicted.
FREEHoLDER CROSS COOL DEAL.
From the report of the committee it ap-
pears that Free holder Miller Cross had sold
coal to the county under another name in
spite of the admonition of the law that a
county officer should not enter into any
contract or sell any material to the county
II the report of the committee is found to
be true in this instance the charge of the
Justice is that Cross shall be indicted and
goes on to say that if the jury shall find
THAT the Freeholders were in combination
with contractors to defraud Taxpayers they
should be indicted for conspiracy.
During the investigation some startling
revelations of extravaganza in the expendi
ture of the county funds we're made, but
the Freeholders took refuge behind the
confession of ignorance of the law. In the
case of the Chambers street road, which
cost nearly $50 600, the estimated cost was
exceeded nearly $4,000 The Freeholders
claimed that this was necessary because OF
the peculiar character of the soil and topo-
graphy which were not understood until
the work was begun.
CONTRACTORS FUNNY FIGURES.
The Commissioners report deals in some
cold figures. 1t sets forth that the bills OF
Contractor Robert Montgomery for Cham
bers street amounted to 1884 SO, while
the three expert examining engineers en-
ployed by the commissioners figured up
that only $1594T AZ was due. The bills OF
Contractor Charles B. Walton for his end
of the road were $24, l73. 10, and the engi-
neers decided that $40, 231 81 was due. The
report says that from Contractor Mont
Igomery's bills there should be deducted the
sum of $3757 II, and from Contractor Wal
toms bills the sum of 1921 OF. Total
lovercharges foot up on Chambers street
alone $16 1865 81.
The Commissioners say that, according
to State Road Commissioner Budd, Super
visor Henney was incompetent. His duty
was to require the provisions of the con-
tract to be strictly adhered TO, and yet he
never saw the specifications from the mid
die of June, when he began work, until
late in July. He permitted all the yaria-
lions and extra charges and approved OF all
bills He depended upon Reed Budd,
County Engineer. for all his information.
None of the over-pay ments could have been
| made il Supervisor Henney had discharged
his duty under the law. of County Engi-
neer Reed Budd the report says. Here is
the remarkable spectacle of county
engineer, who ought TO have taken accurate
measurements, who says he left it to man
who was in the emf loy of one OF the con-
| tractors to furnish him with an account Of
materials. This man, Kirkham, denied be
kept any account for Montgomery and only
| told Budd how many loads of dirt he
thought Montgomery was putting on the
road Budd utterly failed to see that the
agreement, if any, f,r extra work was in
dorsed on the contract and never made a
single certificate as to the amount of work,
as the law required. He said of the
specifications: don't know whether
ever read them through and further stated
that he meyer saw the contract. The report
adds that if Mr.. Budd had performed his
duty the over-payments could not have
happened"
STATE COMMISSION CENsURED
The Commissioners then pay their re-
spects to State Road Commissioner Henry
1. Budd, of burlington county. The report
says of him: Henry Budd, State
Road Commissioner, stated he knew Super
visor Henney was not fitted f,r his position
and did not remove him as the law com.
handed him to do. He also declared that
he knew the road was effectively con.
structed, but did not attempt to remedy it.
He could have prevented the ultimate state
of things if he had refused to pay over to
the county the one-third cost from the
State. He was responsible for the specif
cations They came from his office and
the Commissioners hold that the specifica
cations are directly opposed to the law"
Camden County VS.. Washington
i Township.
i The opinion of the Supreme Court in the
case of Camden Co. VS.. w ashington township
was delivered by Justice Gilbert Collins
last Thursday, and is in favor of the plain
tiff. The suit grew out of the refusa
of Camden county to pay taxes on theil