The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-12-17

The asphalt fight is now on in earn
est. Yesterday afternoon Attorneys G.
Comegys and II. Il. Reynolds, in the
name of r. Morris. the well-known real
estate man, secured from Judge Cum
ster preliminary injunction restrain
ing further action in the repair con-
tract, and a rule to show cause why the
injunction should not be made perman-
ent
The petition reviews the legislation
leading up to the awarding of the
contract and then goes on to say: The
Barber Asphalt Paving company's pro-
losal did not follow the ordinance or
the public notice inviting the bids. In
the public notice nothing was said
other than that proposals would be re-
ceived for keeping the asphalt streets
in repair for a period of ten years.
Much confusion resulted therefrom ana
the AlCatraz company. which, in fact
Is the petitioner in this case, waited
upon the city engineer and was in
formed that the proposals should be
made on the yardage basis Council
refused to consider their. bid because,
ii was held. it did not come Up to the
requirements of the ordinance and
specifications.
These discrepancies I'm the ordinance,
specifications and public notice make
the ordinance null and void, it is con-
tended. because of the uncertainties
resulting thcrefrom.
The ordinance, and specifications,
which were made a part of the ordin-
ance it is further alleged, We're never
printed for distribution among the
members and remained In the office OF
the clerk or engineer, unseen and un-
read by a vast majority of those who
were to oXpend the publiC's money.
SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
Tie petitioner AYERS that he has been
informed and verify believes that the
ordinance originated with the Barber
company and was prepared. passed and
approved in that COmpany's interest;
this was done fraudulently and by the
action Of councilmen interested in it's
passage, either through the advant-
ages to be derived from their business
relations with the said company or
by the actual receipt of money for their
support and assistance.
The ordinance, it is also cuntended,
is unreasonable not only because it
provides for an annual expenditure OF
the vast sum of $l7,j2O for the repair
OF a small portion Of the citys streets,
but because il leaves it to the integrity
and judgment of the Barber Asphalt
Paving company and the city engineer
to determine when. where and to what
extent new concrete is necessary to
support the surface. for which an ad-
ditional $3.50 per square yard is al
/ lowed
This delegation of authority is not
only dangerous. it is argued. but be-
! yond the power Of city government.
| The clause dealing similarly with curb
repairing is attacked on the same
grounds that il is unreasonable. liable
to abuse and not warranted by law
The ordinance is void. Il is further
avered because of it's inconsistencies.
I The ordinance itself provided that "the
bids shall be for an equal annual sum
/ for each of the ten years" The speci-
/ fications call for proposals" per square
/ yard, per annum for ten years" Not
| a single one of the proposals offered,
it is claimed, We're in proper form and
/ none of them could have been accepted
| by a resolution of council.
APPROPRIATION CLAUSE.
The appropriation clause of the or
| dinance is attacked on the ground that
it reads: There shall be appropriated
the annual amount called FOR
! by this ordinance" while i'm fst the
ordinance does not call for any specific
| amount. The clause might just as rea E
sonably have read THE annual amount
. called for by this ordinance and by
the JOINT and several action of the Bar
her Asphalt company and the gentle
man who happens to be city engineer"
the ADDITION being suggested by The
new concrete feature OF the specifi-
cations
In conclusion it is avered that tho
city has no legislative power to ler
the streets to individuals or corpora
| tiOns for repairs for period of ten
years. The prayer is that the Ordin-
ance be deCreed unlawful: that il be
adjudged that ii is beyond the power
of a municipality to enter into such a
contract; that the city controller be re,
strained from certifying the contract
and that further action under the con
tract be enjoined
The matter will come up for arGu
ment Monday morning. II. b. Reyn
olds, one of the attorneys for the pcti
toner stated yesterday to a Tribun,
reporter, that the petitioner contem
plates bringing in every councilman II
the city to prove the truth of the asser
tion that there was fraud praCticed II
the preparation, passage and approva
of the ordinance.