The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-09
LlnDABuRY AND EDWARDS REPLY
Court Takes Papers and
Favorable Decision is Ex-
pected Tomorrow.
Ispecial to ..The Jersey city News. u

TRENTON. March 9, 1S99-Two applica-
tions were made yesterday to JUSTICES
Depue, Gummere and Van Syckle OF the
Supreme Court for a writ of ceritorar1 to
carry into the Supreme Court for review
the proceedings connected with the grant
ing of a contract to Patrick H. Flynn TO
furnish Jersey City with a new water sup
ply The first application was made by
Charles Thompson representing Frederick
H. Spengenan. Corporation Counsel Nc
Derrnott represented the city and Richard
V. Lindabury. and William D. Edwards
looked after the contractors In
terests Mr.. Thompson's grounds were
that there were matters in the con-
tract which were not in the specifications
or bid The contract extended the time
which the company was to have for test
ing the plant. During this time the city
went on purchasing the water at so much
per m .llion gallons, which was more than
the interest on the purchasing price OF
the plant, which was detriment to the
city.
In response to an Enquiry from Judge
Depue, he admitted that no legal OBJ
jections could be made to the specifica-
tions. that the accepted bid was in strict
conformity Herewith, and that the reso-
lutions of acceptance passed by the city
boards and approved by the Mayor did
not attempt to vary the specifications or
bid He based his objection entirely on
the ground that the additional provisions
inserted in the contract at the instance OF
Commissioner Ringle and the Mayor were
Illegal and void. The Judges questioned
him as to whether these provisions were
not entirely for the advantage of the
city, and upon his affirmative reply, said
they could then see no reason for tax
payer to object, indeed, that Flynn was
the only one prejudieed thereby.
Mr.. McDermott replied that if Mr..
Thompson's contention succeeded, all it
would do would be to cut out of the con-
tract all these beneficial amendments and
the city could get less than it receives
under the contract as it now exists. The
Court did not appear greatly impressed
with Mr. Thompsons argument.
The second application was made by
Senator Mahlon Pitney and John Pit
ney, of Newark, sons of the Vice
Chancellor. Associated with them was
George McEwan, who ably filled a heavy
thinking part during the proceedings.
They appeared for Dudley Flemmng,
Frederick McEwan and Augustus Boor-
aem.
Mr.. Pitney said his clients Joined in
the objections of Mr.. Thompson, but
wished to add Others The specifica-
tions were Objectionable because
they required no chemical standard of
purity, but only called for pure and
wholesome water" whereupon Mr.. Linda
bury suggested that these were the iden-
tical words of the statute authorizing the
contract.
Mr.. Pitney called the courts attention
to the fact that there had been only one
bidder. while the charter contemplated
more than one. The conditions surround
ing the bidding were such as to discour-
age bidders He also maintained that
the specifications were drawn in such
manner as to crowd out all bidders but
one. They allowed only forty days be-
tween the. issuing of the specifications
and the presentation of bids. Time was
altogether too short to allow prospective
bidders to obtain estimates of water sheds
and figure on the contract. He declared
the requiring that a check for 100000 De
deposited by bidder in a Jersey City bank
was a hardship He also considered the
limiting of the bid to gravity supply
fatal. as it excluded from the competition
those who wished to furnish the supply
by pumping.
Mr.. Edwards replied that there was
nothing in Mr.. Pitney's contention that
several advertisements for bids had peen
inserted in the local papers with practic-
ally the same specifications and the
statute only called for six days. Mr.. Pit
ney's objection. Mr.. McDermott said,
should have been made when the specln-