The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-20

Inconsistencies between the ordinance
and specifications as to the manner in
which the proposals are to be made, but
they are not such us would prevent the
making of n valid contract, for the roa-
son already given.
The contention that the city cannot
legally farm out work of this kind for a
long period of years is dismissed with
citations from supreme court decisions
holding otherwise.
Concluding tho opinion the Judge
says:
but while ! do not doubt Ia" power OF
the city to enter into contracts for the
repHir of its streets for a period Of more
than one year, the further question must
be considered, whether the mayor hes
authority to execute tho enc now before
us, and whether the city controller should
be permitted to certify the same.
THERE rs A CONFLICT.
As has been already said, there is a
conflict between the provisions of the
ordinance and the advertisement for pro-
posas, which call for bids for an equal
annual sum for each Of the ten years. to
keep the asphalt paved streets in good
repair on the one hand, and that portion
Of the specifications referred 10 in the
ordnance which calls for proposals for
repairing and maintaining of the asphalt
pavement per square yard per ainum for
ten wears, and for new curb stones and
for relaying curb set in place per liredl
foot, etc, on the other
1t appears that the bid or proposal Of
the Barber Asphalt Paving company is
neither in accordance with the cal! of the
ordinance and advertisement, nor with
the requirements OF the specifications.
Their proposal is to repair and maintain
asphalt pavement for ST,52j per dnnum,
for resetting curb per lheal foot 10 cents.
etc. AS has been already intimated. IL
the contract depends for its validity uprn
the ordinance il could not be sustained
because of these variations.
hile there IL no evidence eXcent the
bids themselves that any confusion was
raised i'm the minds uf he respective Md
ders by these variations, IT IS manifest
that there is a misunderstanding as to
what action the duthCriiics Of the city
took upon the bids. the authority Of the
mayor to execute Il Contrar,, and thereby
bind the CITY, depends upon that action.
This action is evidenced by the resOlu.
tion OF November a. 1885 passed by the
councils and approved by the mayor. By
virtue thereof the contract 'for repairing
and relaying Of asphalt in accordance
with the plans and specifications in the
city engineers office was awarded 10
lnC BARRIER ASpniU s'dNlnE company.
This action fell far short Of awarding
TO the company u contract "to keep the
asphalt paved streets in good repair" in
conformity with the ordinance and Speci-
iiCHtions. These contemplated not only
the repairing and maintaining OF the as
phalt, but also new curb stones, relayine
curb set in place, circular curb and con-
crete DaVcmcnts. on each item of which
the company bid, all of which are IN
cludcd in tn" contract signed by tho
mayor Tie company proposed to do tho
item of repairing and maintaining the
asphalt pavement for Sl152C per annum.
This maHifeStly did not include the
curhing or concrete paVements mentioned
in the other items on which they hid
and to which no reference Is made in tho
resolution Of November II, 1875. Sucl
being the case tho mayor has no author.
ity To execute ana the city controller
should not be permitted to certify a con.
tract which includes them.
The city will now proceed to draf
| a new contract to conform with tn,
| judges decree, City Solicitor McGin
| ley stated yesterday, and unless tn,
| case is appealed the contract will a
| once be certified.