The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-04-12
HOLDS WATER.
Justice Lippincott Pronoun-
ces the Flynn Contract
Sound.
DOUCHE FOR HONEST TOM.
Mr.. McEwan's Certiorari
Suit Adjudicated Mere
Vapor.
COMPETITION WAS SOLID.
Other Purveyors Might Put in
Proposals Had They So
Desired.
CANAL RIGHTS NO BAR.
Nothing in the Morris Ditch Charter
Which Prevents Jersey City's
Use of Rockaway River
Water.
CANAL RIGHTS NO BAR.

Former Congressman Thomas Nc
Evans effort to deprive this city OIL us
prospective supply of pure water through
the contract recently made with +. II.
FLYNN was knocked out by Justice LIP
pincott this morning. The writ of certio-
rari applied for by Mr.. McEwan and his
brother, representing themselves Dudley
D. Fleming and others was denied. Jus
tice Lippincott gave these reasons Iof
denying the writ
The first reason considered for the al
lowance of this writ is based upon Sectlon
159 of the City Charter of Jersey CITY, Z.
Il. 1871 D. |, 100, Section 159. This sectloh
Drovides That no contract for WORK OF
material or materials shall be entered
into or nurchase of personal property De
ycade by or on account of any board or
Geoartnent of the city government, ex-
cent after the advertisement for six days
at least in the official newspaper, where
,1pon the contract shall be awarded to, or
fhe purchase shall be made of that re-
spensible bidder, who offers the terms
most advantageous to the CITY,"
This section was fully complied with IN
...ze advertisement. Patrick H. Flynn sub
ntte6 three bids with their separate
plans. one was informal and not consider
ed. two of the bids We're considered by
the city authorities. and one accepted ana
the contract awarded thereon.
It is eentended that this provision of
the charter which requires the award OF
the contract to be made to that respon-
slble bidder who offers the. terms most
advantageous to the city, and because
there was but single bidder, the con-
tract could not be awarded to such bid
der
Although the contract was awarded un-
der the act OF 1888, Gen. Stats, p 2,Ao, yet
il became necessary to advertise under
section 159 of the act of 1873. Van Reipen
vs.. Jersey City, 20 Vroom, 262, I'll
The case of Hoffman VS.. Rodman, 10
Vroom 252. cited by prosecutors, has no
application to sustain such a contention
in this case, nor to any such provision. Ii
ii was applicable it would seem to uphold
the contention that there need exist but
one bid, and one bidder, in order to enable
the city to enter into a contract under
section 159 of the charter. In Hoffman VS..
Rodman, the statute required the sur
veyors of the highway in making the re-
turn of the laying out of route of q
public road to make reference to the
most remarkable places along or near
the line of the road upon either side as
may seem to them "most likely to be
useful as monuments by which the true
location of the road might, at any future
Il Tn yn11 "a 20 co
places did exist along the line of the road,
and therefore the question If but one
place had only existed whether it would of
necessity have been the most remarka-
bler one. and the .most likely one did
not arise The Court in the opinion said
s.They are plainly not required to refer to
all places near the line of the road, nor
all the remarkable places, but only to the
most remarka able-language plainly imply
ing comparison, discrimina ton and selec-
ton. If at given point there should
happen to be several remarkable places or
objects 1t would be for the surveyors to
decide whether all of them or, if not all,
then how many, and which of them ought
under the circumstances to be referred to.
And their Judgment upon these points, if
fairly exercised, will not, think, in any
case be reviewed in this court"
Under this and similar provisions in the
law it has always been held that the adj
vertisement must be such as will permit
competitive bids, but the prosecutors have
pointed to no case, which holds that after
such advertisement for definite proposal,
that it requires more than one bidder in
order that local contract may be award
ed. No case has been referred to which
holds that there shall be more than one
bidder. and no case has been referred to
which holds that one bidder cannot upon
proposal SO framed as to admit of that
course, submit two or even more bids for
municipal contracts The cases of Fair
fax vs. Hopkins, 2 Crauch c. C. 1S4 fVa.
1S1D and People vs.. King, AZ Hun 400, do
not in any wise support the proposition
that the city authorities can never award
a contract, under such statutory limita-
ton unless more than one bidder submits
proposals. Such construction might for
eyer prevent the exercise of municipal au-
thority. and the performance Of duties inn
posed upon municipal boards and officers.
II it can be reasonably done that con-
struction must be given to the act, by
which the powers granted thereby can be
carried irtoNexecution, and the duties I'M
nosed bv law performed. 1t was not IN
tended by the Legislature that this pro-
vision should in any instance operate as a
nullidcation of the powers granted 1t is
only restriction upon the power to con-
tract. and to be so construed that the
power might be rendered effective in a
manner deemed by the municipal author