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

Judge Gunster decided yesterday that
the $17500 q year asphalt repair con-
tract between the city and the Barber
company is valid eXcepta as to its lateral
features, namely the setting and re-
setting of curostonc, the laying of new
concrete and the like. He restrains the
city controller from certifying the con-
tract as it stands but leaves 1t open for
the city to make a new contract to con-
form with the order ne makes in the
case.
AS to the allegations of the equity
bill brought by +. Morris attacking the
contract on the ground that the ieEs-
lation leading up to IL was faulty. The
decree in the case is as follows:
That the contract executed b. James
q. Bailey as may or for and on behalf OF
the city OF Scranton, and the Barber As
phalt company, to the extent to which
1t includes items other than for repairing
and relaying asphalt in accordance with
the plans and specifications in the city
engineers office be and the same is here
by declared void and of no effect.
The said defendants and each Of them
be and they are hereby prohibited and
restrained from further action under ana
| BY virtue Of said contract to the extent
which it includes other items than for re-
| pairing and relaying asphalt in accord
| anCe with the plans and specifications
in the city engineers Office.
| That the said 4. j. Robinson as city
| controller be and he is hereby prohibited
ana restrained from certifying said con-
| tract
And it is further ordered that the city
| of Scranton pay the costs of these pro-
cCedngs.
In his discussion of the case Judge
! Gunster says in substance:
EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT.
| There il no sufficient evidence to war
/ rant the finding that any confusion or
| uncertainty was produced in the minds
| of the bidders by the alleged discreprn-
| Cics between the public notice inviting
| the proposals and the terms Of the orGi-
| nance and specifications
II was charged in the bill OF equity
! that the ordinance originated with the
| agents of the Barber Asphalt company
ana was prepared, passed and approved
| in their interest, frauduently, and by
! the action of cOuncilmen and Others dl-
rectly and unlawfully Interested III It's
! passage, either by advantages to be de-
rived from business relations with said
company, or by the actual receipt of
money fou their support ANA assistance.
cult to prove. In the present case no at
| tempt was made to prove them. The
| Judge declines to find that the allegation
is true
! 1t was contended in the bill of equity
! that because the proposal of the Barber
company was for a bulk sum per am
! mum and not per square yard, II did not
| follow the lanuage OF the advertisements
| and ordinance and consequently no valid
| contract could be made under il. 70 this
Judge Gunster says that if the power
! of the city authorities to make a con-
| tract like this one depended on the adj
| Vertsement or the ordinance there would
he some merit in the contention. 1his is
not the case, however. Under the act OF
1889, the city must award the contract
| for supplies and the like, under regula-
| tions prescribed by ordinance and to the
| lowest responsible bidder, nut ordinary
repairs of highways are expressly eX-
cepted.
AS to the allegation that the repair
ordinance is unreasonable and therefor,
invalid because it appropriates a larg,
annual fixed sum for the repair O
a comparatively small portion of tn,
citys streets. and because it confide
to the Judgment of the city enginee
TO determine when and where and I,
what extent new concrete is necessar!
to support the surface, for which ad
ditional charge of $3.50 per square yar(
can be made, the court says:
NOTHING TO SHOW.
| There is nothing before me to show tina
an annual appropriation of Sl7.520 for tn
purposes mentioned, is out of such bounds
as would authorize a court Of equity I,
decree the ordinance unreasonable ant
| void If the ordinance stoot
alone. 1t might well be alleged that i
was d delegation Of legislative authorIt,
to the city engineer, but Under the an
Swer of the defendants. l am not pre-
pared to find that such q constructill
should be put upon the contract. what
ever Interpretation might be PIT upol
the ordinance If IL stood alone.
In their answer the defendants sa,
that the provision in question only ap
plies to plumbers cuts, as shown by
clause of the specifications. It Is ais
alleged that these charges are paid b.
private individuals who cause the pave
ment to be broken for trenches and tn
like, and are not to cost the taxpayer
anything.
The provisions with regard to redress
ing and relaying curb are not part o
the contract for keeping the pave I'm re
pair. but are inserted in order to have
fixed price should councils decide t
have any such work done, and that n
discretion is vested in the city enginee
| in the matter. Ii Is true there are som