The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-15
CON RACT UPHELD.
Supreme Court Refuses
Certiorari Of Award to
P. H. Flynn.
FULL TEXT OF COURTS OPINION
No Merit in Points Raised
in the Application
For the Writ.
FULL TEXT OF COURTS OPINION

The Supreme Court of the State yester-
day refused the application for writ of
certiorari to review the award of the wa
ter contract to P. H. Flynn on the general
ground that there was no merit in tie
points raised against This opinion by
the Supreme Court, exclusively stated in
last nights Jersey City News" con-
vincingly shows that the officials of the
city made no mistake when they awarded
the contract to Mr.. Flynn and their ac-
tion was for the best interests of the
city
1t will be interesting to know precisely
the grounds of the applicants and the
opinion of the Court on the issues. The
case was that of Dudley D. Flemming ct
al, VS.. the Mayor and Aldermen of Jer-
sey City and Patrick H. Flynn, and for
the application these were the COUNSEL
Messrs. Charles d. Thompson John 0. H.
Pitney, Mahlon Pitney and George ]. Nc
Evan. Against the application were:-
Messrs. Allan l.. McDermott, VIM. d. Ed
wards, Charles L. Corbin and Richard v.
Lindabury. The Court was composed of
Justices Depue, Van Syckel and Gum
mere, and their opinion is as follows:-
This is an application for a certiorari
i to review the contract made by the
City of Jersey City with one Patrick H 81
Flynn for municipal water supply. The
reasons assigned in support of the appli-
cation are as follows;
First. That certain provisions have
been inserted in the contract which We're
not contained in or authorized by the
resolution of the Board of Street and
Water Commissioners of the city, in
pursuance of which the contract was
Second. That the advertisement for
bids for the CONTRACT did not extend over
prospective bidders an opportunity to
consider the proposals, and make proper
Investigations and estimates.
IN tha 5ne papvSen PRO fbe neW conanq
supply requiring each bidder to deposit
$l00, 00O in one of the National Banks of
Jersey City as an evidence of good faith
was Unnecessary, oppressive and tended
to discourage bidders.
"Fourth.-That an intending bidder, who
did net put in hid on account OF his 9
$100, 0O0 is now in position to comply
with this and other requirements of the
specifications, if the bidding is reopened.
These reasons seem to US, upon ex-
animation, to be, each of them, without
merit. The provisions in the contract
which, it is alleged, were inserted there
in without the authority of the resoiu-
ton of the Board OF Street and Water
Commissioners are, each of them admit-
tedly for the benefit of tae city, and i'm
pose an additional burden upon the party
to whom the contract was awarded-the
advertisement for bids seems to us to
have been for a sufficiently long period
under the circumstances of the case-the
requirements that each bidder should de-
posit $780, 600 in bank in Jersey City, as
an evidence of good faith, seems to US
not to be unreasonable in view of the
great Importance of the contract to the
people of Jersey City and the very large
expenditure of money C,995,000( required
to construct the proposed public work
and the fact that an intending bidder
who was prevented by financial condi-