The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-02

CoHlpdHy tne contract IOr llSntlnS tne
city streets for a period of ten years at
twenty cents per light. The Electric
City Light. Heat and Power company's
bid of eighteen cents a light was
ignored because the company is not
chartered. 1t threatens to ask for an
injunction to prevent the contract from
being executed.
When Mr.. Melvin, chairman Of the
light and water committee, presented
a resolution awarding the contract to
the Scranton Electric Light and Heat
company, Mr.. kearney moved it's adop-
tion, but before the motion could be
put, Mr.. James, with Mr.. Chittenden
as second, moved as an amendment
that the resolution be laid on the table.
The amendment was lost by the follow
ing vote:
Ayes-Messrs. Finn, Ross, James. Chit
tenden, Lansing--5.
Nays Messrs. KearneI. Thomas
Roche. Melvin, Wagner, Schneider, Shea,
Sanderson, Mccain, Fellows, Schroeder,
OBoyle, Frable, Coyne McAndrew, Will
iams-16.
Mr.. Sahderson then moved to refer
the matter to the city solicitor to see
If 1t is legal to award a contract Of this
kind by resolution. In his opinion an
ordinance is necessary.
BY RESOLUTION ALWAYS.
Mr.. Wagner thought it strange that
this point should be raised, in view OF
the fact that councils have always
awarded contracts by resolution. Mr.,
Sanderson contended that this was
only done when the work was provided
for by ordinance and provision made in
the ordinance for awarding the con-
tract by resolution. To this Mr. Wag-
ner replied that the matter of securing
| electric lights for the city by contract
was provided. for by ordinance fifteen
years ago, and the resolution awarding
the contract is predicated on that ordi-
nance, all Of which. he claimed, met
Mr.. Sanderson's objection. Mr.. San
| derson didn't think SO and gave it as
| his opinion that the contract if award. :.
ed by resolution wouldn't be worth a
snap.
Mr.. Lansing thought there could be
no harm in getting an opinion on the
| matter and, as there was no occasion
| for hurrying, he favored referring it to
| the solicitor, that councils should know
| just where it stood.
Mr.. Melvin volunteered the informa =
ton that the resolution had been SUBJ
mitted to eX-Judge Willard and he pro-
nounced it effective.
"Well," broke in Mr.. Chittenden,
that may all be, but l would like to
| ask the chairman Of that committee
why it did not recommend awarding
the contract to the lower bidder?"
Because" answered MIR. Melvin, "the
lower bidder was not chartered and We
cannot award the contract to an un-
chartered organization
MR.. CHlTTENDENS PO1N1'.
| Mr.. Chittenden called attention to the
| fact that at present the city is getting
a 1000 candle-power light for twenty
cents and that the new contract which
the committee favors provides for a
| 1000 candle-power light for the same
| figure, and then asked Mr.. Melvin to
| explain how his committee could rec.
ommend a contract that Is dearer than
the present one by four cents per light
per night, when quality and price are
considered together.
Mr.. Melvin's reply was a query Il
Mr.. Chittenden: do you think you
are getting 1000 candle-power ligh,
now?"
Mr.. Chittenden said he knew nothins
about 1t except that the city is now
paying twenty cents a light for 2,OO(
candle-power. II the city is not get
ting 1000 candle-power light now, HI
would like to know what assurance
there was that under the new contrac
it would receive a 1,6OO candle power
light. To his way Of thinking the reso
luton simply allowed the high bidder
to make a new contract at the ole
price for poorer quality Of light. which
would be equivalent to giving it per
mission to reduce its expenses twenty
five per cent.
Mr.. Roche and Mr.. Wagner explained
that the new contract is more exactin;
than the old. requiring the successful
bidder to furnish apparatus that will
test the lights and prove at any ans
all times that the full power is beins
delivered. and also providing tina
when lamp is eXtinguished for an,
part Of night it is to be considered
out of service for that whole night am
go on.
MOTION WAS LOST.
tor was lost by vote of ayes to L
,, nays. as follows:
Ayes-Messrs. Finn. Ross, James, Chit
|; tenden, Lansing, Schneider Sanderson
, McCann-S.
, Nays - Messrs. Kearney. Thomas
Roche, Melvin, Wagner, Shea, Fellows s
Schroeder. O'Boyle, Frable, Coyne, Nc
Andrew. Wiliams-lS.
TIL, motion to adopt the resolution
awarding the contract to the W. w
! Scranton company was carried by tn
following vote:
, Ayes - Mcssrs. Kearney, Thomas
Roche, Melvin. Wagner, Schneider. Shea
McCann, Fellows, Schroeder. OBoyle
Frable. COyne. McAndrew, Williams--l5.
. Nays-Messrs. Finn, Ross, James, Chit
tenden. Sanderson, Lansing-6.
Mr.. Sanderson explained that he wa
not prepared to say ne would vot
against awarding the contract to tn
Scranton company il the resolution
purpcrting to award the contract wa
r legal. He felt there was some strengt
In this company's claims. However
, he would have to decline to stultif
himself by voting for resolutio
which he considered invalid Nj
Lansing expressed similar sentiment
Z In explaining his vote.
> To set at rest all fears Of a mistak
being made Mr.. Roche had a motto
: passed directing the city solicitor to re
, train from executing the contract
he deemed 1t illegal to award it
: resolution.
The appropriation ordinance was ir
| trOduced by Chairman Chittenden q