The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-10
MUST SIGN CONTRACT.
Judge Archibald Decides That the
Asphalt Repair Contract Is
Perfectly Legal.

For second time the local court de-
clares valid and commendable the ten
year contract between the City Of
Scranton and the Barber Asphalt COM
pany, for repairing the asphalted
streets. The equity suit of II. Camp
bell and William Farrell, brought by
Attorney c. Comegys, counsel for the
Alcatraz Paving company, attacking
the contract and the ordinance under
which 1t was executed, was yesterday
dismissed by Judge r. w. Archibald,
at the cost of the plaintiff. on the de-
murrer filed by City Solicitor A. A.
Vosburg and ex-City Solicitor l. II.
Burns, counsel for the Barber COM
pany.
The former case was that of j..
Moses against the same parties, with
the same attorneys as counsel in each
case. Judge Gunster gave the decis-
ion.
The charges of fraud in connection
with the passage of the ordinance and
execution of the contract, which Judge
Archibald characterizes as very loose
ly and indefinitely made" were eX-
presslv withdrawn at the time of the
argument, and the only question left,
which the court deemed worthy of dis
cussion, was whether the councils had
a right to make a contract for repairs
of streets extending through a term of
years.
Against this right, Judge Archibald
goes on to say, it is contended that
municipalities are required to pursue
pay as you go" policy, annual reve-
nues being collected and annual ap-
propriations made for annual needs.
This, the court says, may. to an ex-
tent, be true, it certainly is not abso-
lutte and unbending.
Speaking of the argument that the
contract in controversy is for munich
pal duty specially excepted, out of
those which are required by the stat
ute to be performed by contract let to
the lowest responsible bidder Judge
Archibald says that the ordinary re-
pairs of highways" are no doubt eX-
cepted, but the repairs contemplated in
this contract are not ordinary" but
on the contrary, extraordinary"
1T may be-" the judge says, that il
would be to the decided advantage OF
! the city to equip itself to do it's own
repairs, but the mayor and councils
who passed the ordinance authorizing
the act,apparently, thought other,
wise, and, over their judgment we hav2
no control. The conditions, at least
We're not ordinary, and they had a
! right to meet them as thew have, and
assuming that the city was not ir
shape to do its own repairing, the con.
tract extending over a term of years
was the only reasonable and economi-
cal way of hassting the problem.
by it, the city, in consideration ol
a fixed annual expenditure extending
through a term of years yet to come
was enabled to get the benefit of i'm.
mediate repairs, largely in excess Of
the amount at once payable: and the
rate bargained for was likely to bt
materially less when the party who
was to do the work had the cost o.
the plant, which had to be maintained
spread over ten years, instead of be
ing concentrated upon one or two
These considerations and others, whicl
might be referred to, entirely justify
and approve the contract as made
"They go to show that it was on,
which, on sound business principles
the city authorities We're warranted il
making, and that the work which I
covered could not have been properl!
met by any hand to mouth polio,
from year to year, such as is sug
gested.
"All things considered, we are clear
ly of opinion that no excess of author
ity in entering into the contract i
shown, and that the plaintiffs, as tax
payers, have no just cause of com
plant on account of it,"