The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-04-02
THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
Continued From First Page

the committee do more than this ant
recommend that one of the bids be ap
proved their acts are ultra wires, ant
their report ought not to be considered
for, as the minority believe, we hav
performed our full duty when we hav
transmitted to the court OF common
council the bids as submitted to us by
the director of public works.
If, however, it should be determined
, by the court of common council tha
: the committee had jurisdiction under
the resolution to recommend the accept
ance of one of the bids and the rejec-
ton of the others, then we object to 8
report being received or considered I'M
til public hearing shall have been held
upon the resolution, and we further OBJ
ject to the acceptance of either OF the
bids submitted, because the advertise
ment calling for proposals was not in
proper form, and that the bids do not
conform with the appropriations as
passed by this court Of common council
in December last.
The advertisement for bids was then
set forth, which provided for bids for
sprinkling streets in which there are
car tracks in Wards 1 to u, inclusive.
Continuing, the report was as follows;
The appropriation made for street
sprinlling for the year 1901 reads as
follows: Hire of horses and drivers,
car service, March is to November 20,
! and repairs Of carts, $31 050" The bids
as received read as follows: Proposals
for sprinkling that portion of those
streets in Wards / to 70. inclusive, in
which there are street railroad tracks
which lie outside line two feet out
side of the outermost rail of the railroad
! tracks, and as far as can be sprinkled
with the arms attached to cars as here
/ tofore used in New Haven"
The money appropriated for street
| sprinkling can only be expended for
one of three purposes: First, hire of
horses and drivers second, car service;
third,> repair of carts.
| Sections "a and "A of the city charter
provide that no appropriation for one
item of expense can be drawn upon for
any purpose other than that for which
the appropriation was specifically made,
and this being the charter provision the
advertisement should have called for
bids for one of the three above emu
merated purposes, and should not have
called for bids for sprinkling the streets
alone and without qualification.
Under the advertisement and propos-
ais either of the bidders could use carts,
while no approprla ton has been made
therefor; and in justice to the bidders
they ought to know exactly upon what
they are bidding and what they are ex-
pected to furnish.
The call for bids was incorrectly adj
vertised, and as the bidders have no
doubt bid upon cart service, and not
car service, they should both be reject
ed and proper call for sealed propos-
ais be advertised at once.
We therefore respectfully recommend I
that both of the proposals be rejected,
as the court of common council and
the director of public works have tie
right to do, and that the director Of
public works be directed to advertise
for proposals for car service for sprink-
ling the streets, or for the hire of horses
and drives therefor, the city to use its
own carts. a.oJ
Alderman Hall then spoke in favor of
the car sprinkling service and moved
that the minority report be substituted
for the majority report Alderman
Savers said that the committees duty
was to decide what was the lowest bid
and that it was not deemed necessary
to have a public hearing to ascertain
which of the two bids submitted was
the lower. He said FORBES e. Mortell
were the lowest bidders. We needed
no one to tell us that. we are trying
to save the city s1,75O." Later in the
meeting Mr.. Savers said that he did not
know whether Forbes & Mortell would
do the sprinkling by means of car
sprinklers or by carts If they were
awarded the contract. He said that he !
however, that there was t
only one car sprinkler company in the .
city and that if the bids were referred
back to the director Of public works to
advertise for new bids for sprnklng
by cars only that company could bid.
There was therefore, he thought, no
need of advertising for bids if the. bids
already received were rejected and bids
for car sprinkling were asked for.
Alderman Beecher said that he
thought that the contract should be
awarded to the lower bidder and that
ST. $50 should be saved to the city If pos
sibe To award the contract to the
highest bidder seemed wrong. He ia
vored giving the contract to the lower
bidder and then holding that bidder to
the contract.
Alderman Atwater thought that since
the appropriation was for car sprink-
ling bids for that kind Of sprinllllng
should be called for.
Aldermen Moyle, ]. j. Walsh Miller
A NoIyo Gov. f1n q NJ
the minority report.
Alderman w. J. Walsh spoke for the
report.
A vote was then taken on the mo-
ton to substitute the minority report
FOR the majority report and the motion
prevailed by a vote of Ell, the men,
oers from the outlying wards voting.
The point was raised that the men,
oers had no right to vote on the ques-
ion since it was one in which the out
ying wards had no interest President
Conway ruled that they could vote on
he question and upon his decision be- :
ng appealed from he was sustained by
vote of 14-S. The minority report was \
hen accepted and the recommendations
adopted.
A communication was received from ,
Mayor Driscoll, calling attention to the
act that the portraits of all the ex-
tod hn ina