The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1904-04-27

{
which is in the second ward of Iambcrtviile
| When asked how he came 20 be there he ex-
planned that he was called by Freehoder
Parker as a committee on that work so there
were at least two FreeholderS giving casual
visits to the work done in the repairing OF this
culVcrt Another voucher of Freebooter Dill.
icy was voucher 40, sworn to November TO-
1909, which contained charges for services on
hive days for laying pipe concrete Main and
Delaware streets, which are in his own ward.
n the same voucher appear charges for three
days services repairing culvert on North Main
street, also in his ward In this work he had
the other two FreehoderS of the city of am.
hertville as a committee with himself Free
holder Dhey's voucher 161, containing Nov
emher l., 1902, To December, 1907 has four
charges for services South Main street cul
vert which work was cleaning out the oulvert
rs he himself explained.
In the borough of Clinton, there arc twenty
nine pipes and sluices. which are maintained
and repaired county bridges. Freebooter
NyckoH, OF that borough, in voucher {, sworn
TO May ~ 1902. has charged for three days
services on sluice III front of bank The ties
timony shows that this sluee was an ordinary
gutter 10 carry oil the water from the street.
and the work and expense put upon il at this
time cost the county according to this test
mony about 10000. The other Frecholdef Of
that borough. Isaac Creveling. was called in as
committee by Freehodcr WyckoH. Just what
ran the cost of making the repairs at this time
up TO $4,000, Freeholder was unable to ex-
plain. Among other charges there was one
Tor an iron grating costing about $500 which
was furnished and placed IN position over this
Sluice by the county. The grating paid
for by a separate voucher.
In the village of Pennington, IL appears by
the statement furnished by Freebooter Fulper
that during the last year and a half, the coun-
~ expended for the purchase of pipe in that
village the sum of $loLSi. These pipes
lad at street crossings and their purpose was
To carry off the water.
BY the testimony of Freehoder BOVINE. of
Delaware township, it appears that he had
charge for services for laying a sixnch pipe
under the road III one part OF his township
1t appeared that throughout the different
townships OF the county iron pipe had been
purchased and laid in the road aud stone
Sluiccs built and the roads repaired in the
building of those sluiees.
| find in Gen. Stat, Vol, 1, page zoo. section
4. the size of the bridge that can he CON
siructed by the Board OF Chosen FrecholdcrS
Is fixed. II must be M least twelve feet IN
breadth. find no statute regulating the size
of the bridge TO be so constructed | think
that the actions of the BOARD of Freeholders in
paving for such work and the materials used
therein. are illegal, and | consider that the
moneys received by the different Frecholdcrs
tor services in such work should he returned
To the county.
find in the purchase of materials for this
work no regard was had for economy or the
best interests of the people. Money was eS-
pended lavishly without regard 60 market
prices prices fixed by the Board. 1t np
pears that the Board paid regularly the sum of
81 70 per barrel Tor Portland cement at times
when this commodity could have been pur
chased at the NILS for 500 less per barrel
Several vouchers were presented where masons
IN the city OF Lamberrve charged $500 per
day. These vouchers were paid without re.
gard to the price fixed by Board of Freehold
ers, which was $3.50 per day
In the matter OF contracts for the building
of bridges throughout the county the Board OF
FrceholdctS aud its committees were extrava-
giant and careless. Contracts were entered into
tor the building and repairing of bridges which
involved large amounts of money without no
In the matter Of the bridge at Edward Hou-
sells, located III Delaware township. commit
tee appointed by the Board of Chosen Free.
holders. according to the testimony of Jere-
miah T.. Bowne. page tsQ, e. seq, entered into
i verbal contract with John w. scott, o
Pennington, Tor the repair of one pier, one
ahutment and two wing walls. This bridge
was over tho Wickcchccke Creek MIR. scott
agreed to furnish all the labor and material
and complete said work at $iI per yard, con
crete. October 8, 1909. Mr. Scott collected
from the county by voucher 7, 5000, on &C
count of the contract and on November ~
1907, the sums Of $3.50 and $I4sS.6I by vouch
ers and 10 for 67A and I37 Is cubic yards o
| concrete respectively, making total measure
mcnt collected Tor oi i99aB cubic yards h'
| making no deduction whatever for the 500
voucher collected on October &. I9oz, on &C
| count OF this contract ! could get no positive
| information in reference ia this bridge on tn
work upon il from Mcssrs. Fulper, BOVINE o.
| Potts, members OF the committee, and there
| fore | visited the bridge. | saw Mr.. {. G
| Haven, a civil engineer who was engaged bl
| The petitioners, make his measurements. IiI
| the actulI amount OF concrete to have beer
rIo3 cubic yards. The county. therefore, over
paid Mr.. Scott the sim of $o7I in addition tC
thc 5000 paid to him by voucher 7.
The matter of the contract for the building
Of the Rockaiellow bridge was gone into al
length by both sides. The petitioners pro.
duCcd before me a written contract entered
into February q, 1000, which had attached
thereto specifications as TO substfucture OF
masonry work, Payment for the bridge to tbs
Wrought Iron bridge Company, which com
pany had the contract appears by voucher J.
paid July ~ 1000. tor the sum Of SiSOo which spc-
officially states that irw was for building bridge and
substfucure complete AT RoCkafeilows Cross
my, Is per contract OF feby. 2S, 1000. Alter II
was shown by MIR c. c. Ravens. the civil en-
glncCt who made measurements see testimony
pages roo and ipS ct seq, that its construction
was anything but that called for in the spec
lhcations as to substructure, different members
Of the Board Of Freeholdcrs and officers of the
bridge company, more especially Mr.. Btalcy.
whose testimony WAS very intelligent, swore
that the contract was given to the company
but they were not to build the masonry &C.
CurdnR to the written specifications attached
10 the written contract aud that the sub struc-
turc built under the terms Of specihca-
tion different 10 the one attached 10 the writ
ton contract. If the masonry TO be built
according To the written specifications, then the
county did not get the work they bargained
tot, and IN approving and ordering to be paid
legal act
The matter Of the contract for the Riverside
bridge gone into in detail | call especial
attention to the fact that this bridge was begun
under the head Of ordinary bridges. A Board
meeting was held at that place, and after that
meeting all expenses incident thereto were
paid out Of sudden destruction moneys. 1t
appears by the testimony that the only sudden
destruction that occurred was the washing
away of some work that was at that time being
put in by committee of the Board This
FRln tn
sudden destruction The borrowing OF moneys
aud their payment for this work under the
head al sudden destruction, were unwarrantcd.
This was a charge that should have been paid
from the ordinary bridge appropriation. The
Board had sufficient moneys under that head
Al the time Of that meeting As far as | can
see, their only object in making this sudden
destruction charge was 10 save the bridge APP
preparation for something else.
Vouchers were presented to me for personal
services and for materials in building stone
wall III Glen Gardner and for laying pipe in
the meadow Of Edward Humphreys, and were
objected to on the ground that the money OF
the county was expended for the bcnchi OF an
individual laud owner. ! had the wall in
spcctcd and II seems to me that the expendi-
turc was largely IN excess Of the county's in.
lcrcsts and that It was more for the benefit OF
the man who owned the land than IT was for
the benefit Of The county, and the money ex.
pended upon the building Of the wall should
have been n township charge instead OF a
county charge aud should have been taken
care OF by the township, The laying oil the
pipe is referred to in testimony, pages 1873 ct
seq.
Vouchers were presented TO me in reference
to the expenditures upon the Lane or McCrea
bridge. The amounts of those vouchers seem
Ia show a very lavish expense and cxtrava-
Rlnce, but the testimony not followed up
! ave the same remarks to make concerning
the Sunnyside bridge and the other bridges
that were brought TO my attention, as will ap-
pear from the testimony. The expenditures
were extravaRant ! have not attempted to
make any estimate Of them because the ties.
tlmony was not followed up, and therefore |
am unable to make further report on them.
Vouchers concerning other Improvements
we're referred to me and IT was stated at the
time they were offered that further testimony
would be produced in reference to them, but
nasmuch as that has not been done, | have
not attempted to 90 into those matters in de-
tail
Vouchers 10, paid June -, 1909 for ssi. IS !;
43, paid September u, 1909. for SIS; 26, paid
June o. 1907, for S7tIs; and :, paid June II,
1909, for $io61o, state that they are for mater
ials repairs ITO bridge near ---,"
These vouchers were all signed by committees
and approved and ordered paid in their pres
ent condition. and all were in favor of and
paid to John w Scott. No explanation was
offered to 20 show for what those various
vouchers were paid.
I call the attention Of your Honor to the
fact that il appears by the testimony that diff
ferent committees would ask John w. Scott,