Perth Amboy evening news., 1905-08-17
Special to the Evening News.

The charge was made at the meet
ing fthe Board of Freeholders yes
terday afternoon by Charles A.
Bloomfield, as the chairman of the
manufacturers committee looking
after the interests of the manufac-
turers who have SIS, 100000 invest
ed along the Raritan river in the vic
unity of Perth Amboy, that the free
holders by their method of doing
business had lost the county $100-
600 in the construction of the Am
boy bridge.
Mr.. Bloomfield read a communica-
tion addressed to the board setting
forth this and other facts claimed
by the manufacturers to be of scan
dalous character in connection with
this contract. This, following the
reading of an opinion by Solicitor
Wills advising the board not to ac-
cept the Amboy bridge, made the
session a breezy one.
The meeting was called chiefly
for the purpose of receiving plans
from the manufacturers whoclaimed
at former meeting that six spans
could be constructed for the same
amount that three could be con-
structed, the Dover Boiler Works
having made bid of $4,000 to re-
place part of the present wooden
structure with three steel spans. Mr..
Bloomfield did not present any plans,
but renewed the protest made by
the. manufacturers at former meet
ings and made his statement this
time even stronger that those here
tofore made.
The board at first had notion not
accepting the communication from
Mr.. Bloomfield at all, but finely did
at the request of Freeholder~ Haney
who urged that it be received and
! filed if nothing more than out oi
courtesy to the manufacturers. This
was done. Mr. Bloomfield, when seer
after the meeting, declared they ex
peeted to watch every move the free
holders made in this matter and die
not intend that they should spend
another dollar upon the bridge.
Midtown Bridge.
Besides prodding the freeholders
on the Amboy bridge matter Mr.
Bloomfield has taken up the contrac
recently awarded to Dean, Schweirs
& Sutton, for building the Milltowr
bridge, over Lawrence's Brook, a.
Milltown. The bridge is to replace
a wooden structure, now used by the
Public Service Corporation trolley
tracks. Originally $1,000 was ap
propriated by the county to construc
part of it, it being understood the
Public Service Corporation would pay
part of the expense. After some
years, it was finally arranged thai
the traction people should pay $3,
/ 600, but, in the meantime, plans haC
been changed, to allow for a con
crete structure to cost 1000. Tht
Public Service Corporation refused
to pay half of that sum, and thu
county then agreed to accept the So,
| 600 offer, making plans for $40,
900 structure and transferring. from
other appropriations to secure tn,
| $1,000 balance.
When the bids were opened it wa
found that the Virginia Bridge Com
pany were the lowest bidders, thei
bid being $500 The engineer o
the Public Service Corporation advised
| the Board of Freeholders, however
that the bid of Dean, Schweirs & Sut
ton was the better, since the plai
| provided for a better bridge. Eacl
company had been invited to submi
its own bids. The contract wa
awarded to Dean, Schweirs & Sut
/ ton. the price to be $S,923 This firm
had been very successful in gettini
county contracts recently. After tn
work had been started the contract
ors suggested that stronger pier b
built. and they were empowered +
do this, increasing the contract pric
by about $500. Mr.. Bloomfield think
these proceedings irregular, and ha
retained Willard p. Voorhees, t
ccrtiorari the entire matter to tn
Supreme Court, for investigation.
Experts Report.
WHeH Inc AlHDOy ulluSt matte
was taken up by the Freeholders yes
terday Expert Mccain at the reques
of Freeholder Haney presented
written report to the effect the
Sandford & Harris had complete
{ their contract last January, but sine
then the ice had damaged the bridg
so that from $50 to 400 feet of tt
bridge was still out of shape an
needed repairing. Freeholder Felto
disputed the figures given by the e.
pert and held that the distance WI
nearer 450 to 4S0 feet as he ha
measured it there being thirty-fol
spans out of repair.
A report was then asked from Sc
icitor Willis as to the acceptance
the contract from Sandford & Ha
ris. He advised against It, his +
port In fall being as follows:
Solicitor Willis Report.
As counsel 10 The board. won
u 3 d L. .14I