The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-08-25
DO NOT WANT BRICK PAVING Hull Street Citizens Ask
 for Injunction. THEY FILE THEIR PETITION Judge Sayre is Asked to Restrain
 the City. Property Owners Wanted Asphalt Laid On Their street, and the City
 couneu Gave Them

from the south Side or washington Avenue to the south side of South Street. will be paved with brick. in &C., cordance with the terms of a contract entered into between the City Council of Montgomery and the Southern Paw | iEg and Construction Company, rests with Judge A. D. Sayre of the City Court of Montgomery.
 Counsel for property owners on Hull Street yesterday filed bill in the City Court in Equity. spurporting to show that the contract between the city and the Southern Paving and Construction Company of Chattanooga, Tenn. is de fective and illegal. and asking that the city be enjoined from paying out , any money to apply thereon. They ask for an order enjoining the city from paving the street with brick. The petition for an injunction re- straning the city from carrying out the provisions of its contract with the paw ing company is the culmination of a long and strenuous fight on the part of a part of the owners of the property fronting on that section of Hull Street which is to be paved.
 February 18th. the City Council adopted an ordinance providing for the paving of South Hull Street from tho south side of Washington Avenue to the South side of South Street, and the
 
 Teague a few days later City Treas | lrer Williams was directed to adver- | tise for bids for the paving work. which bids were received and referred to the Committee on Streets. The committee recommended that the bids be rejected and new bids advertised for on the grounds that the bids received
 were not in accordance with the adver- | tisement, which provided that all bids | al hA otshn1fffad dn a rH guarantee ten years maintenance of the paving laid. The report of the committee was adopted and new bids were advertised for and received. The next step in the proceedings was a majority report from the Com
 mittee on Streets, recommending that Hull Street be paved with brick and I that the contract for the work be i awarded the Southern Paving and Con- struction Company of Chattanooga. which was adopted by the city fathers after considerable debate. A protest
 was read from residents of Hull Street objecting to the paving of the street with brick and expressing preference for asphalt as being cleaner and less noisy. but, when the vote was taken, the Aldermen decided In favor of brick. Alderman Cox of the Fourth Ward, large property owner on Hull Street, | favored asphalt
 contract was entered into between | the city and the paving company named | in the committees report, and an ordi- nance was adopted by the Council au- tborizing the issuance of paving bonds l in the amount of S26,500 to defray the cost of the paving. It Is this instru- ment which solicitors for the com plainants will endeavor to show Is ilie-
 gal and will try to have declared null
 and void.
 Among other reasons. it will be con- tended that the contract stipulated that two years maintenance was to be guaranteed by the contractors. while the advertisement inviting bids stated that they must be made on the basis
 of ten years maintenance. It will be
 claimed that the City Council, under
 the law, had no power or authority to
 require. or make contract for. the
 maintenance of the pavement after 1t
 had been laid, as was held in the de- cision In the recent case of Inge against
 the Board of Public Works of Mobile
 The legal representatives of the com
 pIainants will also endeavor to show
 that. even if the City Council had such
 power. 1t. could not invite bids upon
 one basis and make a contract upon
 another as, so the solicitors contend, it
 has been conclusively established that
 contracts which the law required shall
 be awarded to the lowest bidder, must
 be in accordance with the advertise
 ment for bids.
 Other grounds of objection will be
 urged by counsel for the dissenting
 property owners, but the foregoing req
 sons are deemed by the solicitors 6linR
 the bill, sufficient basis for having ths
 contract declared null and void.
 According to figures prepared by
 counsel for the complainants,. owners
 of 3,665 feet of the 5.1S5 of frontage
 along which pavement Is to be laid.
 prefer asphalt to brick, and that the
 owners of SIS feet of frontage are op-
 posed to paving of any description, while the owners of 312 feet of front
 age have not given an expression of
 their views.
 The real contention is that the prop
 erty owners, the persons who are to
 pay for the paving, do not want brick paving, and that the Council provided for >brick paving over their protest.