Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1906-04-14
Market Street Property Owners
Appeared Before Aldermanic
Committee Regarding Paving.
WANT COMPETITION.
Claim Made That They Were Decciv-
ed Regarding the Petition Present.
ed to the Aldcrmen-AlanyW Wanted
Brick Included in the Specifications
and Claim They Were Told That
the Petition Would BE So Changed.

More than two score Market street
property owners were present at the
hearing afforded them at the commit
tee session of the Board of Aldermen
last night at city hall. The aldermen
were all present as was also City At
torney Hommann and Messrs Turner
and Hoyt of the Bitulithic Company,
but none of the above spoke.
1t is conceded that brick cannot
legally be placed in competition with
bitulithic on the strength of the petit
tion TO that end presented at the last
meeting of the board of aldermen by
siXty-two property owners, most or
all of whom had signed the original
petition circulated by Charles E. Will
bert for bitulthic pavement. They
assert that Mr.. Wilbert promised
them when he asked them for their
signatures that meeting of the
market street owners of land would
be held to talk the matter over and if
there were some who wanted brick
in competition with bitulithic, that he
would insert brick in the petition.
No meeting was ever held and the
petition was sent to the board of al
dermen in its original form for btu
lithic only. 1t did not take those who
wanted competition long to circulate
and secure signatures for the counter
petition presented at the last council
meeting, asking that brick be includ-
ed in he specifications. Many of
these had written ''briclk" after their
names on the first petition. but that
could have no effect as the petition
specified bitulithic.
Joseph E. Stricken spoke as a rep
rcSentative of Mr.. Wilbert and a
number of others in favor of bitulith-
ic who had signed the first petition
but not the second. He declared that
ii would not be strictly legal TO throw
out the original petition.
A number of property owners on
both sides of the question, aired their
views, as did few who do not own
property on that thoroughfare.
John G. Donehue. who favors com
petition, said that, if the council
would throw ont the petitions, he
would circulate petition for the
cheapest of the three, bitulthic,
brick, or wood block. Mr.. Donehue
made this statement as refutaton
of insinuations made by some btu
lithicans" that he is not in favor of
having the street paved. He has pro
ven that he is in favor of pavement
and the one that he considers tho
best and cheapest.
Others who spoke in favor of com
petition were Postmaster George II.
Tice, Edward Coutts. Wells Coutts,
Charles Landback and Peter A. Jo-
hansen.
j. p. Holm spoke in favor of hay-
ing the street paved.
Bitulithic pavement found champi-
ons in l. c. Ostergaard, Dr. f, c.
Henry, Nicholas Toft, August Kroe-
ger, and f. A. Seaman. Replying to
a reference made by Mr.. Tice to abil-
ity to pick loose matter off of the bit
ulithic pavement on Rector street,
Mr.. Seaman said that he would give
a ten dollar gold piece for every peck
of The pavement which can be found
loosened and can be picked up.
The aldermen gave no hint of what
action they will take in the matter
and as to whether they will act on it
at Monday nights meeting.
1t would appear that the majority
favor having competition in the bid
ding and there is much feeling over
the alleged trick worked with the
first petition when no meeting of the
property owners was held and brick
uas nnf included in The ncIiiiOn.