New-York tribune., 1907-12-28
CITY LOSES AND WINS.
NOT BOUND IN PAVING.
Court 4Tards Damages, but GiUes
Municipality More Scope.

The Court Of Appeals has rendered decision
awarding to the Warren Brothers Company $500
damages for the failure of the city TO carry out
paving made in 1903 In effect the decision
interprets Section 1854 Of the city charter and gives
the city wider latitude in awarding its pavement
contracts. 1t also encourages paving inventors.
William r. WILCOX chairman OF the public Ser
vice Commission when he was Commissioners OF
Parks in 1908. gave the Warren Brothers Company
z: contract for $500 paving West I'D street be-
tween Central Park and Riverside Drive with their
patented bitulithic pavement. The Barber Asphalt
Paving Company, alleging that the contract had
not been legally awarded. got an injunction
This was the beginning of long legal fight be-
tween the city and the Warren Brothers Company.
on the one hand. and the Barber Asphalt Paving
Company. on the other The eventually
evolved into Interpretation Of Section 1854 of the
city charter, which provides that except for re-
pairs no patented pavement shall be advertised for
purchased except under such circumstances that
there be q fair snd reasonable opportunity for
competition
Several conflicting opinions were rendered, and
last year the Warren Brothers Company attempted
to get the Legislature TO pass a bill which would in
effect establish the validity OF the contract. This
bin. although advocated by the City Club and the
Citizens Union Nsnd other civic organizations, was
defeated. As last resort, the Warren Brothers
Company brought action against the city for
damages alleging breach OF contract.
Justice Edward r Bartlett, who wrote the opinion
tn the case strongly sustaias the validity of the
contract In his opinion after reviewing the his
tory OF the case he said:
We Of opinion that the scheme devised by
the Board Of Estimate and ApportionInent per-
Uniting the owners of patented and unpatented
Iavernents TO Join in bidding for contracts to lay
the same under Section 1854 OF the charter is.
under all the circumstances feasible, workable and
affords fair and reasonable opportunity for COM
petition under said section 1t would seem that If
this result cannot be accomplished by the methods
suggested II would be quite impossible TO frame a
of specifications and contract that would carry
out the letter and spirit of the section under con-
etruction
It appears from the descriptions under the three
methods named that while each results In pave
of equal thickness the component parts differ
in each case The opportunity is afforded to each
proprietor Of advising the city of New York at
what price square yard he is willing to lay his
pavement The dictates Of public policy under the
circumstances here presented would seem to re-
ouire that the owners of patented and unpatented
pavenents should bid equal terms. It may well
be in this age Of invention and progress that the
Wit of may devise. IL IL has not already, a
smooth and noiSeess pavement that Is cheaper a&d
enduring than any now IN use IF this proves
be the fact, there is why the inventor
and the city should not profit by this situation
In commenting the decision yesterday Henry
&. Thompson, Commissioner of Public Works.
said: Il think the decision eninently just one
one that is advantageous TO the city. It gives
it wider latitude in awarding its pavement con-
tracts. In fact, the city should have a pave
nent plant OF its own" 2