Bridgeton pioneer., 1907-10-10
PAVING CONTRACT
NOT YET SIGNED.

n The whole paving proposition Is up
iu the air. Council last night re.
n scinded the resolution directing the
q Msyor to execute a contract with John
In. Dyer TO put down asphalt block,
and an effort was made to authorize
q the chairman of the streets and side.
walks committee to sign the contract
4 upon behalf of the city. This effort
failed, and the situation now is that
nobody has authority to make the
Unnecessary contract and the whole paw
n ing enterprise is at a standstill.
II The matter was brought to the atten-
tion of Council through the letter sent
by Mayer Hampton to City Solicitor
#Albert r. McAllister. The letter was
read at length. The Solicitor presented
|the following letter:
# Bridgeton, N. j.. Oct. 3, 1907.
Frank L. Hewitt. Esq,
al City Recorder, Bridgeton, N. J.
Dear Sir -
a I beg to hand you herewith COM
munioation directed to me by the
Mayor, Kindly bring the matter to
the attention of City Council at it's
next regular meeting.
# You will note that tie Mayor has
ATTACHED to his letter communication
Received by him from Samuel Hufty,
City Comptroller, of Camden, relative
TO paving, and he has made oompar-
ison of prices paid by the City Of
Camden for sheet asphalt with the
price of the paving block callsd for in
ordinance 143.
This is matter wholly for City
Douncil's consideration. not being
wshin the province of the City So
licitor, and feel confident of Councll's 8
wilIingness and ability to carefully
Consider the merits of the two pave
hents, the prices, and take such &C.
tion as it may deem to be for she best
Interests of the city.
AS to the publication of the proposal
tor bids for doing tha work, which
publication ths Mayor seems to think
Insufficient, would call Councils
attention to the fauG that under Ordi.
nance 103 the wording was precisely
fhe same and publication was made in
put two newspapers once each week
for two weeks. The entire procedure
70 this instance was passed upon by
an eminent municipal corporation at.
torney. for the Trust Company pur-
chasing the bonds In the present
case publication was made in two
Qapers, once each week for three
weeks. Further, as to whether the
words "publ!shed III two newspapers
for two weeks" should be construed
5s directing the advertisement to be
hserted in every issue of the ne ws.
hapers selected during the temp of swo
Feeks I can only say that This is a
auestion this Supreme Court Of ~t6fs
state has never passed upon. The
Courts of Indiana and two or three
other States have held that the pub
Hcation of a notice on any day of such
Eeek is publication for that week.
And this would seem to be the correct
construction. The neoessity for the
publication of the proposal for bids, is
inform those who might desire 80
Rid on the contemplated work, and to
1--WE them such notice in advance of
me time that such bids are to be re-.
4elved as may be necessary for such
PERSON intending to bid, to go over
fhe specifications and the work to be
Aone, in order they may bid inteIIi-
ently. In other words. 1t Is more
Rssntial that sufficient time elapse
Rtween the publication and the time
nds are to be received than 1t is for
ide publicity, for should an adver.
nsement. although published each day
kor fourteen days. come to the notice
some person desiring to bid during
8 last five or six days of such publi-
@tion, such intending bidder would
nps' in all probability, have sufficient
4me to prepare his bid. I am,
Very respectfully.
ALBERT r. McALLlSTER.
b City Solicitor.
EMr n TT WoodruH Safr@ kbne Sbo