Pleasantville weekly press. (Pleasantville, N.J.) 1890-1911, 1911-04-29
Shore Road to be Paved
Contract Upheld by Court Of Errors and
Improvement May Soon Begin.

and Appeals upheld the proceedings
awarding contract for paving the Shore
Road. The road extends from Absecon
to Somers Point and is one of the most
Travelled highways in this section of the
State. The demand for improvement
has been widespread, and the Court of
Errors decision will be welcome news to
thousands of autoists who are patrons
of Atlantic City, and also to Shore
Road residents who have suffered for
years by the tie-up.
The award of the contract by the At
lantic County Freeholders was attacked
by William L. Black, in proceedings in
stituted against the freeholders, Bryant
Reilly, the successful bidder, and Colonel
Frederick Gilkyson, who approved the
contract in his former capacity as State
road commissioner.
One ground of attack was that the
Atlantic City and Suburban Traction
Company, whose tracks occupy part of
the Shore Road, had agreed to pay one
third of the cost Of constructing and
maintaining the road. 1t was contended
by Clarence L. Cole, OH behalf of Mr..
Black, that the acceptance of such a
cy, as being in the nature of bribe to
the freeholders to select that particular
road for improvement: Supreme Court
took the view that no road Improvement
could be made under the act of 1904 un-
less the entire cost is paid by the State
and the county, the township or muni-
cipality through which. the road runs or
by abutting owners.
This Doctrine Upset.
Upsetting this doctrine, Justice Reed
in his opinion for the Court OF Errors
and Appeals, said,
1t IS not now necessary to say that
no condition can arise in which "a gift
OF money or of property may not Jpe.
rate to bring about an act fnimical to
publie policy. Instances may possibly
occur where a eolorab1y public improve
mept may be 50 clearly i private affair
Instituted in the Interest of private per-
sons and SO carried out through the IN.
fuence OF private gifts, that the proceed
ings would be branded as Illegal. There
+ not othllllngg hing IN the specifications used in
this case to exhibit such situation.
There is nothing in the statute which
prevents the improvement of highway
which happens to be partly occupied by
a trolley road. There is nothing which
prevents the Board of Chosen Freeholders
from getting the most advantageous
bids 81 for doing the work Of Improving
the roads. 'ii< -
''~lli the present case it is not contend
cd that the Shore Roau was not very
important highway, nor that its improve
ment was an inequitable distribution OF
the benefits Of the scheme provided by
the act of 1905. The stipulations used
IN the Supreme Court show that it was
highway of extreme Importance aud
one in pressing need OF Improvement.
In the face of these stipulations the
Importance of the road could not be and
was not denied. The decision below was
put upon the grouaa that the facts con-
cernlng tAe character of the Shore road
did not matter, but what did matter
was the fact that its selection was or
might have been induced by the con
tract with the trolley company to pay
f9f Z part 81 the cost OF the improve
ments
1T is to be observed that the statute
provides that in the selection Of roads,
when more roads are applied for than
gan be built IN any one year, the board
must have first regard to the most i'm
portant roads and to the distribution of
the benefits of the act. These are not
the sole considerations, but the first
considerations. There are other consid
erations which would override the claims
Of a road to be selected, although more
important than another selected One
consideration is that of cost
While the disregard Of The statutory
first consideration in the selection of a
road for Improvement may be so incon-
siderable and glaring as to amount to an
abuse Of discretion, yet it cannot be said
that the diminutiop of the cost of one
road by reason of the offer of person
or corporation to bear a part Of the ex-
pense of its improvement of itself cx-
hlbits an inducement.n
Another ground of attack was that in
entering into the CONTRACT amounting to
$l3l ,n6S, less tile amount which the troll.
ley company was to pay the freeholders
had exceeded the amount they might
legally expend on roads for the year.
Constituting this section of the act, in
which the Supreme Court was also re-
versed, the Court al Effors opinion said:
The aggregate contracts awarded in
one year and the cost of repairs of roads
already built may amount to one-fifth
of one per centum of the previous wears
reported ratables, in addition to such
portion of the amount Of one-half of
one per eenttim, which could be raised
for county purposes, as had not been ap-
propriated to purposes other than for
permanent road Improvement and for
repairs