Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-08-11
CERT|ORAI DENIED
IN PAVING AWARDS
Chief Justice Declines to Grant
Writs to Review Board
of Woyks.

Chief Justice Gummere this morn
ing declined to grant a writ of GER
tiorani to John j. Gillen, to review
the action of the Board of Works in
awarding final and tentative awards
for the paving of streets with btu
lthic and taking steps to make. such
other contracts. Proceedings were
brought by Michael ]. Tansey, repre-
senting John j. Gillen, a brother of
Commissioner Charles p. Gillen, of
the Board of Works.
The action involved six final awards
OF contracts for bitulithic, five tenta-
tive awards and three paving jobs,
upon which proceedings have begun.
1t is based upon the irregularity of
some of the petitions circulated in
behalf of bitulithic pavement, the al
legged failure of the company to live
up to contract specifications and the
high price of the material as a patent
pavement
Objects on Various Grounds.
Attorney Tansey iyn his petition OBJ
jected to the bitulithic pavement on
various grounds and declared that an
inspection of the ia xrecords showed
that the titles to property on the
StTttlS W Dt DdNtO M6I9 III EtIttilll
names and that the same names did
not appear on the petitions Also that
there was deficiency in the number
of feet frontage and that there were
an insufficient number of signatures
ON the portions as certain people
who had at first signed had later
Withdrawn their signatures.
He further claimed that the paving
would not be fore the benefit Of the
CITY as the bitulithc Placement was
controlled by one corporation whose
rates for the laying of their product
were exorbitant, and that If the open
specifications had been used, which
means stone of a little different size
the city would save from so cents to
81 yard on the paving contracts
thereby also saving the ptaxpayers
quite bit of money on theis assess
ments.
Board Bound by Citizens.
The court ruled that as the property
owners had asked for bitullthic pave
fnent in their petition that the Street
and Water Commission could only
answer them either-yea or no--and
dould not tell them what kind of
pavement was to be used, and the
only way the petition could be re-
jected would be on account of it not
heing of benefit to the city.
Attorney Tansey, after consulting
MIR. Gllen. claimed that the Board
of Works had power to lay any kind
of pavement 1t saw fit. and again
the court took issue with the state
ment, declaring that after property
owners had petitioned for certain
specified pavement and the board had
found everything proper, etc, there
still remained but one answer-yes or
no. The initiative must come from
the property owners and ii 1t is for
the best interest of the city the COM
mission allows IL and If not 1t is re-
jected.
"Action Due TO Disagreement"
The court further declared that the
action was probably the result of the
division of the board, the minority
disagreeing with the majority. The
court also asked Attorney Tansey II
he could show where the board had
ever gone against the wishes of the
people after they had received pc
tition that was properly drawn up
md had sufficient number OF sigma
lures Attorney Tansey. after con-
sulting Mr.. Gillen, said that he could
not.
Chief Justice GUNNER then asked
to hear from Adrian Riler, VINO rep
resented the Standard Bitulithic
Company, and the attorney for the
Bjtulithic company at once produced
an affidavit proving that the sigma
trre of Christian Feigenspan, which
was signed by some one representing
Mr.. Feigenspan, was correct. This
made the contract for paving Schalk
street legal after Attorney Tansey
had agreed that with the above sig
nature the petitioners had enough
signatures.
Board Must Grant Petitions"
In rendering his opinion Chlef
Justice Gummere declared that Tor
{ the present unless he Is later shown
he is wrong. the board must grant
the petitions If they have been signed
bv a sufficient number of property
owners having property fronting on
the streets that are to be paved. lie
also ruled that any signer who had
at first signed and later refuted ms
signature, the name should be strick-
en- off the petition. If the number or
refuted signatures is not great
enough to wipe out the the majority
the board has the power to proceed
with the work.
Commissioner Charles p. Gillen, a
brother of John j. Gillen, who asked
that the writ be issued, in state
ment to a Star reporter said that a
property search of the records would
be made and that If ii was found
that the petitions did not contain the
certified number of names, etc, that
the application would again be
brought before the jurisdiction OF
Chief Justice Gummere. He declared
they would keep right on in their
Investigation and would fight the
bithulithic project to a finish.
II have demanded the open speci-
fications at our board meetings but
without success. A majority OF the
members insist on CLOSED" specifi-
cation. Why is poor old Newark
asleep? Why doesn't it wake up and
demand that this outrageous pro-
.lf,..~ 10 ut0nnad at nnra2'