Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-08-14
MAYORS RULING
ON ALMSHOUSE
BIDS POSTPONED
Aldermanic Committee Offers
Brief in Support Of Award
of Contract.


furnishings contract. which approx
mates $41, 900. until Monday. It was
| expected that he would give out his
view of the matter this forenoon, but
he said he would have to give further
consideration to the questions in
volved.
The decision of the mayor hinges
on the protest made by William II.
Jamoneau, of the w. H. Jamoneau
Company, against the recent award
of the contract for the furnishings to
the firm of NJ. j. OConnor's Sons. 1t
was charged by Mr.. Jamoneau that
he was Disseminated against in the
award of the work. He raised ten
points against the contract going to
the O'Connor firm at a public hearing
| granted to him and to the Baker
Printing Company, which was bid
der on part of the furnishings.
| Briefs were submitted to Mayor
Haussling in behalf of the poor and
aims committee of the council which
has charge OF the furnishings for
the Ivy Hill institution. The
chairman of the committee is Thorn
as J. Lee, jr. The briefs were pre-
pared last night and it is understood
| they tended TO show that the Jamo-
neau allegations Of extravaganza
and unfairness were untrue
The announcement of delay in
Mayor Haussling's decision was
made following a lengthy conference
| between the mayor. City Counsel
James r. Nugent and Alderman Lee.
| Mr.. Lee asked the mayor to carefully
consider the briefs. The mayor con-
scented to do this.
The fight being waged by Mr.. Jamo-
neau is to have all of the bids thrown
out and re-advertise for new ones.
The first Jamoneau bids had been de-
clared irregular" and not as called
! for in their specifications.
At the committee meeting last
night, every complaint of Mr.: Jamo-
neau was zone over carefully and
answer made. During this proceed
ure Alderman Lee and Alderman e.
| Garfield Clifford. minority leader. had
several verbal tits.
clifford Counsel for Bidder.
The question of saving on the bids
prompted Chairman Lee to some very
pointed remarks about Alderman Gif-
| ford. Though not mentioning a name
Alderman Lee made the accusation
| that one member of the committee
had fought tor the Jamoneau bid be-
cause 1t was lower but had favored
/ the bid of the Wood firm for office
! furniture and steel lockers because he
was the firms counsel. Alderman Gift
ford acknowledged that he was the
counsel for the firm named, but that
the accusation of having had other
| than pure motives was unfounded. He
! stated that with the rest Of the COM
mitfee he was of the opinion that the
Baker Printing Company, the lowest
| bidders, had made an informal bid.
Before taking up the answer to
Mayor Haussling, Alderman Lee ex-
| planned that il was up to the commit
| tee to show the public that instead
of criticism. from an unsuccessful
| bidder the members ought to be com
plimented. John p Curtin. the furni-
! ture expert of the committee, told OF
how both Mr.. Jamoneau and his son
had taken up more of the time getting
information than anyone else, and
that both had thanked him for the
attention they had received
The letter that will be sent to the
Mayor today takes up in detail every
objection raised and also points out
that in speaking of extravaganza Mr..
Jamoneau, claiming to do SO not as
bidder but as a citizen, failed to pro-
tect the interests of the city, when
he read the specification and certainly
must have known as prospective
bidder what expenses the articles
listed entailed on part Of the city.
Question OF Sample.
In regard to inconvenience in
Cured by Mr.. Jamoneau in examining
the samples displayed at the old aims
house at certain times and the seeing
of blue prints the committee answers
that for twelve days the samples and
blue prints were on view at stated
hours with somebody present at all
times to give information desired. The
complaint that Mr.. Jamoneau was not
permitted to cut off samples or take
whole exhibits along was met with
the explanation that there were but
one of these for each item named
and that therefore 1t would have been
impossible to give a sample to each
bidder. The statement adds that if
Mr.. Jamoneau had been familiar with
the lines he was bidding on, looking
at the samples and taking a rough
sketch of the designs would have sat
isfied him as it did the other bidders.
AS to asserting hospital items
claimed by Mr.. Jamoneau not to be
homogeneous the committee refers at
one point to the fact that the United
states government had assorted its
I
objection to the drawing up of the
specifications, the committee refers
| to similar specifications drawn up
for the Nurses Home Of the City
Hospital.
The committee also points out a
number Of statements of Mr.. Jamo-
neau as absolutely erroneous. For
instance, it is pointed out that under
the totals assumed by Mr. Jamoneap
the screen doors would be $50,
whereas, as a matter of fact, the
| highest price of any Of these doors
does not exceed $19.75.
Regarding rugs and furniture, the
committee meets Mr.. Jamoneau's
charge with the answer that for serv-
ice and hard usage only better grades
could be bought where economy is
considered, and that besides, in many
cases, the dearer rugs are Of sizes not
carried in stock, because of the large
dimensions necessary A number of
the rugs, it was explained, would not
| have been bought II il had not been
necessary to suitably fit out part of
| the institution for unfortunate
mothers with nursing children, which
made a sort of an infirmary of one
wing.
1t is finally pointed out in regard to
the furniture that there could be no
charge of extravaganza when the
whole set cosUpnly 1903, as against
$500 estimated by those criticizing the
committee.
AS to the inforfnality OF the Jamo-
neau bid. the committee refers TO the
1o;o;o1 ~ fha law dana rtment re-