Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-30

that by signing the award of the
contract the Mayor deliberately
threw away $4,000 of the taxpayers
money" The commissioner on this
subject said
Now, if one official practically
charges another official with dishon-
est methods in transacting public
business, the official has a right TO
find out whether the aceuser is him
self transacting public business hon
estly and eonscientiously. The Broad
street paving is not the only contract
that is being discussed at the present
time.
THE contract for the new Centre
Market building has brought up
controversy which it was not my in
| tention to join in because it has Moth
ing to do with the board. but since
the Mayor has made insinuations in
his message which attack the honest
of the commissioners who voted for
the Broad street paving award let
us see what his attitude is regarding
the market contract.
Bids were received for the job last
summer, trouble was experienced in
selling the bonds, and no award OF
contract was made until the present
month. The award was contested by
one of the bidders Who claimed that
" hom the award was made, was not
the lowest bidder; that the great re-
duction In the cost of labor and ma
terial should warrant the throwing
out of all bids; that new bids would
result in reducing the cost $50. 900 or
more, and that the bidder making
these charges is reputable character
and a man of means and responsible
ity.
He sent a statement to the Mayor
agreeing to build the market for $50, :
| 900 less than the award price.
| What did the Mayor do? Did he
send for the contesting contractor
Did he make an investigation Did
he try to save money for the city?
| No. He signed the contract and by
so doing gave the Essex Construction
Company $4,000 more than a respon-
sible contrasting bidder agreed to
work for.
A $4,000 Loss.
| He deliberately took $4,000 of the
city's money and threw it in the
sewer. Where was his conscience?
Was he protecting the city's interest
when he signed the contract"
! Commissioner Gillen then sailed
into the News and said that if that
paper was such champion of the
people why had it not taken firmer
| stand on other matters, as for in
stance. the trolley problem. in regard
| to which it never had taken a firm
stand, one way or the other.
| The speaker said that there were
several points in the News editorial at
tack that should be taken up officially
| by the board. He declared that a
man in public life should protect his
reputation at all costs.
| "A newspaper" he went on, has =
right to attack an official if he is
crook, but no publication has any
right to attack the members of the
board as the News has done"
Mr.. Gillen asserted that the News
had insinuated that the members of
the Board of Works had acted in a
crooked" manner in the matter of
| the Broad street paving. He then
read the News editorial in question,
and commented again on its insinua-
lions.
Mr.. Gillen said that he was going
/ to offer a motion that the News pro-
| duce its evidence before the grand
| jury. He said that if the News fails
to produce evidence before the next
grand inquest he would go after the
News himself"
81 will engage the best counsel l
can" he said, "and fight them to a
| finish to repair 1ny damage that
may have been done my reputation.
1.-THE editorial was cowardly. The
man who wrote it was coward.
1.-The publisher is a coward, If he
doesn't retract it."
Regarding the Mayors contention
| that wood block was controlled by a
monopoly Mr.. Gillen said the Mayor
had been for some years signing con-
tracts for the Standard Bitulithic
| Company which is not competitive
concern.
Mr.. Gillen said that he had given
the mayor credit for having an hon.
est opinion in the pavement matter
ut seems strange. that the mayor re-
lied on an engineer who is employed
by the Wyckoff Light Oil interests,
and Colonel James Howard, who, it
was stated by our engineer on good
authority, was in the employ of
the Wyckoff Light Oil Company"
Mr. Gillen said the mayor, in en-
ploying an engineer to report on wood
block, put the engineer somewhat in
the position of a lawyer. who would
represent almost any side in a con-
troversy, provided he received his
fee.
aud this is a pertinent question"
Mr.. Gillen declared, Ito which l de-
mand an answer.
The Howard Fee.
'"Who has paid Colonel Howard in
this matter, the mayor or the
Wyckoff interests? This question
want answered"
THE Broad street merchants, who
desired the improvement also had
competent engineer, Mr.. Field, TO
advise them. He was well qualified
to give sound advice in the paving
question. He co-operated with us ae
all times. His views should have
been considered by the mayor.
1--WE were merely following out the
desires of the Broad street property
owners in urging wood block pave
ment.
personally l favored stone in
tead of wood, but when | found the
Broad street property owners, who
were to pay for the improvement,
desired wood block 1 voted for it,
Mr.. Gillen said he was willing TO
submit to any citizen of the city
whether the advice of the Newark
engineering department, backed by
the advice of two well-known engi-
neers, is not more worthy than that
of the advisers of the mayor.
Commissioner Gillen concluded his
remarks by making the motion TO
request the mayor and the News to
present their alleged evidence and to
substantiate their charges before the
grand jury.
Commissioner Denman, the boards
Republican member, who had not en-
tered the controversy, seconded Mr..
II Daadinn