The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-10-23
MAJORITY INDICATED
IN PAVING CONTROVERSY
Continued From First Page)

4
! or unless II is shown that this discre-
ton has been palpably or grossly
abused
THE Issue. therefore, before the
court on this motion Is whether the
discretion which the Administrative
Board clearly had in awarding the
contract in question has been so grossly
or palpably abused as to affect the
pecuniary interests which the tax
payers of the city have In the eXpendi-
turc of the city's funds.
No EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT
OF FRAUD Or CORRUPTION
There is nothing before the court
justifying consideration by the
court of fraud or corruption on the
part of the board. In some of the
States a method is provided by stat
ute by which Il losing bidder may con-
test in court the award, and at it's
suit have the business and propriety OF
the award considered and decided by
the court. Having no such statute In
Virginia, this court is not to decide
AS an original question contest be-
tween the two competing companies
which seek to uphold the superiority
OF their respective bids"
Analysing more fully the abuse OF
power" charge, Judge Crump reviews
! briefly the facts surrounding the award
TO the Central Construction and Supply
Company OF Il contract for approx
mately 100000 square yards of asphalt
tic concrete paving at $1.41 yard.
although the Atlantic Bitulithic Com
pany offered to lay the same paving.
using the same asphalt binder, for
S1.39 n yard.
The question of the relative merits
Of Bcrmudcz and Aztec asphalt IS
passed by as immaterial to the point
at issue. Judge Crump upholds as
entirely proper the Administrative
Boards preference for BermudeZ as
phalt. in view of the City Engineers
advice that that product be selected.
With the asphalt controversy out of
the way, the decision OF the board to
| award the contract to Il bidder at .
!. cents on the square yard higher than
the price of the nearest responsible
bidder. the judge holds. cannot be con-
sidcrcd an act Indicating either an
abuse of power or a waste Of city
funds.
UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER
PUSHING PATENTED PRODUCT
The difference of something like
i.S2.500 In a contract involving about
+, S125,000. the judge points out, is not
large. lie draws attention to the atH-
davlt filed by Carlton Mccarthy, Henry
! II. Beck and Elben &. Follies, in which
| the award is justified on the ground
that the Atlantic Bitulithic Company,
1.-The unsuccessful bidder was more in
terested in advancing the interests of
! Il special patented paving of It's own.
! tho use of which the company was
| pushing.
! The court is of The opinion" Judge
| Crump concludes. that 1t would not
be justified in holding that the Admin
| istrativc Board has manlfestiy so pal
pably abused the discretion lodged in
| 1t as TO justify the court in forbidding
II to make the contract as awarded.
| at would be the duty of the court,
at the instance Of Il taxpayer of the
! city, to prevent the Administrative
Board from grossly abusing the dis
erection contided in it, but the court
cannot rea.a the conclusion in this
| case that the Administrative Board, by
q palpable abuse of It's discretion. is
| about to waste and sQuandcr the city's
money. The court cannot undertake
| TO substitute IFS business Judgment for
! the judgment of the members of the
board or Il majority of the members"
REGARDED AS IMMIGRATION
OF MAJORITY MEMBERS
| In City Hall circles the decision OF
the Law and Equity Court was regard