Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-02-06

over there. and use that for the
farmers market.
Q. In the years you have been city
counsel has the city ever had an adj
verse opinion on any of it's bonds be-
fore? A. The first issue of Passaic
Valley Sewer bonds, Messrs. Hawkins,
Delafeld & Longfellow. ] understood
after the sale, had cast some doubts
upon the constitutlonality of the act.
Knowing that / induced some Newark
financial men to take these bonds,
and ] think we only had one bid; l
know we had considerable trouble and
We could not sell those bonds in New
York city.
@. Have you ever had any other
experience with bonds being ehal-
lenged as to their validity? "A. No.
sir. | might say had it not been for
the Federal Trust Company we
wouldn't have sold that 81, 200, 900, but
l have some connections there that
took the bonds and was very glad to
get rid of them. This new issue of
Passaic valley bonds is drawn under
another act for that reason.
Q. You are familiar with the usual
course of municipal and county bond
issues in this State Is it not the gem
eral practise, Mr.. Nugent, when any
doubt is cast on the constitutionality
of an act under which bonds are is
sued to secure corrective legislation
before issuing the bonds? A. / know
from my experience in the New Jer-
sey Legislature that it would be i'm
possible to enact any legislation to
correct any cloud that this opinion
may have cast upon these bonds. for
the reason that the Legislature. espe-
cially of late years, has taken a
ground against these remedial acts.
@. Mr.. Nugent, do you remember
having any talk with Alderman
Littlef1eld on the night of the seventh
of January in which you told him
that any bonds were mandatory? A.
No, that was on the first of January.
@. The minutes of the seventh, Mr.
Nugent, show that Mr.. Littlefeld
stated on the floor that night of the
seventh that he voted for the $2,200,000
issue because you advised him that
1t was mandatory. Did you hear him
make that statement on the floor?
A. No, sir, never gave him any such
, advice. and as for the $2,200,000, that
was simply an ordinance.
Was Mistaken.
@. Then if he stated~on the floor
of the council chamber that night
that you had advised him that it was
mandatory he was mistaken? A.
He is mixed up. The only bonds
considered mandatory were those of
the school board
Q. Was there any particular rea-
son in your judgment why it was
necessary to issue these market bonds
Immediately. A. Yes, because the
matter had been talked about for
four years. The idea originated
originally with Alderman Biertuemp-
fel and Alderman Whitfield, of the
Eighth Ward, and it was agitated at
every meeting of the market commit
tee, and when we thought the time
was ripe to go ahead with the matter
Hooper was authorized to make the
plans.
@. In any of the negotiations which
you attempted after the refusal of
Kean, Taylor &, Co. to take up the
bonds, were you assisted by the
bers? A. ! advised with them, yes,
sir.
O. Who, for instance? A, Aldermen
Riley, Phillips, Lee, Donnelly, the
president of the Common Council who
was member ex-officio of the COM
mittee.
O. Did they know of those efforts
prior to the 18th of January? A. Yes.
l informed all of those gentlemen on
tne ISL Oh JANUARY, New ear Day,
of the status of the matter.
Q. And, practically speaking, when
you found that the sale had failed to
Kean, Taylor & Co. you took up the
matter of negotiating a sale of these
bonds yourself? A. The comptroller
did.
@. mean with the Sinking Fund
Commission, you took that up per-
sonally? A. Yes.
A,.1 lea :,
A. Yes.
@. Did you examine all of the bids
which were received? A. Yes.
Q. Was there any reason, in your
opinion as city counsel, why the Fed
eral Trust Company could not have
been held to their bid in spite of the
opinion of Hawkins Delafield & Long
fellow that the bonds were invalid?
A Their bid was not accompanied, in
the first instance, by a certified check,
as I remember and I think that the
Federal Trust Company, in view of
the experience they had, would have
brought on litigation because Senator
Smith had heard from Mr.. Hamilton
Kean, who was a director of the Fed
eral Trust Company, that Messrs.
Hawkins, Delafield & Longfellow had
turned them down and Mr.. Kean, of
Kean Taylor q Co, of course would
position as a director of this trust
company in accepting any such
bonds
Returned Checks.
@. You made no effort to hold any
of the other bidders to their bids.
which were not based on the opinion
of any particular counsel? a. No;
we returned their checks that day,
and then 1 knew that Hawkins, Della.
field & Longfellow represented all
these firms.
Q. Do you know, for instance. Mr..
Rippel. Does he have Hawkins, Della
field & Longfellow pass on his bonds?
A. Yes, he does.
@. All of them? A. All ever know.
Mr. Rippel is always very tender on
that point and always very inquisi-
tive to know what Hawkins. Della
field & Longfellow think about it, and
he was the gentleman that was
caught with the Passaic Valley bonds
that the Federal Company helped
him out with on account of Haw7
klns, Delafield & Longfellow turning
them down.
On redirect examination by Mr.
Myers, the testimony was as fol-
lows.