The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-10-22
|OP|N|0N TO-DAY ON
PAVING CONTRACT
JUDGE CRUMP WILL DECIDE
MOORE INJUNCTION SUIT
THIS MORNING.
RED-HOT CROSS FIRING
MEssRs. MCCARTHY. roLkEs AND
DECK VIGOROUSLY DENoUNCE
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN
HIRsCHBERG AFFIDAVIT.
RED-HOT CROSS FIRING

Judge Crump, OF the Law and Equity
Court, will at IL o'clock today hand
down his opinion In the smooth paw
ing controversy. which arose over the
award Of the contract to the Central
Construction and Supply Company, Of
Harrisburg. Pa, RS against the AT
lantic Bitulithic Company. with of
fees here.
Since the hearing Of arguments by
Judge Crump last week. afiidavits have
been filed by both sides to the contro-
versy. On one side. that opposing the
award to the Central Company, be-
cause its bid was the highest. . dozen
afIidavits were presented These am
davits tend to show that the material
proposed by the Bitulithic Company
il as good, II not better. than that
offered by the Central Company.
On the other side, embracing three
members of the Administrative Board.
an anidavit, sworn to before Richmond
r Lacy. Jr., q notary public. and sec
rotary to the City Attorney. was pre-
scented Judge Crump yesterday. This
affidavit denies that any one of the
signers, Messrs. Carlton Mccarthy, E.
c. Folkes and H. P. Beck. had any feel
ing Of partially when they voted to
give the contract to higher bidder.
but felt that officials OF the lower CON-
pany. who had expressed themselves
as antagonistic to the use of Ber-
mudez asphalt, would not give the
city proper paving. because of their
antagonism to this material.
Majority Justfnes Coarse.
TN response to the atfidavit of John
Hirschberg," the affidavit sets forth.
| intended to impress the court with
the idea that the private conference
was to promote some action that would
| be unfair and unjust to bidders. and
resulted in the awarding Of the con-
tract to one not fairly entitled to the
same. we do say that we resent and
repudiate every such statement and
| insinuation, and do further say that
In January. 1913. to the present time,
1t has been the practice of the board
to consult and discuss among them
selves the advisa biiity o. proposed ac-
ton by the board on practically every
| important matter acted on by the
board. and by formal resolution OF the
board. Saturdays of each week were
set aside for the purpose"
| The document further states that
Messrs. Mccarthy, FolkeB and Beci.
felt justified in awarding the contract
although at slightly advanced price
over the bid OF the Atlantic Bitulithic
| Company. having In mind the pro-
nounced hostility Of the officers of the
Atlantic Bitulithic Company to as-
phait concrete"
Continuing, the s4fidavit says
THAT every charge or insinuation, di.
rectly or indirectly. made In any OF
the pleadings or afidavits filed In this
| cause, which impute to the affiants
any corrupt motives or Partially OF
any apparent want of care In consid-
| ering or awarding the contract to the
| best interests OF the city, is untrue and
| without the slightest foundation in
fact.
Vigorous Reply to Attacks.
TN response to any and all insin-
| uations, innuendoes or other insid-
| ious aspersions or suggestions In the
bill Of injunction or in any affidavit
| accompanying IT. We enter our un-
qualified denial and express our most
lasting contempt. and we, upon our
oaths upon we'll founded information.
do herein declare that these proceed
/ inss have been inspired and furthered
1 and promoted by the Atlantic Btu
lithic Company solely to advance their
pecuniary interests and to suppress
| competition"
/ In support OF its statements the afft
davit contains published statements
attributed to George o. Tonney. presi-
}. dent of the Bitulithic Company
!. Messrs Mccarthy. Folkes and Beck
!, hold that they are satisfied that they
( have served the best interests of the
, city in awarding the contract TO the
: Central Company. although at an ad'
vanced price. contending that they are
confident that 1t will be given materia.
which meets all specifications and con
struction In conformity with that pre-
scribed by the City Engineer.
The point in the controversy Is tina
= minority OF the Administrative
, Board, Messrs. Whittet and Hirsch
berg, opposed the award of the con
!, tract to a bidder whose figures were
higher than those Of another com
pany, the latter having already don.
much smooth paving for the city. which