Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1915-03-29
ALMSHOUSE
AWARD UPSET
BY THE COURT
Supreme Tribunal Declares
Lowest Bidder Should Have
Had Contract.
CONTRACTORS SET TIME;
COUNCIL SHOULD DO so
Proof Furnished That Differ
ent Specifications Were Given
Different Bidders.

Tie Supreme Court today rendered
an opinion setting aside the furnish
ing awards for the new almshouse at
Ivy Hill. The firm of NJ J. O'Con-
nor's Sons Hardware and Supply
| Company and the W. B. Wood Conn.,
pany, both Of this city. who were the
lowest bidders on the various speci-
fications. lose their contracts, accord
Ing TO the decision. The proceedings
were brought by Duncan MacKinnon,
local contractor, as a taxpayer.
Certtorari proceedings were brought
and testimony taken before Cora n.
Williams. Supreme Court commits
sioner.
According 10 the decision, the speoi-
fications were irregular. and the
council, instead of allowing the bid
ders to place a time limit on their
work, should have specified limit
before receiving bids.
The question as to the Legality Of
the awards has held up the trans
ferring Of the inmates of the old
almshouse to the new site. Just what
the next step win be no one knows.
1t is believed that the city will have
to readvertise for bids, as in the
marAzet case.
The Supreme Court, in setting aside
the contract, said:
I'VE are satisfied that the rule
which was made absolute. and pro-
ceed. pursuant to the stipulation in
open court, to determination OF the
cause, as though a writ had original
ly been awarded, bringing up a reso-
luton Of the Newark Common Coun-
Gil, of August I, 1914. approved by
the mayor, awarding contract for
furniture TO partnership called
Newark Hardware and Supply Com
pany; another resolution Of the same
date and similarly approved. award
ing a like contract TO w. 3. Wood
Company, and g. third resolution
passed over thesmayor's veto, Sep
tember 4. 1914, awarding contract
bases on seven sets of specifications
to II. ]. O'Cennor's Sons.
The last resolution oaly will bs
treated in any detail, The same con
siderHtion for or some of them suf-
.
validity Of the other two.
'sThe first question relates to the
statute applicable to the giving out
Of the contracts in question, which
related TO furniture and furnishings
for the new city almsilouse, the gen.
eral authority to provide and furnish
said new almshouse being contained
in the act Of 1910, as amended by
chapter of the laws of 1914.
Counsel for the O'Connor's Sons
invokes the act of 1899, which re-
quires an award to that responsible
bidder who offers the terms most ad-
vantageous to the city.
'But we agree with the prosecutor
that the act of 1912 controls. That
act contains no expressed repeater,
but is plainly intsnded as a general
scheme and therefore supersedes In
consistent legislation. The act of
| 1912 relates TO letting of contracts for
| the doing of any work or for the fur
nishing of any material or labor
where the sum TO be expended ex-
ceeds $500.
"This may be suggested thar the
contracts in question related TO the
sale OF chattele only, but any ques-
tion whether the act of 1912 is appli-
cable is answered by the language of
| the specification which expressly re-
quires the doing OF all work in CON-
nection with the furnishings for sep
arate bids on material AMI work and
| the setting up OF articles ia proper
position in all rooms. etc.