Bridgeton pioneer., 1916-12-14
NO ACTION
TAKEN ON BIDS
City Council Divided in Its
Opinion.
LEGAL OBSTACLES
Counsel Advises Rejection of Pipe
and Basin Bids, But Coun-
Gil Refuses.


1ourned session for the purpose of
considering the bids for water pipe
end coagulation basin. The result
was an hour and half of active
debate, and nearly the same time was
spent IN dense silence.
When Council opened bids for pipe
and basin last week it was apparent
that the pr.ces were 30 high that the
worf would exceed the appropriation.
The C9rporation Counsel a week ago
was asked for an opinion as to how
the plans might be decreased or the
appropriation increased.
Mr. Esibill was the only member
absent last night. Immediately Coun-
Gil convened, City Clerk Jacob B.
Jones read the following opinion from
Corporation Counsel F. A. Stanger. Jr.
AT the meeting of City Council
held on Tuesday evening of last week,
you requested that | submit two opin-
ions concerning the procedure in the
water Improvement matter
The first opinion was relative to
the decreasing of the work provided
for i'll Ordinance No. 240. l can find
no authority which sanctions the pro-
cedGre. The so-called Persons Act
(Chap. 252, Laws of 1876 under which
the bonds were issued, provides that
the proceeds of any bonds issued un-
der the act shall be paid to the treas
arer ofsthe municipality. who shall in
40 eyene. disSarsa The same eSecpt TO
fray the expenses Of issuing and scll-
ing the same and for the purpose OF
purposes for which such bonds were
issued 1t is apparent that should
the work provided for in the initial
ordinance be decreased by an amen
datory ordinance, the money could not
be used for the purposes for which
such bonds We're issued l have said
to several of the Councilmen individ-
TALLY that the City of Millville amend
ed construction ordinance in a stu
alton similar to that which now con-
fronts your body. My statements in
that regard were not the same as it Is
here. l advise against this proceed
ure.
THE second opinion called for was
relative to the increasing of the ap-
preparation for the work SO as to car
ry out the full work contemplated by
Ordinance No. 24G. This procedure
would seem to me to be the only So
luton of the matter. Under Section
SO of our character act a supplement-
al appropriation may be made to be
followed by supplemental bond is
sue. While this would delay matters
somewhat, yet it would seem to be en-
tirely regular and could not be criti-
cized.
"As to the bids now before City
Council for consideration. The ac-
ceptance of these bids would not vio-
late any statute. However, as stat
ed in my communication last week, it
is matter for very serious thought.
assume that the work as now pro-
vided for cannot be entirely complet-
ed within the amount appropriated
City Council is forbidden by statute
to exceed this appropriation, and the
awarding of the contracts might be
step leading to criminal violation
Of the statute aforesaid. 1t seems to
me that a rejection of these bids
would be the proper procedure"
The opinion and advice Of the Cor
poration Counsel was discussed at
length. The matter was brought to
an issue by a motion made by Mr..
Holmes, that in accordance with the
advice of the Corporation Counsel,
Council reject all bids.
Mr.. Hettinger opposed the motion
and pointed out that there would be
long delay if these bids were rejected,
and that the job would cost more
money by reason of continued raise in
prices. With due respect to the Cor
poration Counsel, Mr.. Hettinger felt
that there was doubt as to the opin-
ions being the actual law, and he felt