The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1921-11-04
TO The CITIZENS
OF
HUNTERDON co.


prominent attorney of Hunterdon
County is entertaining the idea of
starting legal proceedings against me
for my connection with an editorial
in the Hunterdon Repub-
lican in its issue of October 18th.
The particular paragraph objected
to says:
"Hunterdon County pays out large
sums of money for legal advice, but
despite the payment the Board of
Freeholders, under present control,
have gone astray legally and per-
formed many acts according to this
advice which have been criminal. Are
we going to permit this TO go on or
are we going to place the business
Of the cor.-'ty in the hands of proven
business men and have our county
run on a business basis where we
can expect a reasonable return for
the vast sums we are spending It's
Up to you, voter, to decide whether
VIC. shall step out from under the
woke, or follow the foolish prattIe of
some editors and stay under"
| beg to submit the following which
in part formed the basis for the
statement in the editorial.
1st.-- 1t was against the law for
the Board of Freeholders to enter
into contracts in excess of $4,000
without first advertising for bids,
but despite this fact;
On June 9TH, 1919, this law was
,ionted by ordering a bill pad to
Lambert & Kerr. of LamJe-tville, IN
excess CT $4,000;
Again on October 10th, 1919, by
ordering a bill paid for a purchase
from Lal tert & Kerr in excess OF
$4,000;
Again on November 9Th, 1919, by
ordering bill paid in excess Of
$4,000, for a purchase from Fox
Bros, of Clinton, N. ].
And also during the year 1919, sew
eral bills ordered paid in excess OF
$4,000 on which no bids were re-
ceived, to the Barrett Co., Lambert
vile Stone Quarry Co., Middlese,
Trap Rock and Mfg. Co.
Again at its meeting, held Apri
1st, 1920, there was ordered paid t.
the Art Metal Constr. Co., James
town, N. Y. $2,864.00 for work which
had not been advertised according t,
law.
Again at the same meeting ordered
paid to L. NJ. Nelson, Trenton
$37O0.Ob for Holbert Truck, not ad
vertised according to law
Again on June 3rd, 1920, to A.
During (recent Democratic candidat,
for Assembly, $685. far stone no
advertised according to law.
Again in the year 1915. . differ
ent accounts We're over expended
amounting to $43,269.72, one partic
ular account being salaries.
Again in the year 1920, II differ
ent accounts were over expended
amounting to $69, 746.13.
2nd.- The law is very clear re
garding the authority of the Boart
of Freeholders to borrfw money.
AT a meeting of the Board Feb
ruary goth, 1919, there was issuec
a note n anticipation of money!
from MQN Vehicle Fund classified
aSheiE Ssgst as miscellaneous rev
1ues, 1eas the laws of 1918 alb
SSolutely a}f@ibits borrowing agains
Athe recef }tN$ miscellaneous revenues
meeting December 18th, 1915
was again issued a note fol
s$30,0O0.00 in anticipation of none!
from the same miscellaneous fund
espite the law against it.
At a mEstng December 18th, 1915
Z h6te >8s& issued in anticipation o
Ses- despite the fact that the tim,
% borrowing in anticipation of take
expired,
aring tsR year 1919, there wa
HAsoWed INF anticipation of take
SD 100000 Or approximately 81 pc
ceszsof tbs. amount to be raised b.
tax AZ pa. Fdespite the fact that tn
Law provided that no County ma,
borrHN an amount in excess of 5,
per- to be raised by taxation.
AZ meeting January 9th, 1920
there Jas issued notes in anticipation
of-ta discounted by the Stenacl
Trustz3o., SfeHoboken, under al
agreeh&pt th& the proceeds were t.
be de kted in an active accoun
DRAWINGS pen cent. interests despit
the fact that the laws of 1918 re
quires that a note of this kind il
excess $50, 10000 must be adver
s '.::: '' :'' "''' it 's
Again ct Hraeeting held Angus
2eth, 1928 another note was ISSUED
under a similar agreement with tn,
Stomach T4nst Co., of Hoboken, alst
the proceeds from bond issue o,
$3.50, 90. were deposited with thu
Stomach Trast Co.
why wefe these deposits moi
made in Hunterdon Banks p
Again, the bond issue referred t.
was sold to the George B. Gibbons
Co., of New York, without advertis
ing, contrary Ito law
PresumabIyathe Board of Free.
holders acts in accordance with the
advice of its attorney, since he i:
paid 100000 per~year TO sdvist
them. If not, t3fn there is all the
more reason fo "a change in its mem
bership for it wonll be inexcusabIj
to pay that mYn for legal advice
and then not be{suiftd ty it,
In conclusion, ! wish to say, l an
making these statements of facts