Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-03-07

NO soNp ISSUE WITHOUT OPEN SPECIFICATIONS
Senator Parry may we'll demand a showdown on the
mari of the legislature in connection with the proposed S4o,-
100000 bond issue to complete the state highway system
The Essex senator goes into the proposition thoroughly ana
laws before the people facts that the average person is not
likely to dig out for himself, but which will cause him to
think twice before he readily agrees TO the plan that is now
proposed.
Two pertinent questions are asked by Senator Parry.
In the first place he wants to know why the bond bill should
become a law without there being a law on the statute
books which will require open specifications Tor ROAD paw
ing to safeguard public interests. Also, are the advantages
10 he obtained from the bond issue sufficient to offset the
loss of 1927. 900, 900 to be paid by the state in interest
charges?
For two consecutive years now, the Republican party
has pledged, in its platform, legislation providing for open
Z specifications in all road paving contracts. But the patent
pavement interests seem to have a strangle hold on the
party for nothing was done to provide open specifications
last year and the bills that have been introduced this year
have been buried in committee. Gust think" says Senator
Parry, "of the rich and juicy pickings the patented paving
crowd would have in New Jersey if this road bond issue
went through without the safeguard of an open specifca-
ton law, similar to the rule of the United States Depart
ment of Agriculture in its federal road work.
Senator Parry is right. Without open specifications there
should be no bond issue.
But Senator parry's second question raises doubt as to
the ACCESSIBILITY of a bond issue under any circumstance.
$40 900, 900 bond issue means 1910 900 interests
charges for which the state gets no pavement at all. In other|
words. under the bond issue it will cost the taxpayers OF
Tho state s67. 900 900 to get $40, 600, 900 worth of pave
ment.
The argument put up in favor of the bond issue is
that the state highway system can then be completed IN
five wears. But under the pay-as-you-go plan, Delng the
state tax system which is now in vogue, 1T is esuHateu
that it would take about seven years to complete the sys-
lem. Is it worth S27, 600, 900 to the taxpayers to have the
state road system finished two years before 1T otherwise
would be completed?
There are other arguments that enter into the matter,
such as the cost of maintaining the present roads as COM
pared with the small upkeep cost of the more permanent
roads. but Senator Parry shows that the upkeepo of the old
10 complete the highway system under the pay-as-you-so
plan would be but So, 900, 900 which still leaves S25,OOO,-
900 saving in interest charges.
But bond issue or no bond issue; there is no reason why
New Jersey should continue to be handed over completely
to the patented pavement crowd. The present law does not
permit competition with the patented material even is pub
lie officials were disposed to have it. Senator Parrys bill
saws there must be competition. There is still another Dill
pending, introduced by Senator Roberts, of Burlington,
which says there may be competition. Either is better than
the existing law, but Senator Parry's is much to be pre-
serred. 1t is in line with the laws that are in force in some
Of the leading states in the Union, as far as highways are
concerned.
This matter of open specifications must be settled by
The legislature before the state is committed to a bond issue.
TO ignore the open specifications bill after promising such
legislation for two years, and, at the same time, provide
for issuing bonds for $40, 600, 900 for paving the state high
ways, is only to invite certain defeat for the latter PROPOSE
ton when it comes before the people on referendum as re-
quired by the constitution.