Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-09-30
DoDoINo ON THE BOND ISSUE

$40, 900, 900 bond issue for the state highway system, would
like the voters to forget all about the patent pavement issue
and the question Of open and closed specifications. In a
letter recently sent broadcast in This state the hackers Of the
association say: Neither adoption nor rejection of the high
way bond issue will solve the closed specifications and shut
out bidding evils. That is a legislative problem. The bond
issue is the voters problem"
That's lodging the question in great shape, isn't it?
Whether or not there shall be opened or closed specihca-
tons in bidding on new roads is a legislative problem, to be
sure. But the legislature, in spite of the pledges in the plat
form of the party in control, has repeatedly refused to enact
a law requiring open specifications. The patent pavement
bunch has carried on an active lobby against such legislation
tad this lobby has had enough influence at Trenton to pre-
Gent the party pledge being carried out.
On the other hand, this same patent pavement crowd
is heartily in favor of the $40, 900, 90 because they have
reason to believe that under the present regime the greater
part of the money will fall into their pockets. To get the
roads improved without being bled by the patent pavement
trust is very much the voters problem, the Good Roads AS
ISOLATION Notwithstanding, because it is the voters that have
to put up the money in the long run.
Another interesting statement in some of the propa-
ganda being sent out by the Good Roads Association is as
follows:
"In some quarters there is a disposition to becloud the
.ssue by injecting arguments for open specifications, or
patented pavement discussions. The pubic IS not 10 De
fooled by this camoufage, however, as they realize that
neither of these questions enter into the matter OF voting
yes for the bond bill in November. The other questions
are something for future legislation to take care or"
But what reason have we for thinking that future
legislation will take care of this question? For TWO years
the Republican party has pledged itself to pass a law pro
viding for open specifications. For two years a Dill 10 thaI
effect has been introduced in the legislature and Tor two
years this bill has never been brought out OF committee
There is every reason TO believe that the lobby OF the pa
tented pavement interests has succeeded in preventing TINS
legislation.
Some idea of what this means can be had from an ar
ticle in the Philadelphia North American showing by COM
parison the cost of a paving job in this state with that OF a
similar improvement in Pennsylvania, which state requires
open specifications and real competitive bidding.
"In June Of this year" the article runs, the ota'e
Highway Commission awarded a contract for two miles OF
road known as the Highland Park-Stelton road, in Middle
sex county, at a cost of 1905, 394.61, or at the rate OF $1oe,-
697 per mile.
SAT the same time the State of Pennsylvania built the
same kind of road, a so-caled Warrenite road, IN crawford
county. The Pennsylvania road is known as the East fa'r.
field and Wayne township road and runs for SGT miles. IL
constructed at a cost of $30S, y057.16, or at the rate OF
only 49,, $50 per mile.
"In fairness to New Jersey road grafters it should be
noted that there is a slight difference between the Pennsyl-
,on;o and the New jersey roads in width and in depth of the
hase d. But regardless of what difference there
may be between the width and the depth OF the ROADS IN 'e
two states, the square yard is the same in both states. ana
figured nv the square yard the cost Of two-inch Warrenlte
in pennsvl vania was only 81 IS on the road that cost $751;
$50 per mile as compared with $2.46 per square yard OF
w o-inch Warrenite on the road that cost S1oo'ooo per
mile in New Jersey.
srrhe exact tribute that the New Jersey road politicians
tberefore levied against the taxpayers on this one Warrenlte
lob zas sl.41 per square yard, the excess tribute IN New
Jersey being greater that the total cost In pennsylvania
There is no doubt that the great majority OF the people
in New Jersey want good roads. They do not like to be
robbed, however. The only legitimate reason that can be
given for deliberately refusing to pass an open specification
bill last year while at the same time passing the $4,000
600 bond issue bill is that it is intended to give the patent
pavement trust the benefit of the $40, 000, 900.
The defeat of the $780, 0 900 bond issue will not put
a stop to state highway Improvement. There are millions OF
dollars received through the state road tax every year, and
hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed by the fed
eral government, not to mention the income from the motor
vehicle department. So let nobody think that by voting
against the bond issue he is voting against good roads. The
work will go on and it would go on a great deal faster if the
vast sums paid to the patent pavement crowd in royalties
used for the benefit Of the taxpayers.
salph 1880 I+E- \