Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1923-04-18
FRAUD DENIED
IN LAND DEAL
0uSted Highway Commission
ers, Collins and Ferris, File
Answers in Case
AMB0Y BRIDGE LAND
Say Company Insisted That
$3.50, 900 be Paid for Land
For Bridge Approach

TRENTON. April 1s.-Denying
any knowledge of fraud in connec-
tion with the payment of $230,00O
for the approaches to the Arnboy
bridge, and declaring that they
acted in perfect good faith and In
conformity with their best belief, in
voting to purchase the property in
question from the Dcnnell Lumber
Company, John Ferris of Jersey City
and Thomas Z. Collins of Elizabeth,
two of the ousted state highway
commissioners, have filed answers to
the suit which the attorney general
has brought in the chancery court
involving the Amboy bridge matter.
This proceeding was started at the
instance of Governor Silzer, in an ef-
fort to recover whatever it is found
was the excess paid by the state to
the Donnell Lumber Company for
Its property. 1t has been claimed
the property was originally ap-
praised at $4,000.
The Republican legislative probe
committee will commence its inyesti-
cation into this transaction here next
Monday. The attorney general will
direct that inquiry. too. Colonel
Walter f. Whittemore of Sussex
county was the first OF the members
or the former commission to make
a reply to the chancely court suit.
he uenied any knowledge of fraud
too, as do Messrs. Ferris and Col
Inns. the Ferris answer was flied by
his legal advisers, the firm O.
Treacy and Milton. end Mr.. Collins
replied through the attorneys he had
retained to defend his acts, Linda
Ih1ry, Depue & t'aulks However
the answers of both men are prac-
tically identical in thought and
praseology and read, as follows:
His every motive and action in
and in relation TO the acquisition by
the state of New Jersey of the prop
erty OF the w. j. Donnell Lumber
Company, described in such in
formation was had and taken hv hin,
In absolute good faith and the ut
most integrity.
Each such action was taken by
him as a public officer in. the ex-
ercise of public duty under one or
more of the public statutes of the
state of New Jersey. Each such ac~
tion was taken in performance of
such duty which constituted a ju-
G1cial action of such an officer.
Throughout all of the actions
complained of referred to in such in
formation, he acted for what he be-
lieved and was convinced to be for
the best interests of the state of New
/ Jersey.
AT the time such property was
purchased he was credibly Informed
and believed and still believes that
the acquisition of ali such property
was necessary and desirable for the
I,roper and economical building and
maintenance of such state highway
route No. 4, and such is the fact.
There was authority for the State
Highway Commission to purchase
all of the said property for the state
of New Jersey and the attorney gem
eral OF the said state had so advised
the said commission before such
| purchase was made. This defendant
voted for the purchase of such prop
erty at the price of s230,000 in re-
lance upon such advice and in the
belief and conviction that the ac-
QUESTION of all thereof was neces-
| sary and desirable fer the construc-
ton and maintenance of such state
highway route, and that the acquisi-
ton thereof through condemnation
proceedings would cost the state OF
New Jersey an amount in excess of
such sum-"