Year: 1872

CONTRACTS FOR WATER METEkS'


AN APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE PAYMENT OF


THE NAVARRO CLAIM DENIED


An application was recently maze 10 Juuso
Rarrett in the Supreme Court Chamoers' III OeH" VI
10 F Navarro for a mandamus 70 compel George NJ
g., Nort Commissioner Of Public Works, TO pay him
40 400 claimed TO be due by the city for water


o,ors delivered pursuant 10 contract entered
into with tho late Commissioner VIM NJ
Tweed. The application was opposeu ~
Mr Dean for the department on three GROUNDS prst'
that the authority 70 make the contract was illegal;
second that the act providing for the expense was m
roncr. and third that the contract was violation OF


otioD ,o ~ the Charter which substantially PROVIDES
that contracts made by heads OF Departments snail pe
founded ON sealed proposals, made IN compliance WIZ


ho notice duly advertised. Judge Barrett overruled
,h ar two objections but considered the third fatal TO
the applieation. In his decision he says:


The rator comedies that bids or proposals were in
vcd. that the terms Of the contract were not settled
bv the Corporation Counsek and that ne gave no Sc
e1rjtV for its faithful performance He claims that
these provisions Of the Charter have no application 10
patented article like his and that at all events the acts
above referred vest absolute discretion IN the Com


missioner OF Public Works The Court Is OF opinion that
the discretion thus conferred was not intended TO over
ride these provisions OF the Charter put tnat u was @
tied the introduction Of the system and the reslena
ton OF the pattern OF the water meter There is nothng
section lOi of the Charter Repeal ey imPneau9n On
justify the opposite inference For II must De conslu
cred that upon the streteSt Interpretation great

will water could be placed In every store work
shop hotel mandatory, stable, and place OF business
in the city and the entire thereof charged as
lien upon the property 1t is not fair TO conclude tha
the Legislature intended TO impose upon the owners OF
property whatever sum the Commissioner might choose
10 paw for the article thus thrust upon them. IL surely
The more reasonable construction that the property
owners upon whom this expense was 20 be cast,
should not be deprived Of Whatever protection was
afforded them by the existing provisions OF law,
aud by those wholesome checks on eXtraYagdn Xpen-
diture which 10 deemed wise TO engratt on our
Charter These considerations are not affected by the
fact that this patented article. The relatOr en-
loved no monopoly OF water meters as matter o TACT
competition possible for his chosen from among
a. different STYLES The is not therefore, parallel
with those cited by the counsel for the relator Nor
would the application of secOn10i OF the Charter work
disastrous results cOntended for namely OF oDsng
the Commissioner meter offered by the lowest
bidder however inferior in quality and utility The act
expressly provides for such contingency, for while the
Commissioner cannot arbitrarily choose particular ar
tele he designate the general pattern which alone
ne will approve Of that is the form, STYLE dimensions


materials TO be used ana the result which must De Ob-
tanned. He is also plainly authorized 70 reject any
meter which, quote the language OF the act is not
suitable for the purpose This last objection IS there
fore, well taken, and the application Tor a manuamus
be denied.