BLOCKING THE BRIDGE AT MILLTOWN

Freeholder DeHart Dodges Question About Award of the Contract on Bridge Company Plans.

The probe into the Milltown bridge contract award to Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Company, was commenced this morning before Supreme Court Commissioner James H. Van Cleef at his office. Testimony was taken on the writ of certiorari taken out by Charles A. Bloomfield. The morning was devoted to examining James DeHart, the chairman of the Milltown Bridge Committee, and Engineer Lehay, of the Public Service Corporation. The case was still on this afternoon.

Willard P. Voorhees represented Mr. Bloomfield. Alan H. Strong represented the county, with County Solicitor Willis. Judge J. Clarence Conover, of Freehold, appeared for Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Co., who have the contract for building the bridge.

“Do you think it fair to the bidder to invite bids on one set of plans and then award the contract according to another set of plans?” asked Lawyer Voorhees.

“All of the acts of the committee had to be ratified by the whole Board,” replied Mr. DeHart.

Mr. Voorhees inquired minutely into the award of the contract, which was made at the office of the Public Service Corporation in the Prudential Building at Newark on July 1. Freeholders Fountain, Jackson, and DeHart, with Engineer Dougherty, met Col. Hine and Engineer Lehay there that day. The engineers approved of the plan of Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Co., and it was approved there. Mr. DeHart was unable to point out the advantages of the plan selected, saying that he took the engineer’s word on that point.

He admitted on cross-examination that he had received a letter from the West Virginia Bridge Company, after the award of the contract, offering to build a bridge according to the Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Co. plans for $100 less than the contract price, $8,900, and that he had not reported this letter to the Board, as he had thought the incident closed. He said that he did not think a man would make a statement of that kind in earnest when he had not seen the plans.

He was followed on the stand by Engineer Lehay.

Among the Freeholders present at the hearing were Messrs. James DeHart, Arthur O’Neill, Asbury Fountain, Michael Concannon, Joseph Allgaier, and Mr. Rusher. Director Logan and Engineer Doughty, of the Somerville Freeholders, were also present as witnesses.

Freeholder DeHart testified that when the bids were opened the Board found that the bid of the West Virginia Bridge Company was the lowest. He had been advised against giving this company any work, he said. In Somerset County, the county had given a contract to this company and had had trouble with it and had been compelled to withdraw the work. Director Logan, of Somerset, he said, had warned him against this company. For that reason, the contract was not given to this company.

He held that the contract had been given to Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Co., because the plan which they had presented seemed to be superior to the plans which the county had adopted and which had been approved by the Public Service. Mr. Voorhees brought out in cross-examination that the county had invited plans which had been approved by the county and the Public Service Corporation, and that after bids had been received on these plans, the bids were not considered because Dean, Schweirs, Sutton & Co. had submitted a plan of their own which the Freeholders thought superior, as the weight seemed to be more evenly distributed and because it provided for concrete sidewalks.

Mr. DeHart explained that the Freeholders had at first intended to let the bidders in on an offer of the Public Service Corporation to sell scrap steel to the successful bidder at cost but had abandoned this plan because it did not think the arrangement fair to the bidders, as one might be located nearer to the steel than the other.