The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-02-14

nigh Valley Company cannot fulfill its
contract, but Newark viii lose nothing.
la paying 100000 they are paving
sS,OOO.OOO for property aud S3.OOO,OOO Tor
the claim OF the company to these waters.
II It should fail the COOL people OF New
ark Will be saved the burdens OF having
its debt doubled, aud they can arrange
with Jersey City for joint supply at
cost of one-third of what they are now
paying.
The DILL is a simple extension of a law
which has been on the statute book since
1876 That law allows city to condemn
the works which are supplying It with
water, but IL must condemn the whole
works. This bill allows them to condemn
a joint interest,""
1T is NOT A JERSEY CITY BILL
Mr.. James Fiemming read Mr.. Mul-
ione's bill and said thas 1t was just as
Important to the other cities OF the State
as we'll as to Jersey City. and it was
therefore not Jersey City bill, and any
attempt to narrow it down to that con-
lined scope was erroneous. Mr.. Mullone,
In framing the bill. had visited other
cities ard had made the bill universal
Mr.. FIemming claimed that the bill did
not injure Newark. and that IL was the
water syndicates that were against the
bill because IL was the first bill that had
been in the Legislature In the interest OF
the people for a number of years. All
Bartlett and the other scamps who want
ed to make merchandise of our waters.
Mr.. Flemming declared that iu con-
tracing for 50,000,0O0 Of gallons day
when she only used 15.000.000 gallons
day, Newark was dealing In futures
which, according to the law of the State,
Is a gambling transaction. Mr.. MulluHe's
bill, he said, seeks to pre- vent the absorp-
tion of any water shed in the State be-
cause, it says. IL the city takes more than
1t needs it must yield to any one who
wants the surplus.
suppose Jersey City had made the
contract with Bartlett when he was
anxious to make some arrangement with
us for the purpose of getting mis- water
through this city to New York, what
would Newark have doneg" Mr.. Flem-
ming asked, would she nos have done as
Jersey City is doing now2'
He showed how helpless city which
was dependent upon another for water
would be If the latter should refuse to
keep its contract, and cited the case of
Bayonne which Is dependent upon Jersey
City. He claimed that all this law did
was 10 save the weak from the strong by
allowing the smaller city TO come in and
condemn the rights.
NEW JERSEY OWNS THE WATER SHEDS.
Mr.. Mullone WAS the next speaker, and
said:--
II hold in the first place that New
Jersey is the owner of all the water sheds
of the State as she IL of the Repirian
rights, and ! don't believe that any pri-
vare company has right to buy up. In
the second place, don't believe this bill
will do Newark an injustice. The
Pequannock river is capable OF supplying
enough wafer for the counties of Passaic,
Union. Hudson aud Essex. and yet
under the contract Newark has made,
not one of the cities in those
n nf haS lt1u
without the consent of Newark, or, in
other words, the Bartlett water syndi-
cate. The men of Newark who are inter-
ested in the scheme. engineered itthrough
the Legislature by corrupt means. think
Newark would agree TO any reasonable
arrangement on this subject. but these
men who use the city as stool pigeon
will not let it do so.
This bill gives the cities of Hudson,
Essex. Union and Passaic the same rights
that Newark has under the contract. We
claim that there are other cities In New
Jersey than Newark which are entitled to
the surplus. The opposition 10 the bill Is
not Newark but the syndicate which Is
trying to force Jersey City 70 purchase
water from them. The blsl not only
gives us the right to a
share in the water. but IL gives
gives us The right to condemn auy water
shed. In other words 1t establishes the
Is
not what the fate of that bill will be.
Newark, or rather the schemers who are
using Newark, will oppose it. But IL a
strong effort is made by the citizens of
Jersey City it will pass. know the
Governor is in favor o. the bill"
There were calls for Senator Mcdonald,
who in response sald:-''rnis proposition
from our standpoint is a simple one.
Certain parties under the guise of
legality claim TO have secured
some rights from the Legisla-
ture which give them the control Of
our water supply. When We find our
supply of that necessity cut off we ap-
peal 10 that high power, the Legislature,
and ask them to undo that great wrong.
Fifty millions of gallons per day is a
great deal for Newark, with its great
brewery interests Why, that is enough
for city with population of 100000 and
means $50 gallous each day for every
man, woman and child in this State. We
know they don't need SO much and then
don't use it. They have right to say
how much they will consume and we
have the light to say that they shall not
deprive US OF our supply. Shall we be
deprived of our God-given right" he
asked, "because some one has cut it off
in the western counties"
NEWARK WILL NOT LOSE A RIGHT
The Senator endorsed Mr.. Flemming's
remarks, and said that the opponents to
the bill had no idea that Newark would
De deprived of any right, but they
wanted Jersey City to be placed at their
mercy through its future necessities.
Newark, he said. was a moral and high
toned city, yet in spite of its morality and
hightonedness it was the home OF more
schemes than any other city in New
Jersey.
The Senator claimed that if Newark
had the right to dam up river Jersey
City had the right to 60 above and take
from her. Both were wrong. he said. aud
two wrongs never make a right. He
thought that If the arguments which he
had heard there in favor of the bill were
repeated at Trenton the Legislature
would be convinced Of the justice of Jer-
sey City's claim. He himself would do
all he could to push the bill to d success
full issue.
Assemblyman Madden was called upon
10 address the meeting, but he declined,
saying that ne was nO5 educated up to
the water question; he was in another
line of business. Upon the suggestion of
the Chairman the following gentlemen
were selected as delegation 10 visit
Trenton Tuesday afternoon. when the
bill will be considered by the Committee
of the Whole in the House.
Commissioner John Kenny, William III.
Lewis, Martin Dewitt. Henry Rademau,
Henry Lembeck. James Flemming. W.
r. Cook, DIR. Isaac NJ. Quimby, Alderman
Hoos, Reuben Simpson, Frank Stevens,
l. b. Ward. George 4. Watson, Jacob