The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-05-10

requested to advertise again, for pro-
posals upon plans 50 simple and broad
as to permit the widest competition.
The first portion Of the report thaI
Messrs. Jones and Hardenbergh would
not countenance is that which says,
1--WE desire to express our high appreci-
alton of the intelligence and energy dis
played by the Street and Water Com
missioners, and for the great labor they
ter"
tive features in the proposition Of the
Jersey City Water Company and last.
ly, 1.-THE freeness from contamination OF
the area drained. the quality Of the
water offered and the manifest ability OF
those making the offer to carry it out. !"
1t is said that Messrs. Jones and Har-
denbergh want specifications prepared
by competent engineer and no par
ticular water shed made preferable, an and
last, such opportunities extended to. bid
ders as will enable all contractors to
have fair chance to bid. 1,->
The minority report of Messrs- Jones
and Hardenbergh sets forth why they
would not concur 4ater in the award to the
1t is as follows
The resolution adopted by the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners on
the twenty-ninth instant, awarding the
contract for furnishing the new water
supply to Jersey City to the Jersey
City Water COMPANY which has been
it is submitted should be non-concurred
in for the following reasons:-
First-We agree with the declaration
mittee of the Whole of the Street and
Water Board in favor of acquiring THE
best water at the cheapest price"
QUESTION of the Rockaway watershed is
an important factor in the consideration
of a Gew water supply for every city
should therefore be acquired without fur
ther delay. But the watershed embraced
in the proposal of the Jersey City Water
Company is less than one-third of the
entire shed, while an adequate provision
for Jersey City would require the en-
tire shed of one hundred and eighteen
sured supply 1t IS therefore evident that
the Jersey City Water Company's re
stricted watershed would not come up
to the future requirements of the popu-
lation of Jersey City, and could not be
depended upon to furnish sufficient
supply.
In the annual report of the Geological
Survey for 1890, the average flow of the
Rockaway River at Boonton in the driest
months of a dry year, occurring about
mated at twenty cubic feet per second,
or 100000 gallons per day.
Third--The estimates of engineers and
contractors convince us that the prices
asked by the Jersey City Water Com
pany are excessive. Other companies,
claiming to own vested water rights;
above Boonton, with a double pipe line
and consequently more reliable service,
at a price that would make large say
ing to Jersey City when compared with
the bid of the Jersey City Water Com
pany.
Fourth4The opinion given by the. Cor
poration Counsel to the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners on the twen-
ty-seventh instant is to the effect that
formal bids: after being duly received,
cannot lawfully be amended or altered.
Such being the case, the Jersey City
Water Company's proposal should not
be accepted, aside from any other OBJ.
the watershed offered by that company
would not. without important additions,
furnish a sufficient supply for the future
requirements of Jersey City. To. award
a contract to that company on its pro-
posal, modified by subsequent assur-
ances or .stipulations, would clearly be
members of this board must not be ex-
pected to assume the responsibility.
For all of the above reasons we can
luton of the Board of Street and Water
| 9i'iiia5iGi tract to the jersey city Water Com
Both reports were ordered spread in
| full on the minutes, and then the reso-
! luton of non-concurrence was read and
passed
The only. member of the board who
would discuss the situation after the
meeting was Commissioner Detwiller. He
said
s'The city officials heard the formal and
informal bidders, and reports were pub
lished and sent broadcast that the bid
of the Jersey City Water Company was
too high, 1t was represented that other
| responsible companies would and could
give a better plant for less money and
on a safer basis to Jersey CITY. In view
of these circumstances l could not vote
| to concur. 1 would like to see the. Street
and Water Board readvertise for bids,
and if the check of 100000 is oppres-
4 t.-;,r In, tho hos tn fho
conclusion that we are uncertain about
what we want, why remove it, and
allow everyone to bid, and then let the
| city select the cheapest and best plan