The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-09-16
which he will make public tomorrow.
THE MAYORS LETTER.


THE MAYORS LETTER.
In addition to what the Mayor said in
his interview with a News" reporter,
he has forwarded to the Board of FL
nance the following letter.
MAYORS OFFICE. CITY HALL,
Jersey City, September 16, 1895.
To the Honorable Board of Finance OF
Jersey City. N. j.
resolutions adopted by your Board at
your meeting of September 6, 1898, ana
presented to me for official action on
September 9. 1885, relating to new
water supply. the one awarding a con-
tract to the Jersey City Water Company
for a supply by the million gallons for
TWENTY-FIVE (25) years, with the option
contained in the proposal to purchase
the plant. etc. if the people so vote; and
the other for a one years supply of water
by the million gallons by contract with
the East Jersey Water Coms1ny.
The resolution awarding contract for
a new water supply to the Jersey City
Water Company being the more impor-
tant as to whether 1 sign it or veto it.
gives me the occasion to say that the
mere fact that the resolution is before me
is evidence that the attempt to get new
water supply has gone through the de-
velopments incident to large and impor-
tant municipal undertakings. with the
usual resistance always met with in such
matters, and is now left for me to de-
eide
The people have had the question so
continuously before them that they can
recall all the various conditions which
have surmounted the efforts to bring
about its settlement.
Upon the reception of the recent bids
and before any conclusion was reached
by the Board of Street and Water Com
missioners. the question became so con-
fused in the public mind by the attitude
of the two newspapers in their discus
sion of it. and by the issuance of the un-
official letter of four members of the
Board of Finance, that it is more difficult
to set the public right as to my position
and the reasons therefor than it is TO
dispose of the matter in my own mind.
The public are entitled t9 know. and
am entitled to have them remember. that
the city officials cannot bond the city
for the new water supply. The laws bear
ing upon their course in this matter give
them the right to purchase water by the
gallon only. but permit the voters to set
tie the question for or against the
purchase of the water works. etc, at
the price named. in the option contained
in the contract by the majority nf their
suffrages ON either side of that question
when submitted to them az a general 9
special election.
The statement of this fact disposes OF
all the unnecessary criticisms that the
officials were increasing the debt of the
city in any amount by the making OF
this contract. and demonstrates how
much more valueless is the criticism
which makes a comparison OF the option
price of sale between a contractors Of
fer which was not selec-a1 and the cc.1-
tractors offer which was.
I have had published IN the two local
daily newspapers during the last four
days of the week ending September IA,
1eo- = ,o+;oa o1-,1o;pipr +b,t +1,a o;A1r re
ficials could only buy measured water.
and that the people by their votes are
the sole authority intrusted by law to
decide the question of purchasing the
works which supply the water by the
gallon. 1 trust that there will be no
further attempts made to state that the
officials are issuing or about to issue
bonds creating an additional permanent
debt All that the city officials can do
is to obligate the city to pay for as many
gallons of water as 1t buys and to in
crease the water rents. or taxes, or both.
if necessary. to meet the yearly bills for
measured water 1t must be remembered
that any argument as to the merits
of the recent proposals for a new water
supply submitted to the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners on July l.
1895. could have been made with any
emphasis before that Board. as they
were charged with the duty of making
the selection; when the award was made
ard came before the Board of Finance
the argument was reduced to the ques-
ton of the advisability of concurrence,
and the argument before me is reduced
posed contract is advantageous to the
city This has not been the method of
treating the question by those who
have been SO much in evidence i'll this
matter. Their plan has been to threaten
the Board Of Street and Water Comnlis-
sioners in order to force them to award
the contract to the Rockaway and Hud-
son Water Company. and to forestall
the action of the Board of Finance by
obtaining an unofficial approval of that
company's plan before decisive action on
the part of the Board of Street and Wa
ter Commissioners. And when the
award was made to the Jersey City
Water Company by that Board. was
concurred in by the Board of Finance,