The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-09-21
WATER IN COURT,
Judge Lippincott Listens
to the Argument in
the Certiorari
Proceedings.
FEW CITIZENS PRESENT
Judge Blair Defends the
City officials Who
Have Been
Attacked.
ALLAN M'DERM0TT'S NEW MOVE
He Assails the Constitutionality
of the Act Under Which
the Awards Were
Made.
MR.. VREDENBURGH'S CLEAR STATEMENT
He Presents the Claims of the
Jersey City Company-De-
cisIon Will BE Rem
dered Next Week.
Mr.. IREDENBURGHS CLEAR STATEMENT

The return of the rule to show cause
why a writ of certiorari to remove the
resolution awarding the contracts for a
temporary and permanent supply OF
water should not be removed into the
Supreme Court for review was made
before Justice Lippincott this morning
at the Court House. If the attendance
this morning is any criterion it car
safely be said that the citizens at large
are perfectly satisfied with the con
tracts. There were just ten people by
actual count in the seats in the body
of the court room, and three of these
were Counsellor William Brinkerhoff
Lebbeus Ward and Constable Zeller. In
SIDE the railing were many more, but
several of them We're lawyers engaged
in other cases.
The court room was entirely deserted
at five minutes before ten O'Clock
when ex-Judge Blair sauntered in with
a huge bundle of papers under his arm
He was soon followed by Counsellors
Charles C. Black and Henry V. Con-
dict, who represent the Hudson and
Rockaway Water Company. They were
soon followed by ex-City Treasurer Pat
rick Nugent. who came in behind ex-
Comptroller William C. Heppenheimer.
Mr. Heppenheimer was not interested in
water, but after he had made an ordi-
nary motion he waited to hear the argu-
nent.
Frank O. Cole and John W. Heck
slipped in and quietly took seats in a
retired corner and discussed the ques-
ton with Garret D. Van Reipen. Daniel
Lawrence and ex-Commissioner Stephen
Yoe were interested listeners to the ar
sument. Sheriff Toffey none the worse
apparently for having been robbed in
the house of his friends at Trenton, sat
opposite ex-Judge Seymour, whose face
was scantily clothed in the remnants of
the smile which spread over his face
when Griggs was nominated.
w. H Corbiu, one of the counsel of
the East Jersey Water Company, sat
next to ex-Judge Blair, and followed the
proceedings closely. President Thigh
man, Secretary Beldon, Engineer Van
Dyne, of the Jersey City Water Com
pany, came in during the proceedings
and took a seat in the audience, in
creasing the number to thirteen, an un-
lucky number for some one. as John
Denim remarked when he had counted
them.
The others inside the bar were George
Record, William Midlige, Henry Ewald,
Prosecutor Winfield. ex-Judge Rankin.
Charles H. Voorhees,, ex-Judge A. @.
Gar1epson, William A. Lewis, Jacob
weart, Willard C. Fisk and ex-Judge
William T. Hoffman
When the ordinary motions had been
disposed of Justice Lippincott said ne
would consider the return of the rule.
MR. THOMPSON OPENS.
Counsellor CharleS d. Thompson, who
obtained the rule, ON behalf of John
Wheelihan, opened the proceedings. He
read a number of affidavits. The first
w2s by Mr.. Wheehhan. 1t set forth
the circumstances of the advertising for
bids and the award of the contracts and
declared that the awards We're unlawful.
improvident and made in bad faith and
ought to be set aside for three reasons:-
First. because the contracts were not
awarded to the lowest bidder, and the
price which the city must pay for buy
ing the works is $3.50 coo. while the
price at which the works of the Hud-
son and Rockaway, with a much larger
water shed, was offered for s5,25o,00O.
Second, because the report of the Com
mittee of the Whole of the Street and
Water Board shows that the reason for
awarding the contract to the Jersey City
Company was that the company had Of
fered l50 days additional storage capaci-
ty. which had not been called for, ana
upon which there was consequently no
competition in the bidding. Such addi-
tional storage capacity could have been
supplied for a very small sum compared
with what has been added to the oid
therefor. Furthermore, such was not
contemplated in the specifications.
no in.ination Of it was published TO
bidders. and if the successful bidders
knew that it was desired by the Board
their information must have been secret
ly obtained.
Third. because two of the three mem
bers of the Board OF Finance who con-
CURED in the award declared in voting
THAI they. did not favor the bid of the
successful bidder. and that they did
not willingly concur in the award to the
successful bidder. but in fact. they did
so under co1npulsion. being Informed that
the Mayor would veto anN resolution
making any other award.
Fourth. the watershed included in the
plans of the successful company is
claimed to be about sixty-iive square
miles and is not more than that which
according to the report of the State
Geologist for the year 1894. will not af-
ford the required 5a.0o0.00o gallons per