The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-04-24

at. n this being done the annual ex-
pense of the pumping process would have
to be borne by the sun of the wa.
ter, and the force of men employed al
the station would ono more become an
element of corruption in our politics as
they have been in the past. So much for
the one bid.
Regarding the proposal Of the Jersey
City Water Company, he impression
seems to a become general that it of.
| fered an insufficient supply capacity te
the city. Its water shed is deficient. we
| are given to Understandable is to say
it would not guarantee anything. So
100000 a day in dry season. Besides. il
| is said, it did not provide sufficient stor-
age area. Taken at their face value,
| these objections are valid enough and
would go far to justify the course taken
by the board.
But from the expressions of the board
itself, it is gathered that both of these
bidders were willing to greatly modify
their original offers in the interest OF
the city. They were willing to expand
their plans where found unsatisfactory.
to supplement them where incomplete.
They were willing. it is said, and the
boards own expressions give %corrobora-
ton to the statement, to bring their bids
in all respects up to the highest level of
the city's exactions without increasing
the price in any way.
In view of this liberal attitude on the
part of two bona 1de bidders, each of
whom had put $780, 600 forfeit to back its
engagements, we cannot but feel deep
ly disappointed at the action of the board.
Why. it may fairly be asked. were the
bid rejected until those supplementary
proposals a been received and on
sidered. If these supplementary features
brought the bids up to standard, why
should there be any rejection at all?
Why should not a contract have been
made?
These questions appear to us to be
simply unanswerable. as the case stands.
dent, Mr.. Macarthur. I'VE could not re-
orange the gravity bid to suit our own
ideas because it is a formal bid in answer
to advertisement"
Certainly the board could not rearrange
the bid, but why should not the bidder?
Why should not the bidder offer to throw
in an extra fifty miles of watershed or
an additional reservoir? Can there pos
sibiy be anything illegal in such an ar
~rangement?
However, Mr.. Macarthur tells what the
beard thought it could do. He says
1--WE thought it advisable to reject the
bids and state what we think should be
embodied IN a gravity supply and ask
for propositions thereon so that we can
modify them if need be, to meet u re-
quirements."
If the board thinks it has owe to act
in this way, we very respectfully refer
it to the opinion of Chancellor McGi1l,
endorsed by The Court of Errors and APP
peals, in the famous Jersey City gas con-
tract cases. We print the full text of this
important paper in our news columns
today. 1t disposes of the entire matter.
After reading it. the Commissioners will
make no further effort to pursue the
plan suggested yesterday.
And, now, where does the whole case
stand? Why, legally. just where it die
a. week ago. The action taken by the
| Committee of the Whole is not in law tbs
action of the board. There is to be a
| meeting tomorrow morning at which thai
action was to have been ratified. Pre-
! sumably no such ratification will take
| place. The board. however, has all the
opportunity it can desire to modify its
plan. It can still take up n consider
| the supplementary guarantees of the bona
ide bidders. Or it can order readvertise-
| ment for bids under the old specifications
| or under new ones, or it can drop tht
| whole subject and leave it for the neV
/ board. 1t can do anything in accord
| ance with law and for the public bene
| fit. Let us hope that wisdom will guide
SC daJiherafions