The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-12-10
JER1YN n
AND
MAYFIELD
WATER WAR IN JERMYN BOROUGH.
Complete History OF Long. Con.
ued Local Controversy.

ued Local Controversy.
Contempt of court proceedings are not
the altogether improbable outcome OF
the faulty legislation of the Jermyn
borough authorities. Through misin-
formation furnished by the secretary.
j. w. Grant, they were led to pay bill
against the direct orders of Judge
Gunster, and now the treasurer's S
bondsmen are out $1,000 and the bor-
ough officials have Jail staring them in
the face.
Ten years ago the people of Jermyn
commenced an agitation for water
works, realizing that the undermining
of the town would soon sap their wells
and feeling that the growth of the town
and especially the increasing density
of the settlements in the center of the
village warranted them in providing
fire protection. The matter was dis
cussed in the councils but the borough
authorities had to confess that the town
could not then go to the expense which
such an Improvement would call for.
Thereupon company was formed by
some of the wealthy property holders
and water works established. cOun-
ellis gladly granting the necessary fran
chises. The company went to great eX-
pensc in building reservoirs and piping
water and were just about to realize
something from the investment when
new company sprang up and secured
franchises for supplying water The
old company had been charging SS a
year for water, but just before the ad-
vent of the new company, lowered its
price to Sc, feeling that it could do
this since its money was commencing
to earn something. The new company
offered to furnish water for s. and cs-
cured many subscriptions on live-year
contracts. The old company immedi
ately dropped its price to 81 year and
bid to supply the borough hydrants for
$3.50. for which it had. before. been re-
ceiving SIS. it having learned that the
new company intended to put in a
$5 bid.
THE COMPANIES MERGED.
Thus the two companies fought for
about Il year. one night the old COM
pany's reservoir gate was opened and
the water let out. 1t had no water for
its subscribers and the only thing left
to do was to dicker with the new COM
panv. The new company had been
having its own bother because Of the
poor quality of the Mud Pond water it
was using and was perfectly willing tn
enter into an arrangements with its
old company swallowed the now one,
together with its bad water. and debts.
one item of the latter being $G0,J00
worth of bonds.
with competition out Of the way the
Jermyn and Rushbrook Water COM
pany, as 1t became titled. resumed work
on costly improvements contemplated
before competition arose: and by rea-
son of this expenditure and their en-
forced assumption of the other COM
panys debts it alleges that it was COM
PEELED to raise the water rates to their
original figure, SS. 1t also claims that
had not the council foStered the COM
petition against the old company it
would never have charged more than
sc, even with the costly new improve
ments. The additional 81 made neces-
sary by the debt which ii was COM
PEELED to assume, will be stricken off.
it says. when this debt is provided for,
or as soon as the company can see its
way clear to make reduction.
ANOTHER WAR.
Agitation was Immediately rife for a
borough water works and without
much if any consultation of the law
or the prophets an ordinance was pass
ed Jan. 81 1896. declaring for Il water
works and submitting the question to a
vote of the electors. The election was
held March u, and 416 voted for the
bonding of the borough and 81 voted
against the bonding of the borough" >"
Council proceeded Immediately to bond
the borough for $4,000 and contracted
with Howell & Blanchard, of Pittston
to have an artesian well, from which
it was proposed to secure the water.
a clause of the water works ordinance
also condemned the Ridge Creek and
Rush brook that they might also be
converted into a supply for the borough
reservoirs.
In July last Simon Phillips. Conner s.
Davis. A. Cary. b. Carey, G. c. Geb
hardt. A. f.. Gebhardt. George Nc
Loughln, John McCloskey. James
Scutt, Patrick Loughney. John Lough-
ney NJ. J. Shield, Michael Muldoon,
Patrick Feeney. John McClosKey. jr,
John Jermyn, the Delaware and Hud-
son Canal company. the Northern Coal
and Iron company and the Moosic Pow
der company secured an injunction re-
straining the borough from proceed
ing. In the bill of complaint 1t was al
legged: First, that the proposed issue
of bonds was Illegal because, contrary
to the act of 1874. it provided for an
increase beyond two per cent. of the
assessed valuation; secondly. because
the condemnation of Ridge Creek and
Rush Brook would do a great and ire
parable injury to the Forest Creek
Mining company and the Jermyn and
Rush Brook Water company. which
were respectively utilizing the none too
sufficient supply of those streams. the
plaintiffs further alleging that costly
damage suits would result from such
condemnation; thirdly. the election was
void because instead of voting "the
debt may be increased" as prescribed
in such cases by statute. the votes were
cast for bonding the borough
TAKEN INTO COURT.
Judge Gunster in the September
term of common pleas declared that
the proposed issue of bonds was clearly
without authority and decreed cond-
tionally in favor Of the plaintiffs. Dur
ing the November term he made the
decree absolute and handed down a
lengthy opinion giving his grounds for
the same.
On Nov. "a, day or two before the
latter ruling was made. j. w. Grant.
the borough secretary, came into court
with petition signed only by himself,
asking that court 50 modify its former
ruling that the borough might pay for
tHt VI tnt dIltSlu1l wen, WHICH
cost $2.l0l. Judge Gunster granted a
rule returnable Dec. > to show cause
why the modification should not be
made. The next day the Scranton Re-
publican erroneOusly stated that the
petition had been granted and upon
the strength of this and the represent
tations of the aforesaid Grant the
treasurer paid the boring bill, provision
for which was made by the sale of
$500 worth of bonds.
BONDHOLDERS PROTECTED.
When the petition came up for con-
sideration Dec. 8, Judge Gunster un-
hesitatingly wrote across its face 'peti-
toner has no standing and rule is dis
charged
When Judge Gunster's attention was
called to the cOntemptuous action of
Grant and the borough treasurer, he
iseIIpl an amendment to his ruling de-