The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-01-24
{ / R 4 !!
TAB DECISION
tull Text of Justice Van
Sycke1's Opinion in the
Water Case.
WHY COM RIA TISSET ASIDE
Board Csrno, Consider a Bid
Which Does Not Closely
Follow Specifications.
MORE LEGISLATION NEEDED
Morris Canal Rights Must Give
Way TO the Public Health
and Safety.
MORE LEGISLATION NEEDED
Special to the jersey Citv Ne,cs.

Special to the JERSEY City Neics.
of the Supreme Court setting aside the
contract to the Jersey City Water Com
pany for a new supply of water was in
great demand in the office of Clerk Lee
this morning. All the counsel interested
in the case were anxious to obtain the full
text of the decision and copies were at
a premium. This is the full text of the
opinion
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
NOVEMBER TERM, 1891
CERTIoRx-I.
Mayor, etc. Of Jersey City ana The
Jersey City Water Company.
The State. Morris Canal & Banking
Co. ct al VS.. The same.
The State, Montclair Water Company
VS.. The Same.
The State, John wheelihan. VS.. The
Same.
The State, Horace H. Farrier, vs.. The
same.
The State, The Rockaway and Hudson
Company, VS.. The Same.
These cases we're argued together at
Depge, Van Syckel and Gummere. F.
". Stevens. Esq, Messrs. Collins & Cor
bin. Allan l.. McDermott, Esq, Messrs.
Dickinssn. Thompson & McMastera for
Ger Weart, Esq, VIM. D.. Guthrie,
Esq, j. B. Vredeniburgh, ESD, and
and Messrs: Wallis, Edwards & Bum
stead, for defendants.
SYLLABUS.
L The act of 1883 P. Laws, p. S66) is
constitutional. and authorizes Jersey City
to contract for a water supply.
2. The charter of the Morris Canal and
the fact that its water rights are held
for a quasi public use furnish no insur-
mountable obstacle to the appropriation
CT such rights to the uses of the State
for the preservation of the public health
ard safety, upon just compensation be-
ing made; but the right to condemn
must be clearly granted by the Legisla-
ture.
8. The act of 1895 (P. Laws, p. 1852 does
not authorize the water rights granted
by charter to said canal to be condemned
hlC VI 0CiSCt 01lY. -
4. In the absence of fraud, or palpable
abuse of discretion on the part of the
municipal authorities, the only question
for judicial cognizance is, whether there
has been any violation of legal princi-
pies, or the neglect of any prescribed
~forTnalities in entering into the water
contract.
5. A contract for water supply must be
awarded to the responsible bidder, who
offers the most advantageous terms, and
proposals must be advertised for.
6. Bidders must have an opportunity to
compete, ard that can be afforded only
by eini specifications, to which all
bidders can conform.
z. Bids having been expressly invited
upon the condition that the contractor
should provide reservoirs capable of
storing a water supply for one hundred
days delivery at the rate of fifty mil
lions of gallons per diem, the contract
was not lawfully awarded to one of the
bidders for the reason that it offered to
provide a storage capacity sufficient for
two hundred and fifty days.
The opinion of the Court was delivered
ny VAN Oychef, j.
The writs are prosecuted for the pur-
pose of revising the award of a contract
by Jersey City to the Jersey City Water
Company for the supply of pure water
to Jersey City for a term of twenty-five
years.
Three questions upon which in the judg-
ment of the Court the case turns will be
considered.
/. Is the act of 1888. p. ses, constitu-
tional?
1t provides, THAT it shall be lawful for
the Board of Aldermen. Common Council
City Council, Aqueduct Board Board OF
Publ Works, Water Commissioner
Township Committee. Town Committee
or other Board, body or department OF
any municipal corporation in this State
having the charge or control of the
water supply of any such municipal cor
poration, to make and enter into a con
tract or agreement. Pro
vided, that in any municipal corporation
having a Board of Public Works and Z
Board of Finance and Taxation, If thu
contract and agreement be made ant
entered into by any such Board of Pubic
Works it shall not be binding upon sucf
mun icipal corporation until the same shall
have been approved by such Board O.
Finance and Taxation
Jersey City. at the time this act wa
passed, was the only city in the Stat
which had a Board of Public Works. AM
also a, Board of Finance and Taxation
1t is therefore insisted that this proviso
which applies only to Jersey City, make
the act special and local.
This act was not designed to effect an.
obonoa nor does 1T in any resnect chang,