The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-01-23
THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL
WHAT CITY OFFICIALS SAY
Possibilities of an Appeal Dis
cussed Mayor wanser
Declines 10 Speak.

Word reached the city this afternoon
that the Supreme Court had decided to
set aside the award of the permanent
water supply contract to the Jersey City
Water Company
The contract was by writ of certiorari
Canal and Banking Company. the East
Jersey Water Company. the Rockaway
and Hudson Water Company. the Board
of Trade and citizens committee. on
the primary ground that the contract
price of sthe Jersey City Water Company
was not the lowest bid. The Canal Com
pany objected because the company's 5
scheme contemplated condemning part
of the Morris Canal. and the other water
companies because their territorial rights
would be infringed
The Supreme Court ordered testimony
to be taken and several weeks were con-
sumed in hearing evidence from water
experts. engineers and everybody who
was supposed to know anything about
the subject. This was submitted to the
court on December and the argument
made before Justice Depue in Newark
the same month.
In sddition to the above grounds raised
Mr.. Allan G. McDermott for the citizens
contended that the law was unconstitu-
tional
The opinion of the Court. was fled
with Clerk B. F. Lee at Trenton this
morning. Judge Van Syckel drafted the
opinion; but both Judges Depue and
Gummere. who heard the case with him,
assented to the adverse conclusions
reached.
The Court holds that the act of 1895,
under which the company proposed to
condemn the water rights of the Norris
Canal is not valid for that purpose,
though it is granted that the Legislature
has power to pass an act which would
so operate.
The Court also holds that the Jersey
City Water Company was not the lowest.
bidder. The mere fact that it offered
a larger storage capacity than its com
petitors not being SUFFICIENT offset 70
the higher price charged.
The following is the syllabus of the
opinion
]. The act of 1888 is constitutional and
authorized Jersey City to contract for
water supply
2 The charter of the Morris Canal and
the fact that its water rights are held
for Quasi public use, furnish no insur-
mountable obstacle to the appropriation
Of such rights to the uses of the State
for the preservation of the public health
and safety, upon just compensation be-
ing made, but the right to condemn must
be clearly granted by the Legislature.
8. The act of 1895 does not authorize
the water rights granted by charter to
said canal to be condemned for the use
of Jersey City
Ain the absence of fraud or a palna-
bic abuse of discretion on the part of
the municipal authorities. the only cues
tion for judicial cognizanee is, whether
there has been any violation of legal
pr. .ncpies or the neglect Of any presented
formalities in entering into the water con-
tract
5.-A contract for water supply must
be awarded to the responsible bidder who
offers the most advantageous terms, and
proposals rnus- DO advertised for.
6-Bidders must have the opportunity
to compete and that can only be by
definite specifications to which the bid
ders can conform
These having been expressly indicated
in the condition that the bidders should
provide reservoirs capable of storing
water supply Of one hundred days de-
livery, at the rate Of fifty million gallons
per diem, the contract was not law
fully awarded to one of the bidders for
the reason that it offered to provide
storage capacity for 25o days
The bids which had been certiorarie6
to the Supreme Court were: The Rock
away and Hudson Water Company, 4
$, ,65o. 900; the East Jersey Water Com-s|
pany, s7.2so,Ooo, and the Jersey city waterll