The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-01-23

3.
Company, $7,s5o,ooo The latter company
was awarded the contract because in
connection with its bid it had agreed to
supply more water than called for in the
specifications.
Mayor Wanser declines to discuss the
subject He says he has not seen the
opinion and does not know what points
were upset. Until he has seen the de-
cision he will remain silent.
4 Corporation Counsel Blair was seen in
his Office by News reporter
''It is probable he said, sthat the
case will be carried to the higher courts
1t is my opinion that the water supply
agitation will stop right here. The set
ting aside of the contract seems to me to
be an unfortunate thing for the city. So
many objections were made and so many
obstacles put in the path of this award
that l doubt if the officials will take
up the. matter again. To get a supply
| INV tAC Wliol6 llllilS Will nave ~ bt
forced on the people. There must be /.
remedy, but it will never be made until
people are so disgusted that they will
consent to the making of contract.
"One point of the Court. understand,
| is that the company exceeded the speci-
| fications by offering a stored supply of 250
days when only 100 days supply was called
| for. We took the ground that the offer
complied with the specifications, and also
went further and gave US water for $50
more days than we called for. The cost
was not any more because of the increased
supply.
| Another point was that the company
would have no right to condemn the
| lands of the Morris Canal Company.
"Still another was that the charter re-
| quires an award to be made to the lowest
bidder. We took the ground that under
the laws of 1885, which are sweeping that
awards could be made to the company Of
fering the most advantageous terms.
''The constitutionality of the law under
which the award was made is upheld.
'sI can but think that the ruling of the
| Court is unfortunate for Jersey City.
We were going to get splendid supply
at a reasonable COST
| Street and Water Commissioner Hooker
said:-''This is a great loss to the city.
The Jersey City Water Company offered
this city a plant which would have had
no equal in this country. 1t would seem
as though people do not want water and
1 do not know that ] care to pass. through
again what I did in trying to get this
supply. If Passaic water is considered
good enough, all right, but property own
ers may rest assured that never again
will they have an opportunity to get
supply of water such as was offered us
this time for less than $S.Oo0,o 900.
There were objections raised to this
contract for personal reasons by people
who were not in my estimation looking
out for the interests of the city. So
far as 1 am concerned, my vote will
never go to buy the supply the Rocka-
way and Hudson Company offered us.
That supply in a few years will be just
as bad as what we are getting at pres
ent by reason of sewage"
Ex-President John Macarthur. of the
Street and Water Board. said
1.-THE city is now in the hands of Gar
=, he
wants, not what we want. This city will
never again get such an offer from any
company The idea of getting the plant we
were offered for S. 100000 was chance
people should have jumped at rather than
be led astray by people interested in other
schemes. not intended for the city's good"
City Attorney Weart is very much dis
appointed. He thinks the city has lost
an elegant chance of procuring an un-
limited supply of pure and wholesome
water.
Colonel Asa w. Dickinson said that he
had received word simply informing him
of the decision. but knew very little of
the grounds
appeal from the secisi0n?" said Mr..
James B. vredenburgh of counsel for
the Jersey City Water Company. wait
until we read over the decision and have
a consultation, and then I'll tell you. 1
don't know what it says.
Mr. E. f. C. Young remarked that he
was not surprised. The Supreme Court
had invariably ruled against contracts
where the sum was not the lowest bid
PEQUANNoCK SUPPLY.
The supply of Pequannock yesterday |
was 9.722.504 gallons Today It was a