The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-12-18
NJ EVAN ON WATER.
The Congressman Sends a
Long Communication to
Mayor Hoos.
WARNS AGAINST sYNDICATEs
His Honor Has Not Yet Taken Any
Action on the Last Plans and
Specifications.

days ago. The tendons have become
swollen and it is with the greatest diff
Guilty that he walks. He was advised
by his family physician. this morning, to
remain in bed. He did so. His Honor
will doubtless be out on Monday. The
Mayors unexpected illness has caused a
peculiar complication in relation to the
water specifications, which are before
him for final action.
The specifica tions as amended were off
cially submitted to the Mayor on Decem-
ber 8. The law gives him ten days in
which to act. The time for action ex
pires tomorrow. 1t has been, and is still,
contended by some people that if the
Mayor proposed taking any action on the
specifications he should have done so to-
day. The Mayor, on the other hand,
claims that he has been advised that
Monday is time enough for him to act.
From what could be learned a veto will
be forwarded to the Finance Board. 1t
is also said that it will be a caustic doc
ument. The Mayor takes the stand that
when the specifications were originally
sent MIN he declared, with some distinc-
tiveness, that he could not approve them
until certain changes, recommended by
him, were made. In only one particular
have the Mayors wishes been respected.
He, consequently, it is said, will veto
the specifications and keep on doing so
until his recommendations are adopted.
Until that is done, he argues, that it
will be useless to pass a contract, as he
will be unable to see his way clear to
approve contract made contrary to his
wishes.
All the officials interested in the MAX
ing of contract say that they have no
wish to oppose the Mayor, but hold that
they fail to see wherein his recommended
tions will give the city any greater pro-
lection than at present. The Mayors let
ter is being waited for with keen inter
est.
Congressman McEwan sent this letter to
Mayor Hoos, yesterday, on the water
question:
House of Representatives, U. s.,
Washington, Dec. l6, 1897.
Hon. Edward Hoos, Mayor of Jersey City,
Dear Sir-Recognizing the difficulties
and embarrassnents with which you have
to contend in the endeavor to arrive at a
proper solution of the water question, by
proceeding upon the only safe ground, as
regards the city's rights and interests, OF
fixed policy not to be departed from, |
think it my simple duty as citizen and
taxpayer of Jersey City to express my ap-
probation of the courage and firmness
with which you have met and will, l be-
lieve, finally defeat the cabal formed to
coerce you into approval OF its acts in
pursuance of the opposite policy-,wrong
and dangerous in itself, and condemned
by the verdict of the people, both at the
last mayoralty election and in the more
recent general election.
,rn M do6 1axrn xuhn n
were committed to the syndicate policy
long before. you became Mayor Of the
city, and who are determined, If ar
rogance and official insolence can effect
their purpose, to impose that policy upon
you, and through you upon the city, for
all time to come.
The adoption of a statesmanlike course
at your suggestion must reflect upon the
past record of incompetency stubbornness
or corruption.
The appointees of your predecessor
constitute a four-ffths majority of the
Board of Finance, and in the nature of
things have no sincere desire for set
tlement of the water question, however
advantageous it be to the city upon lines
that involve condemnation of the futile
methods of the last administration
In the second month of your term you
made reasonable and business-like prop
osition to the Water and Finance Boards,
looking to an effectual solution of the
problem of securing new water supply.
1t was that some eminent engineer, who
would command public confidence should
be selected, and that there be entrusted
to him the task of making a thorough
scientific investigation of the possibilities
of the water situation, and of celebrating
one or more definite schemes for the con-
struction of works, with estimates of cost
to serve as a basis for intelligent action
by the city authorities, in accordance with
the universal practice where cities of the
Importance of Jersey City have in contem-
ter works, or the making of a contract
for the construction of such works for it's
service, by private company, containing
as proviso an option of purchase.
The public has been given to under
stand that consent to the necessary ex-
penditure for the purpose was refused
in advance and persistently, by the mem
Ders of the Board of Finance, in those
informal conferences where the crafty
official can juggle with public duty with
out going upon record.
1t was confidently argued by these
gentlemen, and it was consideration
that had weight with the public, and ap-
parently also with the Water Board. that
power was not given the city under the
general statutes to raise money by the
sale of bonds to build works as the direct
owner; that they must be constructed by
some private company contracting under
the Act of April 2, 1888, to supply the
city with water, and that so little was
the city concerned with details, that any
expenditure fer an exhaustive investiga-
ton by experts of the methods and
sources of supply would be censurable,
This view governed the action of the
last administration, but as result of the
full and able discussion of the law
elected by my letter to you on the SUBJ
ject June 28, 1897 it has been disproved,
in the opinion Of the best legal minds in
the community.
The act of April q, 1876. with the sup
Elementary legislation, it is now conceded
as was claimed by me, gives adequate
power to Jersey City, If accepted, to con-
struct works and acquire water sup
ply commensurate with it's needs, with
out necessitating the agency in the mat
ter of a private water company
1t is generally known that to satisfy
public opinion, which was then misin-
possibly, therefore, impatient of such
delay as would result from the nainten-
ance of deadlock between the Mayor on
one side of this question and the two
boards on the other, you conceded your
approval of a resolution providing for the
preparation of specifications for water
contract under the act of 1885, adding
sented should be submitted by you to the
criticism of an expert engineer
The specifications so prepared have been
pronounced upon by the able engineer
tMr- ]. ]. Croes), to whom they were
submitted, thus
There has been no attempt made to
treat the subject in a broad and COM
ing for the city the most effective and
economical results"
This requirement of comprehensivenes
is incompatible with the rule applied by
the New Jersey Supreme Court to a for
fner set of specifications fer Jersey City's
water supply, thus:
No contract can be upheld under pro-