The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-01-26
RAFTER R|DDLED.
Engineer Vermeule Pulver-
ICES the Board of
Trade Special
Pleader.
IGNORANT, STUPID, BIASSED.
City Specifications Defended
and Crank Criticisms Ut
terly Exploded.
STATE SUPPLY SCHEME IMPOSSIBLE
Huge Difficulty in the Way Of the
City Building "A Wholly
New Problem.
STATE SUPPLY SCHEME IMPOSSIBLE

N0W 11OUlCms
Mr.. C. G. Vermeule has completed his
reply to the report of Who-Is-Rafter
upon the present water contract, and it
will be read at the Board of Trade meet
ing tomorrow evening Fair play de-
mands the admission that Mr.. Vermeule
does not leave enough of Rafter to make
fair sized pair of ears for a donkey.
The point in view, from which Mr..
Vermeule approaches the subject, is
shown by these extracts from different
parts of his paper
IT had not intended to appear before
you to urge that this or any other con-
tract shall be made. / have never urged
1t. Gentlemen, you may be surprised to
learn that up to this moment not one of
you knows whether l approve or disap-
prove of the proposed contract. You have
not taken the trouble to find out. Such
approval or disapproval lies wholly with
in the discretion of the two Boards and
the Mayor. 1t must be based on broader
considerations than mere engineering
questions. have never attempted to
usurp the functions of the city govern
If we consider that the question is one
of general expediency, is business
rather than an engineering proposition,
no more weight than Mr.. Rafters or the
opinion Of any other private citizen:
Some misguided persons seem to have
assumed that 1 have urged the city. to
make this contract now under discussion.
Nothing IS further from the truth. My
province as consulting engineer has been
simply to answer engineering questions
and keep the officials informed there
upon
whole best to accept the bid, to readver-
tise. or to endeavor to obtain legislation,
issue bonds and build the works. What
object to is not the opposition to the
proposed contract. but the ground for
that opposition
This is Mr.. vermeule's frst shot at
Expert Rafter:-
will first say a word as to the stand
point from which Mr.. Rafter views the.
specifications and the general subject.
The engineer for the city was not in
structed to tell the Legislature of the
State of New Jersey what its duties were
or to report on new legislation. He was
instructed to confer with the law officers
of the city, and draw specifications
which would enable the city to proceed
within its present legal powers. Mr..
Rafter, happy man. is not limited in any
such way. Although he is reporting as
an engineer. and criticising the work of
an engineer who has worked under these
conditions and restrictions, he sweeps
them all aside from his lofty point of
view as a man of affairs whom he quite
naturally believes has fair modicum of
common sense Why was it necessary
for him to assert SO conspicuously that
he is not biased?"
Next comes the discussion as to the
sl1ic.ency of the supply offered
my critics to determine whether they APP
prove or dssapprove of my report on wa
Ter supply from which they draw most
of their data An attempt was made to
use this report in the certiorari case to
prove ins,aifiiciency ,a Ct the the water shed;
of the case. Mr.. Rafter has adopted their
later arguments. The answer is in my
In that case ssa AIhoDgh he he
Court with reams of expert knowledge
intending to show the impossibility of
as warer are one If no s
pert knowledge which will enable US 10
pronounce with any confidence that the
pal scheme vas entrusted was not well
founded. Now after such full discus
sion is t worth while to appeal this case
Mr.. yermeule next explodes the at
tempt to adopt the old Hopatcong rain
fall record, discontinued thirty years
ago, as a standard. Mr.. vermeule con-
cludes:-
"on such distorted facts rests re-
markable attempt to dispose, after a
reached after years of careful study. and
twenty years of intimate knowledge of
q district do not believe Mr. Rafter
time to this absurd argument, except to
say that to supply so millions gallons daily
from the 6e.4 square miles of drainage
area requires $4,000 gallons daily from
each square mile After sixty years of
experience with the Croton watershed, a
number @ Of able engineers have agreed
hat II<~@e 1<x.1x
can be collected therefrom Mr.. Rudolph
Herring. In his report on new water sup
ply for the city of Philadelphia, made in
1885, estimates that 82S 900 gallons daily
per square mile can be collected from the
NesEaminy and Perkiomen Rivers This
is sufficient to show that my conclusions
are well supported by the opinions of en-
gineers at least as competent as Mr.. Raj
ter.
Next comes the alleged jndefiniteness Of
the Specifications in respect to the num-
ber CT cond1its. Mr.. vermeule suggests
that he is. at least, as well able to tell
SIS Mr.. Rafter whether he meant to af-
He says:
1T is true. that I might, like YER
bose lawyer, have in every case used the
word conduit or conduits' instead of
merely the plural but did not and do
not consider it necessary or helpful
And again:
while we are on this point let US
take UP the contention that this alleged
uncertainty was a disadvantage to any
bidder who nnisinterpreted IT. The best
effect 1t actually had on the bids. The
Rockaway and Hudson Company bid
from practically the same source as that
erv at BERGEN. but while the accepted
works offer 10S00 million gallons storage,