The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-02-03

TRIANGULAR DUEL.
Efforts to Figure Out the
Relations of the Par
ties to the Water
Deal.
NEWARE's "poUND- OF FLESH"
Joseph coult Thinks East jerseys
Letter Fair Row Much Water
May Be Taken From
pequannock.
NEWARK's "poUND- OF FLESH"


The letter of Engineer. Hersehel to En-
gineer Sherrerd on the subject of New
ark's water supply. published in tine
News of Monday, was in direct reply
to the following note:-
Clemens Herschel Engineer East Jersey
Dear Sir-You are hereby notified thai
the city of Newark does not consider the
stand taken by your company, in moi
Foir work of 1896 q part of Newark's
water plant, compatible with your pres
ent and evident intended draught from
the watershed, and unless some definite
unders standing is arrived at about the
present status of affairs. the city will
take steps to enforce its rights under the
yours respectfully,
IN. R. SHERRERD.
City Engineer"
When Mr.. Herschels letter was made
public in Newark an attempt was made
to interview President Stainsby of the
Street and Water Board of that city. He
refused to talk
1t is understood that the Board is not
so anxious about the amount of water
that the East jersey Company is draw
ing from the Pequannoek watershed as
1t is about the plans of the Canistear
reservoir that the company is expected,
under it's contract. to furnish to the
Board of Works
Commissioner Van Duyne, after reading
the letter. said that the East Jersey
Company's superintendent was undoubt-
edly right when he claimed that Newark
was entitled, under the contract, TO
draw only 27.50o,O00 gallons on any one
day.
But what we fear he continued, sig
that NeWark's allowance will be endan-
gered if the East Jersey people make a
contract with Jersey City to furnish The
entire supply of that city until it's reser-
yoir is built.
IF the Water Company had drawn 50. :
000,000 gallons day in the dry season of
few years ago there is no doubt that
the supply would have been exhausted.
we may have to enjoin the company from
furnishing supply to Jersey City that
Will make the total in excess of so. 200 900
gallons day. And we want to give fair
warning to Jersey City before she makes
her contract"
have understood p continued Mr.. Van
Duyne that the whole Pequannock wa
tershed is TO belong to Newark and 1
want no doubt on that score. I can't see
now the Canistear reservoir and Macopin
intake do not come within the con-
company Couldn't fulfill its contract with
out them.''
Joseph Coult was City Counsel of New
ark at the time the water contract was
mace with the East jersey Water Com
pany. Everybody in Newark agrees that
upon that contract he is better oualifjed to
speak than any other man. Since the lat
est letter to Engineer Sherrerd he has
oeen consulted by city authorities with
regard to the assertions made in It,
10 my mind, he said, ''the letter is
TAM Collins & Corbin have evidently
counseHed the water company upon the
matters set forth. Apparently they have
closely examined the contract, and the
contents of that letter is a result of that
examination.
Newark is not at all affected The
is as to the drawing of the 50 900. 900 GAL
Ions daily. The citys draught of water is
matter OF contract, that is, up to 1900
After that it is a matter of condemnation
and clearly Collins & Corbin had in view
IN cqupseling the company, that clause Of
the contract which gives the company the
right to divest and Inpound so, 100000 gall
Ions daily Of Pequanneck River water.
Up to 1900 we have the right ITO draw
Y, 5000 600 gallons. AS have said, that is a
matter of contract. All the excess of the
condemned water belongs until 1900 to the
Water Company. Then it comes into the
ownership Of Newark. Now, the question
Is, and this is the new point -
is the company now entitled, and shall
we be entitled after 1900 to draw just 5O.-
600 600 gallons daily no more, at any rate
or that average?
Tt appears from this letter that Collins
Corbin have concluded THAT an aver
age Of 50000,000 gallons is what is meant
That Isl that the company and the city
after 1900 will be entitled to 365 times
50,o00.0O0 gallons annually.
The company maintains that this is
the. sense Of the contract. Clearly it is
to NeWark's interest to believe NAT, for
II the company makes that interpret ation
the city need not fear, after 1900. if on
come day it draws as many as $4,000, 900
gallons provided it only draws an aver
age in the year of 50,0O0,000 gallons daily.
The company, OF it's own motion, ac-
cepts this interpretation. It must make
that Interpretation good. Therefore, New
arks position is cleared up and 1t APP
pears that in that contract we builded
better. than we knew,
Mr. Corbin's letter. said a gentleman
who refused to allow the use of his name,
but Who is thoroughly familiar with the
facts, amused me a great deal. Mr.. Cor
bin said that the contract of his company
with Newark provided that Newark
should get II 900 gallons daily up to
190os and that during 1896 the draught Of
water for Newark, Jersey City and the
small towns was only 45,000,000 gallons la
DAY. Now, Mr.. Corbin does not men,
ton the fact that since winter set in the
draft upon the Pequannock watersheds
+ by Jersey City and Newark alone has
averaged over 30 900 gallons day, and
diem. Now, iti is also interesting to note
that the defense of the East Jersey Water
Company against certain suits brought by
mill owners, alleging that the company
{ is Infringing upon their water supply. is
that the company only draws 10000 600
gallons per diem, and that amount Of
water taken daily does not injure the
rights of mill owners
1T would seem to me a very Interesting
point Of law to determine whether thew
mean an average daily consumption Of
tfon of that number of gallons daily.
Again, If two cities such as Newark and
j Jersey City use more than $4,000 900 gal
Ions per diem, how much more do the
Nutley, Montclair, Kearny and the New
York and New Jersey Water Company
and certain other small concerns draw
from the Pequannock water supply? If il
is shown in these suits that mill owners
are injured by the withdrawal of a far
larger amount of water than is supposed
to: be taken from the watershed, what will
be the effect upon the interests Of the
cities getting their water supplies from
this company?
However, am not saying that these
difncultie6 may not be overcome but
want to fsay that the city should watch
Its interests very closely and not allow
the company to endanger the future
source bf water supply by withdrawing
too mueh water from these watersheds
for Other cfties.'
The Newark Evening News" discusses
East Jerseys claims as follows 81
Az was generally supposed! that the
ast eEseg gompasy 8 S1| AZ, only obtained water