The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-07-18
SUGAR And WATER
Argument on the Injunction
Suit Brought By the Am
erioan Refining Go.
CASE FOR THE conPLAIHANqS
Mr.. McDermott Contends
That the Officials Had No
Right to Make the
Agreement.
CASE FOR THE ConpLAlNANTS

show cause why the Mayor and Aldermen
Of Jersey City should not be restained
from cutting off the water supplied TO the
American Sugar Refining Conpany's fac
tories, at the foot of Washington street,
was heard before Chancellor McGill, this
morning. Counselor w. d. Edwards rep-
resented the Sugar House, and Mr.. Allan
L. McDermott the city.
Mr.. Edwards. in reciting the facts in
the bill for injunction, said that for many
years the Sugar House Company had
taken water from the city to the extent
Of $4,000 annually. Prior to April, 1897,
the company had paid for water to the
city, 67k cents for every 1000 cubic feet,
or about $50 for every million gallons.
After that time the Street and Water
Board jumped up the rate of the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company seventy-one
cents per 1000 cubic feet, or 500 per NIL
A lion gallons.
A Conference. Mr.. Edwards said, took
place in the Mayors Office, etween the
counsel for the company. the Mayor ana
City officials, on the question OF the M
creased tax, the Sugar House agreed 70
pay $18, 903 accrued taxes without Htlgatlon
and the city agreed to put the rare PACK
to its old figure, $50 per l,GV0,VVJ galioSis.
The SIS, 9G3 was paid accordingly.
In spite of that agreement the city mad
refused to allow the lower rate and
threatened to cut OFF the water supply
unless the arrearages were paid, The
Sugar House was ready to pay the wv,
but not the 800. The latter rate was eH-
cessive and beyond what any otner con-
sumner paid and for that reason 1t was
unjust and the city ought to be prevented
from doing any act to hamper the busl-
ness of the American Sugar REFINING Com
pany. 80
point was that the officials had no power
to vary or rescind the water rates. It
was a question whether the Street ana
Water Board could change the rate Anqer
the charter. Coming to the objection
raised by the Sugar Company that the
rates We're inequitable, counsel sarcastic
caliy said
this Court to fix an equitable sum to be
taxed for water in this city. It would pc
a relief to us if your Honor would say
what rates are to be charged for water.
journalistic attacks on inequalities III the
water department, when one party Is IN
and the other was out, would cease ana
the millennium would be at hand. LII your
Honor could fix the rate why not apply
the same thing to taxation2"
Perfect equality in the case of water
tax, counsel said, in this city could only
be obtained by a meter as with gas.
What would be the result II the Court
continued this Injunction? Shall It pc
said that any consumer OF water shoula
the Court2 How is the Court TO ascer-
tain the proper rate? The charge would
change every year and + depends on
the adjustment by the city. not for the
MANAGEMENT of the water works, but Tor
the citvfs debt. The complainants should
have invoked the power Of the supreme
Court and not the Court OF Snancefy.
.aThere is no equity disclosed IN the
BILL continued Mr.. McDefnlott. The
coInplainants do not condemn our meth
Is DDS Of collections. They a0nt say we are
not empowered to cut off the wafer which
ist a method of collection; but merely
claims that our rate is excessive.
The compliments, Mr.. McDermott con-
tinued. cannot say that if the city viii
charge them a certain rate they Will
take the water. The reduction affected
a~ne-fourth of the revenues of the depart
ment. What did the compliments give
in return for the $1S,903? Prompt pay
ment? The money was due. There was
no power, counsel emphasized, for the
Mayor and officials to reduce the water
rate to the Sugar House under the char
ter, which only allowed q reduction of
taxes. How long would that reduction
last? The resolution to permit the re-
duction was not an agreement by any
means and didn't bind the city, The Off
Gals can't fix the water rates of the
city to collect back taxes for an indefinite
period. The act of the officials was clear
" ultra wires. A nice state of things
would result # they could 90 So So - +ha+
Section 81. of the Charter, gave the Of
fciaIs the right to fix the rate, and con-
sequently the agreement in the case OF
the Sugar House was proper and legal.
The officials recognized tho fact that the
SUGAR Company was paying 26 per cent.
too much for their water. and therefore
a conference was held. When the agree
merit was reached in November. 1897, the
cheek for S18. 903, without litigation was
paid. There was nothing said IN that
agreement about the other railroad COM
panies coming in. They had not com
/, planned: the Sugar Refining Company had.
The contract was for three years, and the
' City should live up to its word.
How do you fix three years when there
lie mo time SnnpiiQdHt asked the lhancSl-
lor.
Mr.. Edwards said that having accepted
the money paid the Board had a right 10
make an agreement.
!" We were entitled to your money, ln-
terposed Mr.. McDermott.
"No, you We're not replied Mr.. Ed
wards, who insisted that the charges
were then under litigation because the
/ rate was unjust. AS to the power of the
Court to intervene the case of the Sugar
House had peculiar equities He contend
2 ed that the resembling of the resolution
would only affect the Sugar Refining
aThe Board resumed Mr.. Edwards
had a right to make the reduction in
! the case where there was Indebtedness,
AS to the application for the writ OF
certiorari to the Supreme Court the com
pany withheld Its application until the
f.Court of Chancery decided.
.Who said that?" asked the Chancellor.
= Justice Garrison so advised u.s.
Did he say why?' asked the Chan
4 A1AACt
Eyes, on account of the equities arising
out of the agreement replied Mr.. Ed
wards.
rs there a provision in the law to cut
off water?' asked the Chancellor.
M, but the rules of the Board permit
them to do So" replied Mr.. McDermott,
and the rights to do 50 have been sus-
tanned by the courts. The city has done
it for twenty-five years
"It is the most eficacious method to
assume said the Chancellor.
81 don't think the Court should look at
The Chancellor cited the case of Day
ton against Quigley of Trenton in which
the Court held it was unjustiiiable to
shut eff the water and indure the party.
Mr.. McDermott held that that subject
was not the main thing in this case,
which was to prevent the city from chang
ing its rate as it deemed proper and to
nut the Sugar Refining Company into one
class and other consumers into another
In taking the papers, the bill and the
cityss motion to strike it out. the Chan
celor said that II was a matter which
ought to be speedily determined. An opin-
Inv, will ho ha fk]Hd down in n week.