The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-05-18
-FOUR PROPOSALS FAVORED
Water Board Divided and
Financiers and Mayor
Have Ideas Of
Their Own.
Allan. McDern1ott Aldvises
that the Inman Com
pany's Bid Be Con-
sidered.

Engineer Garwood Ferris, the Street
and Water Boards adviser in the water
matter had a long talk with Mayor Hoos
this morning. Mr.. Ferris also conferred
with Commissioner Nolan.
Now that the several companies have
made answer to the claims of the East
Jersey Water Company. relative to its (
rights in the Rockaway River watershed,
Mayor Hoos is anxious to have the prob
lem disposed Of Corporation Counsel
McDermott has filed the several answers
with the Street and Water Commissions
ers, and he is willing to explain anything
about them the officials may desire
Engineer Vermeule has not been seen
about City Hall for more than three
weeks. Mr.. Vermeule, it is said, made
himself slightly unpopular by favoring
plan which was not approved by ma
jority of the Street and Water Board.
Mayor Hoos said it is the duty of the
officials to dispose of the water question
without further delay He is ready to
act now He also calls attention to the
fact that the competing companies want
something done as quickly as possible.
so that they may recover and have the
use of the 100000 deposited, with their
bids in February last. An award would
have been made before this, it IS said,
had it been possible to obtain the votes
of Messrs. Heintze, and Boltwood. Those
gentlemen do not like the plan Hauck.
Nolan and Smith favor. The Finance
Board does not like the plan which the
majority of the Street and Water Com
nltssioners approve, and Mayor Hoos, II
is reported has a different plan from all
the others to favor. Conferences are TO
be arranged next week.
1t is predicted that owing to the vast
difference of opinion as to which plan IS
most desirable, the proposals, viii be
pigeon-holed and new bids ultimately adj
vertised for.
Tnis Afternoon Corporation Counsel Nc
Dermott sent to Mayor Hoos, the Finance
ana Street and Water Commissioners
pamphlets containing the answers of the
several water companies in relation TO
the rights in the RoclSaway watershed
claimed by the East Jersey Company
through the Morris Canal Company. With
the letters is an opinion from Mr.. Nc
Dermott dealing with the several propo-
sitions. After summarizing the bids he
writes:-'So far as the protest or the
Canal Company relates TO water thar
reaches the Rockaway River I do nor
consider it worthy of your attention. The
only issue to be decided is whether the
storage of water in the proposed reservoir
will interfere with the Canal Company in
obtaining a supply for its operation.
1T will be seen by the figures presented
by the bidders that the Morris Canal has
outlived its usefulness and there is good
ground for the expressed belief that its
operation has been continued because OF
its existing or contended for relations to
the supplying of this city with water.
The attempt to prevent the Canal Com
pany, as a corporation DESTROYS OF pro-
tecting rights and discharging great
duties to the State, would be ludierous If
the power to condemn the antiquity could
be found in our statutes. This power
does not exist.
Il have concluded that it would be un-
wise for me to now express an opinion
upon the legality of an award to any
bidder, or to pass upon the protest of the
Canal Company, and that it would be
equally unwise for you to refuse a con-
tract to any bidder because of that pro-
test. My advice is that you award q
contract to that party which, in your
Judgment, is for the best interest of the
city. In the matter of the bid made Dy
the 1nnan Company I advise that this
bid be given the same consideration as
the others.