New-York tribune., 1875-12-22
BROOKLYN LITIGATION.
THE HEMPSTEAD RESERVOIR COMPLAINT
SERVED

TO BIZ MADE-HIsT0RY OF TIiE RESERVOIR con-
TRaCr-ALLTGATroNs OF coLLUsioN BETWEEN
THE WATER BOARD AND THE CONTRACTORS AND
OF CORRUPT CONCERTED ACTION.
The papers in the first suit to be begun by
John Parsons acting for the Attorney against
the alleged members of the Brooklyn Ring were served
yesterday upon tho counsel OF the various persons i
pleaded No papers served in the OF tho Third
ave- sewer The complaint the matter of the Hampstead
Reservoir the only document thus FAR served ana Is
accompanied of the atdavits or evidence IL Is
voluninous paper of l3 closely written pages cmeody
ing Is different allegations, aad 1t is ncumDefed WIN
tho usual legal veroage which, however, 1t IA re-
Heved In the sylopsis OF the complaint, wmch VIII 10
found below. No arrests attachments IN the case
were made and members or the Taxpayers Association
stated yesterday that none would be made as Harvey
harrington active leader in the movement had
declined 20 be responsible for any part OF the bonds
necessary to secure OF arrest attachment and
Mr. khonse the President Of the Taxpayers Associa
ton declined 10 that responsibility alone rs
he had required do in former suits against he
Ring. In consequence, 1t was decided not 10 make
attachments arrests of any kind The papers were
quietly served upon tho attorneys Of the dofendantS
who received them without particular emotion or sur
prise.
The suit brought in tho name OF the people OF the
State OF New-York by Daniel Pratt, their AtoIneyGen
eral The first paragraphs Of the complaint recife
the origin Hemstead Reservoir the adoption ~ the
plan for the work, its approval by the Common council
the contract Of the Water Board with Kingsley heeney
and claim that the amount which this hrm wac
70 receive for the work Exceeded by nearly nan
a wion dollars the actual value Of tht
royt which WAS 10 le done 1t ia alleged that May s.
1870 an act was passed by the Common Council oi
Brooklyn directing the Board OF Water aLd sewerage
Commissioners to prepare plan Tor further extehuhs
the water works Of the city the construction of what
now known as the Hampstead Reservoir On Feb. lS
1871. the Common Council passed another act
directing tho same Board to proceed to carry
into effect the plan which had been submitted
limiting the expenditure for the RESERVOIR to Sl4oOOoo
TAe complaint alleges that these Two acts were lass'd
through influence of the members of the water boaTd
and OF Kingsley d Keeuey, who had confedelated to-
rther for that purpose On Jan g. the complaint rther
INSERTS q contract mado between the Water Board
and Kingsley h Keeney, by which the latter were 10
receive for the aggregate work. according to the schedule
OF prices submitted by thcm. over Sl,3374o whci
sum was however, reduced subsequently, to Sll5l'-
Is4 ls Tie latter amount has been paid TO kingsley
a. Keeney for the work done by them
The sixth paragraph alleges in the usual form OF such
documents that the Board OF Water and sewerage Com
nisiouers was bound faithfully truly, and honestly
administer the authority vested in them as sucb ano
In the next paragraph 1t is particularly alleged That t'
members of the Board knew that all contracts were
required by the Charter OF tho City OF Brookl!i
TO the lowest bidder after proposals had peeb
invited by publication. Further ON IN the complaint th
paragraph - 1t is alleged that the Board dld hot pun
ush any inv tatioI proposals. but on the contrary,
invited by otter otherwise, proposals only from per-
sons selected by them, and with whom there was an IN
derstanding that they would bid at pric-
somewhat larger than those to be submitted
by Kingsley & Keeney. The complaint got'
on To state that nevertheless one person
did bid at rices which would have made the aggregat
cost Of cservOir only 81 377 400. which WAS lower
than the 1unt of tine original bid OF Kingsley keenry
Tie conpl mt asserts that tic Board OF water WORK
communicated this fact to Kingsley Keeney, 80 as I"
.l,,co tlair IN L
complaint asserts was still $65O000 above the actual
value of the proposed work. and that aprrehensye tba
the extravaganza of their bid would be exposed King
ley & Kecney reduced it to $l1J1,1Si IS
In paragraph eight of tn" complaint appears the hrS'
charge Of eOlluson between the members OF the Wate
Hoard and the contractors. is formal In chaTactei
and says that n pursuance of scheme to whicI
all the said defendants were parties, tue purpose o.
which scheme was tb the defend ints, Kingsley
Keeuey should he permitted wrong ully to obtain large
Gums If money Of and out Of the City a.
Rrookyn" This corrupt scheme. the complain
asserts embraced not only the passage OF the acts o.
Nav s. ISL and Foh. Is. lS7l and the arrangements
with the by watch Kingsley ketney were 10 b
the lowest bidders but also enbraeedhe action, which
bas been frequently charged against the Water Board OF
drawing off aud wasting the waters of the water works
Of Brooklyn, 10 make II appear that the exist
ing supply insufficient, aud thus create al
opinion favorable to the construction of tne henpStead
Reservoir.
the complaint broadly asserts that all tie defendants
took par In procuring tho passage OF the two acts re-
ferred to- and that they t6e1 the matter ana 80
far as could be. arranged it, and there was an unhei-
standing them that the contract should ne gwen
10 Kingsley Keency prices above fair and reasoiaOe
prices Paragraph thirteen that the site OF the
Reservoir consisted In part OF previously existing ponds
or deposits OF water that by drawing on this water
the expenses OF excavatng the ground covered by IL
could De greatly reduced In order 10 justify Kingsley
fflufr aFitr al n 1 nj
ls4 49, the Board agreed 10 draw of this water at the
public expense The oard communicated this arrange
mept TO Kingsley Kecney. and it decided there
upon that the aggregate price bid should be reduced
Paragraph Ia reees tie familiar statement reitvetothe
estimate made by William Beard contractor who after
the contract Kingsley Keeney. and after the
work was begun. offered 70 build the Reservoir FOR
s73l 600. Paragraph 10 alleges that in furthernce o.
the scheme TO elar the receipts OF Kingsley keeney
from this contract Water Board greatly enlarged the
area Of the Reservoir increasing the quantities of ex-
cayatng 1t the prices originally bid by Kingsley d
Keenoy.
Paragraphs and II those in which corrupt con-
certed action charged the various defendants ana
they as follows:
That ali the Aforesaid acts of the defendants done
IN coacert between the defendants Fowler Lowoer ana
BIZ g. and the defendants Kingsley and keeney Win le
ants Kngsley and Koeney. wrongfuly to obtain such
lafge of the money OF the CITY Of BroChsn ana
" h tue expectation tns part OF the defendants
fowler ow bor aud Bliss Of benefits aud advantages TO
themselves, but whether such expected dement's ahu ad
manages pocuniary whether they were pOlnca
or Otherwise tine plaintiffs have not yet been able 10 as
certain. NJ. .,, ,. p,.s r ~.
sou OF liDc po itieal position, influence and con
troll ANA the obtaining and enjoyment thereof
oous. OF I2e1ey; and tnat IN addition 10
slch other benefits and advantages were expected by
the dcfendauts Fowler LOubeI, and Bliss ToIn the dc
PENDANTS Kingsley and Keeney there was the exp,eta
ton ON their part that from the moneys winch should be
ooht. ed by he