New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-05-18
THE AOUEDTCT BJLL

If Governor Cleveland acts wisely he will
veto the Aqueduct bill now awaiting his APP
prOval. A committee OF prominent citizens Will
present to him to-day their objections to the
measure. The Governor cannot do better than
follow the advice of that committee.
There are strong constitutional arguments
against the validity of the bill. IL is question
able whether the Legislature has the power 70
name the Aqueduct Commissioners. 1t can confer
upon officers already i'll existence the power
to build new aQueduct, but it is an unsettled
constitutional question whether it can do more
than "drectn how any now officers shall be
elected or appointed. This is too important "a
matter for the city to take any great risk upon.
We do not want an Aqueduct Board composed
of three city officials, two of whom are com
mitted to the Quaker Dam project. NoOne knows
what would be the cost OF that dam. But
if it is begun, and large sum OF money spent
upon it this year, as will be the case If Com
missioner Thompson has his way, then 1T Will
have to be finished, or a great deal of money
will be entirely wasted. The city needs a
greater supply of water, but the want is not
so pressing that it can afford to take the risk
imposed upon it 10y this bill, which is defective
in several ways.
If the Public Works Department had been
as intent upon meeting the need for more
water as in securing the power TO e1pend
$2O,O00,0O0 or more of public money, the
water supply would have been increased be-
fore this time. In a report made in 1879,
Allan Campbell, who was then Commissioner
of Public Works, said that, if a bill then be-
lore the Legislature became law. i'll less than
three years 2O,000,000 gallons of water
would be added TO the daily supply of the
city, by means of the Bronx River conduit.
The Republican Legislature passed the act.
Four years have elapsed, and that work is not
much over half finished, while its cost will
nearly double the original estimate. Commits
sioncr Thompson is principally responsible for
that delay and extra cost. Does the city want
TO trust the same man with extraordinary
powers in building new aqueduct2 If the bill
now before the Governor becomes a law, that
is likely to he its effect.
No sufficient efforts have been made
by the Public Works Department to
prevent waste. When Governor Cornell
vetoed the Aqueduct bill passed in 1881, he
called attention to that fact. Some years ago
Liverpool was threatened with a water fam
Inc. Inc supply nau DccOne 81 HcdSro lllnJ
the people could only obtain water at certain
hours of the day. Energetic efforts were
made TO suppress waste. With an outlay
OF less than $250,000 u deficient and made
quate flow of water was converted in
a few months into an ample supply.
The same thing could be done in New York
The Chief Engineer of the Department OF
Public Works has given it as his opinion that
the present supply is sufficient if waste is
stopped.
The city can much better afford to wait
another year than to attempt to build new
aqueduct under the bill passed by the last
Legislature III the interest of partisan politics.
One of the most responsible contractors
in the country said before the Mayors
Water Commission that he would give
$1,OO0.OO0 bonds to build the new aqueduct
within two years and not exceed the estimate
per mile made by the Commission. In regard
to the Quaker Dam he could make no esti-
mate.
Considering these facts, we do not see how
the Governor will be able to approve the job
bling measure passed by the last Legislature.
He cannot consistently do so trusting to
future Legislature to perfect it. And if he
approves the bill III the interest of corrupt
partisan Ideal LIE will forfeit the respect of