New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-06
IN FAVOR OF Mr.. ZIEGLER.
CHAPIN'S POLITICAL HOPES A
HARD BLOW.
UNANIMOUS DEcI SION AFFIRMING THE ORDER
RESTRAINING THE BROOKLYN AUTHoM-
TIES FROM BUYING OUT THE LONG
ISLAND WATER SUPPLY COMPANY.

ISLAND WATER SUPPLY COMPANY.
lBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBusEI
Albany, May 5.-Mayor Chaplin, of Brooklyn,
received another hard blow to-day, and his
chances of being nominated for Governor by the
Democrats this fall are less than ever before.
This blow to his political prospects is in the
shape of an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals in the Water Works case. 1t will be
remembered that Mayor Chaplin suIreptitlously
attempted to purchase for the city of Brooklyn the
property and franchises of the Long Island Water
supply Company, at price, 81 ,25o, 900, far beyond
the real value of the property. William Ziegler,
a patriotic citizen of Brooklyn, brought suit
10 restrain the Mayor from concentrating the
purchase Mr. Ziegler's action was sustained by
the Supreme Court, and now it is sustained by the
Court of Appeals.
The opinion was delivered by Judge Finch, all
the judges concurring. The injunction order Of
the court below is affirmed with costs;
1t is conceded that we cannot review the order OF
nom purchasing the property and franchises Of the
Long Island Water supply Company II the complaint
taxpayer Of Brooklyn, TO prevent such purchase as
being Illegal and unauthorized and amounting to
q proper and reasonable exercise OF discretion on me
part the court to restrain The purchase pending htga
lion in aid Of the plaintiffs remedy. Unless we are
able TO see examination Of the complaint that he
is clearly and certainly not entitled TO the ultimate
mon that proposition, and with frank ackpowledg
msn thet the appellants can only succeed by salts
bng that the plaintiff has suffered no acuonable
wrong and is entitled to no equitable relief VI
In so Tar as the complaint is founded upon allie
cations of waste, the appellants appear 10 be right in
their assertion that of action is pleaded for
while the complaint alleges the meditated payment OF
an extravagant price and states facts which are
claimed TO indicate want OF prudence and good ludg
ment ON the part OF the Mayor ana MS ass1ciaes 3ee
possibility of explanation and criticism, and the com
plant contains averment OF frand or coluslon or
had a a
We have quite recently declined to become arbi-
in every instance OF disageeng opinions conflicting
judgments. and have decided that, in questions OF he
aeon ike S ta before us only Where Some fraud
collision or bad faith is alleged and proved ral-
ever on behalf OF the plaintiff that the complaint
contain allegations OF fraud on the part OF the Water
supply Company; and syermentS that IL induced the
defendant officials TO contract for the purchase by
with intent TO deceive as TO the revenue OF. the COM
pany it's earnings, and the value of the stock
But tho action authorized by Section 1925 of the
Code is which taxpayer may bring against pub
lie officer because OF some fraud or bad faith on his
Intended mode OF putting an incapable or conhding
Official under the protecting guardianship OF the court
and Of making him ward in chanoeTy TO be shielded
nom the effects of his own folly. to enable tax,
payer 10 try question Of fraud between the ohcer and
est sta and faithful no suit against him is needed The
taxpayer may explain 10 him facts and discover TO MN
and means Of redress are at hand 1t is only when in
the face Of explanation and knowledge he still refuses
that AZ, action against him is needed and then it rests
upon his misconduct, upon his collision and fraud
The Legislature could not have intended that the
courts should supply intelligence and prudence to
incapable officials at the demand of the taxpayer Dut
manfesty did intend to give better proteca0 against
dishonesty or fraud by municipal agents Ihe acu0n,
therefore. only be maintained, II at all, upon the
further ground that the contemplated purchase oy
the Mayor and his associates ie beyond thelr aIopi
that avernlent There is no disagreement as 10 the
ted is claimed
the Annexation Act which merged the town OF New
Lots in the city of Brooklyn laws OF 1856, chapter
1851. Section 5 Of that act reads thus:
"The Mayor Controller and Auditor of the city OF
Brooklyn hereby authorized for and In the name
Of the city Of Brooklyn to purchase the reservoir we'll
machinery, pipes franchise and all other property on
agreed upon by the said officers and by the said com
pany, by its board Of directors, who are hereby
and in case the said parties shall unable agree
upon price for the purchase and sale OF the SAD
property franchises by the right of eminent domain
Is hereby expressly delegated to said city OF BrooKS;
and said officers, in the name OF and Tor the sad
city, within two years may proceed to acquire and
are required for the ACQUIRING OF additional lana lOr
railway purposes by corporations framed under t me
such property, when thus purchased and acquired,
shall thereupon become and be a part Of the water
supply property Of said city, but 1t shall be held SUB
ject TO two mortgages, now on said property each
made TO secure the sum Of 10000 and Interest o.
we may better judge between the two opposing con
etructons which have been preSened FOR or GU ra
else letter of the enactment while the other seeks TO
evolve its real spirit and meagng o Inc sGy Gi one ne
the other pervades the whole section. ana calls 10
its aid the light furnished by the surrounding ccum
The defendants claim that it confers general and
unlimited authority to purchase the properly Oh + sf
and the plaintiff insists that the act contemplated
ness, and one which. if unsuccessful could
he hes uh fSPT tSe law Of em@en dcma and that aG
toy did not and could not oTn1 the two my years
allowed for these Sc pEoGeengs erm Inc iaer Is 0 III
Some reference TO the situation Of the respective
paes at the date Of the ia M af me s
Ing. The city had its own system OF wafer worAs;
with ample SS 70 emeen domain for the purpose
of taking land extinguishng water rights when ~
win right 10 absorb the Nassau Water Company.
That company Incorporated in 1922 for the Pnr
pose Of supplying The ely o. ~ 0S9 6o
for nearly oneha Of which the city was authorized 10
banbe; % was vested Ten i sntbo2ze ef tbe
city, at any time within twenty YEAR
70 and hold the entire c,Ssv e1 I5a in S NIX
20 per cent premium In leSs te m9ae nS OF Ysssan
Sn was Shangs nr The Their to take for
stocks par and per cent from the date Oh lsS T
authorized to s Sn erc Ser S made Water
Commissioners Of the city, and me TghI oi en t
domain possessed 9y t iSat rTt was explicitly given
and the extension Of the mains ana the colstTuCuo1
OF new works authorized and the revision Oh 1909
repeats the provisions. , l.. 49,. ,,. s,ood a
the date of the annexation of NewL Lots, empowered u
extend its mains through the annexed district SIu
armed with authority 10 condemn lan OF Msei mt
renderd necessary by the extension IL at tnat
time it had already absorbed the Nassau Wafer ON
pany il did so unda acts winch h1eu lIle p IiDo "
te maid ano left no opportunity for extravaganza
o. waste But at the cate Of the "a, N2g Isand g
Watsr sunnIy Company whO' had been Incorporated
under the act Of 1873 81 Of ss sP haSer Sia
Tnder tbese Laws DermssiOn had been grahteu 70
@ 70 supply wd Gs ' STd % %s engaged in its
Performance The proposal TO annex INC Town Oh
SewIots to Brooklyn had in it clements Oh Gaagg T
70 the water supply CompanA ~ Gle n. l Grrn S,in