New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-17
TAKING REFUGE IN DENIAL.
AN ANSWER IN THE WATER SCANDAL.


BROOKLYN OFFICIALS TRY TO CLEAR THEM
SELVES OF THE CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT.
Almct F. jerks. Corporation Counsel Of brooklyn,
Yesterday served upon William J. GaynOr his answer
in behalf OF Mayor Chaplin, Controller Jackson and
Auditor Rutan to the complaint made by William
Ziegler in his suit permanently TO restrain the rty Of
Brooklyn from purchasing the Long Island Water
supply Company'S plant for Sl,2j0,OOO
Mr. jerks says the defendants have no knowledge
whether or not Mr. Zegler has the capacity 10 main.
tain the action lie admits that the defendant OFF als
are a. designated in the title OF the action, except
that Mr. Rutan Is no longer Auditor his term having
oxpred on January l. The passage Of the Annexation
act the existence OF the Water supply Company as
domestic corporation and the restrictions placed by the
Annexation act upon the city with reference 10 II ae
admitted but the defendants demand that the act he
read at length IA court upon the tHal OF the acuoh
The defendants have no knowledge OF the pledges made
by Livingston and Rutan before the election OF loce
not 10 purchase the Water COMPANY.
1t is admitted that during the term OF ONCE OF these
two men the purchase was not made, but the de
PENDANTS do not know whether the officials refused o
purchase or not. They deny that they nave moi
mower 10 purchase now that the two years haze eX.
PRED. The defendants deny that ule prohlpluon
placed upon the city against laying mains III INC
twenty sixth Ward Is unconstitutional The contract
Of December D. between the Mayor and his associates
and the Long Island Water supply Company Tor
Al $50 900 is admitted and 1t Is denied that e officers
had 10 power 70 make the contract Inc defendants
say they about to carry out tat contract INC pA
value OF the stock Is S25OOOO. They admit that In
making the contract they took into account rs IN
creasing the value OF the Water Company plant the
restrictions placed upon the city by the Annexation
act, but deny that that restriction carried win IL
any exclusive right to the company Inc deiehuahtS
admit that STAPLES and Trvcalfn represented Ia them
that during the twelve months the receipts OF tAs
company were about $4,000, and that It's earnings
were made out Of the revenues from the sale Of is
own water from its own wells. They were told tnai
the company was enabled thcrefrom 70 declare .
per cent dividend semi-annually. They deny tha'
any Of these representations were false ana maze %
deceive them, or did deceive them.
They deny the allegation that the stock properly
and franchises Of the company are not worth more
han s2jOOOO but aver that the rights and privileges
Of the company are worth to the city sl,2j0OOO and
upward They deny that the said company mas
not earned dividend since Che purchase by staples.
out OF IT'S own plant and water and in any lawful wa'
They say that staples first asked S23OO,OOO. admit
that he IS stockholder that he did not tell them nc
purchased Just before at $50 share, but deny tha'
they were mlsled in any way by him. However. they
did not know of the purchase at 20. yet they knew
what the value of the plant was lhey deby hdt tlo
negotiations conducted In secret aud w.thout
giving The taxpayers opportunity 10 Eive H no
lion object. The defendants deny thar the pur
chase would he waste Of pubic money, ana thdt 10
make IL would be illegal act.
Mr. jerks then goes on 10 say; as separate nc.
fence. that all the acts Of the officials were IN pur
suauce Of powers conferred upon them by lle All
neAalon act THAI they acted IN the exercise OF tho
discretion conferred upon them and with due delbeTa
ton They believed their act legal ana for me bese
interests OF the city. Justice Bartlett yesterdav
signed the formal order for the continuance OF the
Injunction pending trial of the action.