New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-19
TIE CUSTODY OF THE AQUEDUCE

Controller Myers is just now engaged IN TWO
nanny controversy with the Aqueduct Commits
sion over a matter utterly trivial Ill l1eif' Dut
from his view of which. il he should enforce
il serious consequences to the city might now
The Commission urged by the profound neces-
sitv of a larger water supply, has completed the
tunnel proper far in advance of other collateral
works of construction. These are still numer-
o,,s and essential, and are being pushed we
believe. with diligence All the work to which
wa refer. consisting of head-house at Croton
Lake a roadway. eleven head-hou over open
shafts and various pieces of grading and
fencing. were a part of the original duty I'M
posed upon the Commission by the AqueuucO
Act. This act omitted to define the processes
by which the structure should be turned over
to the city, though of course there was no con-
temptation of its transfer before 1t was COM
pleted. And, on the other hand, there was no
duty of maintenance specifically referred TO the
Commission. The theory OF the act was lnaU
when the whole work was done 1t should be
handed to the regular municipal authorities, who
would turn on the water and thereafter main
tain the structure.
Rut. as every citizen of New York well knows,
the distress for water two summers ago was so
great as to raise loud public clamor for the
speedv completion of the tunnel, and for It's
immediate use so soon as completed' Ano
Commission responded to this demand. and the
tunnel was finished in time to save the CITY from
any great difficulty last summer. 1t Is now
sunnlyinc $4,000 900 gallons of water daily
moro than half the total consumption. Inc
flow Of this water requires certain expenditure
of labor for the regulation of the gates ana
other purposes properly described as mainte-
nance and for the last year this work has been
dme by the Commissions employees They are
in all cases men who are otherwise occupied,
and whose services would be required whether
tbov gave part Of their attention to the flow
or not and at the most they do not exceed
dozen persons. Controller Myers has recently
raised the point that expenditures for mantle
nance were not authorized by the Aqueduct Act
and he has now declared that he will not honor
the Commissions drafts for the payment OF
these mems wages, declaring that the fuDlc
Works Department ought to do the work ana
hear its expense. It is clear enough that THIS
is dispute over bookkeeping, and nothing else.
The work would have TO be done and the city
would have to pay for it, whether the lab0lefs
were supplied by one department or another
So far as there is any principle OF economy III
tho matter it supports the continuance OF the
present arrangement, since the transfer pro-
posed by Mr. Myers would not decrease the
Commission's force OF worl1men, while it would
increase the payroll of the Public Works De-
partment. Moreover it would cause the en-
ployment along the Aqueduct OF two different
sets OF laborers responsible to different authon-
ties. an arrangement which could not possibly
serve any public advantage.
Controller Myers has been of frequent ser
vice to the city by calling attention to extrava-
CANT expenditures and illegal methods, and he
has an opportunity to do real good in connec-
ton with the public demand for the early de-
crease of the Aqueduct Commissions costly eS-
tablishment. We suggest that he abandon this
wholly inconsequental matter and give his con-
sideration to the large and useless engineering
force which the Commission is keeping on its
pavro)ls He will find there, unless we are
much mistaken, that at least three-tourths OF
that expense is pure waste that there IS no
| longer any occasion for the services OF more
| than a small fraction of these engineers, and
that they are retained in their present places
| for reasons which are personal and political
| Rut if is idle to deny that the Commission still
| has a certain work to do, and it Is 1mpolltc to
demand the delivery of its structure pecemeal.
The only result of the Controllers threatened
refusal to pay these laborers will be TO involve
| the Commission in a continual controversy with
the Public Works Department, which might
lead to The shutting-off Of the new water sup
ply. This, of course. is not to be tolerated.
There is no proper objection whatever to the
| continuance of the present method OF caring
for the tunnel and its flow until the head-houses
and the new road are finished and the whole
work authorized by the act is ready to be COM
mitted to the city's keeping.