New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-13
AFFAIRS IN BROOKLYN.
A NEW WATER COMMISSION NECESSARY.

A NEW WATER COMMISSION NECESSARY.
JUDGE PRATT REFUSES TO CONFIRM THE RE-
PORT OF THE ONE NAMED LAST SUMNER.
Judge Pratt denied in the Supreme Court yesterday
the motion To confirm the report Of the commission
appointed last summer 10 condemn the property OF
the Long Island Water supply Company, ana whch
reported In favor % the payment by the city OF f''o'
600 for the property aud franchises OF the co"pS'
which are bonded for 100000. This VIII h''he
necessary a new commission. The Old one wa co'
posed of Edward Rowe. II. W. Hunt T. W. bhsS
Charles +. Emery and r.. NJ shepard lh'y "'i"
MANY meetings at which the interests OF the cry
were presented by cX-Judgc Ccorg" Il. key "
A. G.. Nc Donald and those OF the company ~ W. "
De witt ard +. T.. PcarSall. The expense 10 u'c
city for counsel fees and pay oil commissioners was
$4,000 There were two reports presented Inc
majority Mes,r,. Hunt. Bliss and shepard iouno '"e
value Of the company'S property ard rahchiScS 10 DO
$40 900 The minority found no definite sum- puI
fixed the valuc Al nearly the figures claimed pS III"
company-sa OOc 900 When Mayor Chapih WIS Ill
Office lie and his fellow city officials agreed 10 pay
IN. companv ~ 20, 900 bat in the proceedings 10
prcvent the completion Of the bargain Drought ~
william Zicglcr the Court Of Appeals held that 'he
fine within which the city could buy the properly
had lapsed ,,
In his decision denying the motion TO cohhrfh ,"e
inward Judge Pratt also decided that new commission
should be appointed. He holds that the H5h'' Vi
Water supply company, III Us H'H'"'"'
contracts with the town Of New Lots, now ue
Tveuty-Sixth Ward OF the city. were not mere grau
ties IevOcdblc AT will, bYt permanent properties w
yond legislative control. except upon the inhoa'"'
conditions that they must be- fairly appraised anu
maid for before they could be appropriated lor mum"
ipal Use The report found that the COMPANY
franchise and contract did not give 1t any cAoIusi"
rights 10 purvey water to the town. ana u''
r.,erIcly loss sum was awarded than wO,lu nave
bo.n allowed n had r,en believed that the rls"'s
ond franchises were exclusive for the term oil 'he
compnny's franchise. The Judge holds tha' the a""i
must be set aside IL the rights were exclusive an"
uermanent He goes into the matter al great Ie"s'
10 show That the company's private ngh's "ef' "a
clnriIe against the public rights of the CITY, "hl'h
,s no more bound TO supply water than milk 10 'i'
p,ople. The Legislature granted certain reh's 10
tbc compapy for a long period to protect II iro'n
,tv,lrv and to induce investors 10 PAL 'heH hion''
ipto the plant The obligation extehdeu io' u"
cp,,re period and was a matter o DusnleSs anu nv
tnsines, nroat repeal OF the rights gi'i''u ~ "a, .u
Iogtsa,nrc was impossible under both e',e anu lr ~,
erl Constitutions. as they were T,FoEnAcu r. " ;us
romnensaton Hence the commissioners ac'cu va on
erroneous theory when they att"nIpeu ~ pb,n ar
them ON thc hypothesis that they We're p, ,va
were not exclusive, and since they themselves ln,e
certified that their award Tor these pur
~ materially less sum than they would have
swarSed nnon the theory Of their eAciusiveness anu
pcrmancncy Il followed that their error h|oi''u '
st,n,i,I injustice tO the company. $780, - T.,
A. thc decision Is against the city there can pe
no appeal taken.