New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-18
~ TNNECESS1RY INTENSE.

When the Gcncscc Storage Reservoir bill was
Withdrawn from the hands of the Governor to
save il from being vetoed, the pretcncc was made
that some amendments were 10 be- added, ana
that the bill would 60 back to the Executive In a
form which would meet his approval. This was
n convenient way of avoiding the confession that
the promoters u the scheme had been unable 10
persuade the Governor that II was wise and
honest one. Near The end Of the session the no
ton Of amendment was Abandoned and the bill
was sent back 10 the Governor without change
In the apparent hope that IN thirty days 1t may
he possible so 10 influence his opinions that hc
VIII think n necessary work. which the State
cannot afford even 10 neglect. what after ten
days consideration hc evidently regarded as a
grab
Even II under ordinary circumstances the build
lng of the proposed storage reservoir ut State
expense were unobjcciionablc, In the present
condition ~ the finances the undertaking i mex
pcdloni Governor Morton IN his annual message
made earnest appeal 10 the Legislature for econ
omy In expenditures. and the estimate OF the tax
rate jus, published emphasizes the wisdom OF
his warming From 2is mills the rate Is likely
10 advance 10 800. and the appropriations have
Increased Si.OOO.OOo. owing In part 10 the ncccs-
sIty II spending 100000 In carrying out nj
ready existing law relative TO the State care of
the Insane. and 100000 10 pay bills left over
by the last Legislature With these heavy cx-
pcndlturcs unavoidable. there can be no excuse
for saddllng taxpayers with the burden OF I'M
necessary public works. however unobjeciionable
they might be In time Of n treasury surplus, or
when prosirltcd Industries had not compelled
any citizen 10 curb his desires for private and
public luxuries
The Gcncsee dam Is doubtless desirable
luxury for some people. but for them 1t j. n
luxury and for the State m entirely supcriuous
one TO the mlllcrs Of Rochester II would be
useful II would add 10 the beauty ana perhaps
the hcalihfuncss II the city to have an Increased
stream Of water In the river during the dry sea
son But those objects are not concerns ~ the
State particularly In time OF financial deprcs-
sion The Erie Canal Is At present led from
Buffalo 10 far east Of Rochester. ana AT many
limos Of year the water coming through the
canal from Lake Erie goes through the waste
v,irs into the mraccs and turns the water
,vhccls Of Rochester II the Gcnesee dam were
built II might perhaps on rare occasions furnish
water for the canal. but the greater part OF the
supply stored would inevitably ind its way be-
Tint would be desirable for Rochester. but let
Rochester pay for II. The pretencc that the dam
will M some future time be increased In height
at local expense does not compensate for the
States proposed present outlay, the great bcneit
of which must inevitably be local. When the
plan was first made there was no talk of doing
the work at State expense. 1t Is said that the
worI, must be done by the State because OF State
rights and lack Of individual and municipal
bower But even II that be true. 1t does not pre-
vent the creation OF a commission under legls-
lo,lye authority to assess the benefits to mllers,
70 the city as whole, to tho canal. II any there
be- and TO everybody else interested, and to levy
the expense In proportion. Instead OF that the
State Is asked 10 undertake a work which can
benefit 1t little In comparison with others, even
I'm the initial stages for which 1t must pay alone,
and must do the work at an increased outlay In
prcparation for an extension for local benefit
toward which there Is vague talk that Rochester
pcoplc will contribute. fair division OF the
cost would leave the enterprise open for discus
sion on It's merits as n work Of engineering. The
prcsent bill has converted 1t into pretcnce for
n grab The Republican party cannot afford to
face the people with n record Of having unncces-
sarlly increased their taxes.