New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-25
THE COUNCIL MANDAMUSED
ORDERED TO PASS LONG ISLAND WATER
SUPPLY BONDS.
,yusrIcE MADAM SAYS THE COUNCIL has
FAILED TO PERFORM A CLEAR DUTY As

TO WHICH 1T HAD NO DlsCREIIoN'
r,,a Nun,cinal Council must pass the bono
assue OF $4,000 for the award In condemnaoo,
proceedings for the purchase by the nuhioip"'
NV ~ the reservoir wells, machinery, franchlses
,.nd all other property OF the Long Island Wate'
.s,,pply Company. This was the decision .
uustice McAdam yesterday, upon the appica
tion by Henry w. Sheriff., James Mcheeh any
willis L. ogden for a peremptory WIFI Oh i''ah
d,mus TO compel the Council TO pass the heces
sary bonds which has been prevented oy 'i'
persistent opposition Of some or the members
=, the, bodv particularly Councilmen Cassidy
Comfy. Doyle and Murray. who were also al
judged in contempt Of court by Justice Fftz
gerald in the matter Of the Issuance OF th'
bonds for Sc. 100000 for the new Hall of Records
Tho reIators in the case are three resident tax
payers of Brooklyn.
I,stica NcAAam at considerable length, re-
cites the circumstances under which the prop
erty OF the water supply company was acquired
nv the CITY OF Brooklyn, pursuant TO an act OF
The Legislature passed in 1893. and the appeals
taken and decided before II was finally adjudged
that that city was bound by the act OF the
LEGISLATURE He says that 1t is provided by the
,New-York charter that all laws or parts OF
laws heretofore passed creating any deot OF
debts OF the municipal and public corporations
united and consolidated under the charter or
3or the pavment Of such debts, or respecting
the same should remain in full force and ef1ect'
except that the same should be carried out by
The corporation thereby constituted namely, the
city OF New-York.
He also points out that 1t Is the duty OF the
corporation of the city Of New-York to issue
bonds for public purposes, where such oonds
were not issued by the cities included in the
consolidation.
"Inasnuch as no bonds were issued by the
city OF BROOKLYN" he says. ito pay the award
for said property Of the Long Island Watet
Supply Company 1t became the duty Of the Mu-
nicipal Assembly and of the Board of Estimate
and Apportionment. in obedience to the pro-
visions of the charter and the act Of 1897, by
resolution by appropriate vote, to authorize the
issue Of corporate stock of the city Of New
York in lieu of bonds as directed by the ACT IN
brder to pay the award
Justice McAdam next refers to the resolution
nassed by the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
1nent on July II, 1898. authorizing the Con-
troller TO issue the bonds and the resolution Of
concurrence in this resolution. adopted by the
BOARD Of Aldermen on June q, 1899 He then
refers TO the meeting of the Council held on
July II last, at which a similar resolution was
offercd, but was defeated because there were
mot sufficient votes to pass it,
CORPORATION COUNSEL CONSENTS.
Although" he says the Council has been
requested by the Controller Of the city and by
other persons to pass the resolution. it has de-
clined and refused to do So The Corporation
Counsel, representing the municipality, appeared
on the return of the order. and stated that the
Interests of the city would be best subserved
w. ha Of m
required the property condemned for public use.
and on behalf Of the municipal authorities he
consented in open court TO an order that the
writ issue at once 1t is only necessary. there
.fore to consider the objections raised by the
-four Councilmen who were heard ex gratia, and
pass on the questions they submit before dis
posing Of the application"
Justice McAdam holds that the REALTORS, being
citizens and taxpayers, are entitled to apply for
the writ claimed. On the question raised by the
four Councilmen that the resolution for the is
fuance of the bonds is not in the interest OF the
pcity. and that it seeks 10 authorize an unneces-
fsary expenditure Of money, he says that by the
TACT Of 1892 it Is expressly declared that the
public interest requires the acquisition or this
property: that, after this legislative declara-
ton and the approval by the courts of the
taward made by the Commissioners "the mere
tfact that four Councilmen dissent from the con-
illusions arrived at by the Legislature and the
different courts namCd, and claim that il uti-
Imatey rests with them to determine the pro-
tpriety of the matters involved. can have but
little weight in arresting the orderly admins
'1ration of justice
LAS an apparent excuse" he continues, for
their conduct, the four Councilmen allege that
1.-THE property and franchises Of the Long Island
Water Supply Company are not worth $4,000,
and in the same paragraph they aver that the
eaid Long Island Water Supply Company has
Enot demanded attempted to collect said al
peged award, but on the contrary has applied 10
have the same set aside; which clearly shows
{that while the four Councilman think the
yaward too high, the water company thinks 1t
too low"
Justice McAdam says this has been the atti-
Ltude Of the water supply company all along;
THAT 1t did not want TO part with its property
flor $4,000. and that the contention Of the
flour respondents that there is unnecessary or
lextravagant expenditure involved is without
.1he slightest shadow OF truth
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CORPORATIONS.
"The Council" he says SIS an inferior body.
n1nlike the State Legislature, which represents
1.-The sovereignty OF the State and is the mere
creatlre OF the legislative will, with power to
pass bylaws In the form OF ordinances and the
1ke. and is not exempt from judicial supervision
land control The main distinction between pub
Ilc and private corporations is: That over the
ifOrmer the Legislature the trustee guar
dan of the public interest, has the exclusive
and unrestrained CONTROL and, acting as such,
1t may create. So it may modify or destroy. as
public eXigency requires recommends, as
the public interest will be best subserved The
fright to establish alter abolish such cor
operations seems to be principle inherent in
1.-THE very nature OF the institutions themselves
seince all mere municipal regulations must, from
fthe nature Of things. be subject TO the absolute
tcontrol OF the Government.
1t viii not be inferred that the Commission
~rs erred In their awards, and that the different
scourts erred in sustaining them and the re-
Pspondents should have given the action Of these
Iofficials and tribunals the respect commonly
saccorded TO judicial adjudications and not de-
Lcided, as they appear TO have done, that these
irresponsible and reputable officials and the high
Test court of the State and of the United States
.did not understand their duties in reference &c
1.-THE condemnation proceedings well as the
respondents"
In conclusion the Court decides that 1.-THE
r+tLtlc ri,- H..