New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-16
WATER SUPPLY HEARING.
lRAMAPo SCHEME STRONGLY ATTACKED
AND WEAKLY DEFENDED.
icy TELEGRAPH To TEE TRIBUNE. ]

Albany Feb 15-The three bills affecting the
water supply Of New-YorE City came up Tor
hearing before the Assembly committee on
Cities to-day. These measures. introduced by
Assemblymen Morgan, Fellows and Demarest,
are aimed less IT the designs of the
Ramapo Water Company. That of Mr.. Dem
arrest would repeal its charter: that of Mr.. Fall
lows would prevent ontract by such COM
pany with the city unless It met with the addi-
tional approval OF the Board of Estimate and
Apportfonment and three-fourths of the Munich
pal Assembly. The bill of Mr.. Morgan is to en-
able New-York to acquire by condemnation
lands which may be used a source Of water
supply. In word, it provides for the municipal
ownership Of water supply
All three bills combated by Mr.. Lin
burger, Of the office OF Edward Lauterbach.
counsel for the Ramapo company. He first spoke
against the Morgan bill
Il should ask for delay" he began, whereupon
& laugh went around the committee table. De-
lay argument of the Ramapo company
appeared TO appeal TO the mirth Of the COM
mttee.
NO: but this is no time for the consideration
OF this BILL" continued Mr. Limburger apollo
geticaIly. The Merchants Association which
drew up this bill. is making an investigation Of
different sources Of water supply, and it is bet
ter 10 wait until it has made its report. Then
too. this subject had much better be left TO the
Charter Revision Commission. Now the Ramapo
company is all tied up with indictments. so that
delay viii in way afford 1t any advantage"
VALUE OF THE MORGAN BILL
Frederick W. Hinrichs Of the Merchants As
ISOLATION Of New-York, appeared in favor of the
Morgan bill He explained how the association
had taken the subject Of water supply into con-
sderation, and had begun an investigation of
water sources wherever practicable along the
Hudson Valley. He pointed out how New-York
City was hindered from procuring by municipal
ownership source of water supply, and instead
had almost fallen prey to the ambitions Of a
private corporation.
Ex-senator Charles L. Guy. who also spoke
rs a representative of the Merchants Associa-
zion, said that he did not think that the bill of
Mr.. Demarest. repeating the charter of the
Ramapo company, adequate. 1t would
strike down the ambition of company only
10 permit another to rise up in It's place. He
added:
The Morgan bill is intended TO give to New
York City the privilege of condemning lands
for water supply, such is already possessed
by the other cities and the villages Of the State
AS the law now stands. the people Of Newly rk
City are considered as the inmates of some
Merchants Association does not ask the Legs
lature to discriminate against anybody. 1t
simply asks that necessary Investigations be
made which will result in New-York City own
ing its water supply
THE CONTROLLERS VIEWS.
Controller Coler also spoke in favor of the
municipal ownership of water systems. He said:
1t is not sought by this amendment to clothe
the city Of New-York with any extraordinary
or unusual power If the amendment
adopted, the city's powers in the premises would
not be extensive the powers which the
Legislature is constantly granting to corpora
tons, municipal and private, in relation to the
water question For instance, IN the same year
that the charter of the city of New-York be-
law, the Legislature adopted the general
act that is known as the Village law, and by
that act il provided that the water com
missioners of villages may acquire in the name
Of the village by purchase. if it can agree with
the owners. vr otherwise by condemnation, any
land, streams water or water rights 1or such
(water) system" 1t VIII be observed that in
this enactment nothing is provided for the pro-
lection Of the waterworks of private companies
the villages.
The general law Of the State relative to the
Incorporation Of waterworks companies author
ICES such cornpanies to acquire lands, intercept
and divert the flow of waters, etc, without
any limitation upon such power, except that
they are prohibited from taking water from
canals, canal reservoirs streams used by the
city for the purpose of supplying the canal.
NeIv-York is asking for less power than the
Legislature is constantly comforting upon other
cities for less power than is conferred upon
private waterworks companies, and for
amendment which in no wise is contrary to the
general policy Of the Legislature as evidenced
by its recent enactnents the same general
subject
MR. LIMBURGER'S ARGUMENT.
When the bill of Assemblyman Demarest was
brought up, Mr.. Limburger sought to prove that
the act of 1895. which constitutes the charter
Of the company did not give 1t any power
than ii already possessed under the general
laws He said that the water which the Ram
apo company was ready to supply New-York
CITY would be a godsend to that community.
The water in Manhattan was vile stuff. he said,
and in Brooklyn there was hardly any at all.
t. he floors of
the buildings He added that the action Of the
Supreme Court in regard to the injunctions
brought against the Ramapo company by the
Controller branded him as liar :.
But does the company you represent! IN
terrupted Assemblyman DAVIS own any
streams ponds some foundation TOT enter
ing into such contract?"
mo. we don't own anything, that is
Have you any options them
''Oh, yes; we have options; quite a few OPP
tions. We have taken all the preliminary steps
] think. We have expended money for maps
ana surveys We have taken numerous 0tolge,
But have you supplied anybody with drop
Of water?"
NO; you see, we have got the water, If the
city would only take it. We don't want 10 lorce
anybody TO take it"
oh. no; Of course not" remarked Mr.. Coler.
Now, Mr.. Limburger you say that the acl
which constitutes the charter Of the Ramapo
company, and which the Demarest Dill Woud re-
peal did not give the company any more power
than IL had before?' asked another member OF
the committee.
Yes, sir answered Mr.. Limburger.
Then, Mr. Lmburger. why do you OBJECT 10
Its rspeal"'
Why, it takes the cloud away. 1t puts all
doubt to rest" he answered.
DENOUNCEs RAMAPO COMPANY.
Mr.. Dernarest in defending this measure SAID
that IT was to protect the industries of Rockland