New-York tribune., 1901-02-14
hot DEBATE ON RAMAPO.
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION APPEARS
BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE
BILL MAY BE AMENDED TO ALLOW TEN
YEAR CONTRACT WITH COMPANY.
[Br TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrBuNE.l


IBT TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuNEl
Albany, Feb. 13.-Those members Of the I,egis-
lature who are annoyed by the persistence OF the
sppporters OF the bill OF Senator Slater and As
senblyman Morgan TO repeal CHAPTER 9s5. Laws
~ 1895. which gives the Ramapo Water Com
many most OF the great rights which IL enjoys.
had further cause for annoyance to-day for a
committee Of the Merchants Association Of New
York appeared before the Senate judiciary Com
rnittee on behalf Of the bill. The committee had
as its members NJ r. Bannin. chairman OF the
Water Supply Committee of the Merchants AS
ISOLATION, and ii. w. Goodrich. W. A. Marble.
Frederick w. Hinrichs, w. r. Corwine. z r.
Baldwin, A. ]. Baldwin and s. c. Mead
Senator Slater and Assemblyman Morgan
we're also present at the committee meeting,
supporting their measure.
When the committee was announced. Mr.. Linn
burger the counsel Of the Ramapo Water Com
pany. said: Mr.. Chairman, Mr.. Lauterbach, our
chief counsel, was unable TO be present here to-
day. and have not had time to examine the
brief Of the Merchants Association which will
he submitted TO you to-day. therefore ask for
a postponement of this hearing"
1T cannot be granted" answered Senator
Rrackett, this bill has been before the AS
seubly for several weeks. and you have had an
opportunity TO learn all the arguments which
you"
This bill has been before the Senate and the
Assembly for three weeks" said Senator Slater.
THAT is So" said Senator Bracket, 'and the
hearing must be finished to-day. although you
may file briefs afterward."
Mr.. Limburger then began argument
against Senator Slater's repeal act. He said the
attitude Of the Ramapo Water Company was
that the act OF 1895 only gave it and other
up 10 1890. The general laws giving rights TO
water companies were repealed inadvertently IN
1890 The repeal Of the act Of 1895 would de-
nrive the Ramapo Water Company Of right OF
eminent domain.
Gould you not rencorporate under the Gen
eral Act Of 1902" inquired Senator Elsberg, IF
we pass this repeal act?"
..plo we do not think this would be fair 10 our
stockholders" answered Mr. Limburger. for we
have expended a large sum Of money in obtain
ing water rights. The Merchants Association
critcises our possession OF the right Of eminent
domain, but every railroad company has that
same right. With regard to the right 10 contract
With the city OF New-York, I would like 10 ask
the Merchants Association what their position
is In their brief they first say that we could
not make a contract with the city OF New-York,
and then they say we could in another para
erauh for water TO be delivered within two
wears Our position is that we could have made
a contract with the city Of New-York up 10 the
massage of the law of 1890, and that we could
make contract with the Board OF Estimate
and Apportionnent under the act of 1895.
would ask the chairman for few days in which
10 prepare an additional brief"
We cannot give you that tine." said Senator
Bracket. This matter has been delayed long
enough as it is. You have had ample time in the
Assembly TO present your arguments"
IF the city Of New-York does not possess the
same powers of condemning lands 70 secure
water rights as private corporation" said
Senator Elsberg, ''then IL must be clear to you
that the city1s should possess those rights"
Yes" answered Mr.. Limburger. "the city
should possess those rights. The trouble with
the law OF 1890 is that company cannot con-
tract with the city for period OF ten years
The Merchants Association say they oppose our
contract because il is not good one. We say
that our contract is good one
You get this right 10 make a contract for
more than ten years under the laws Of 1895 do
you not?" inquired Senator Krum.
We do" answered Mr.. Limburger
DO you know OF another water company
which has a right 10 contract for longer
period than ten years?" inquired Senator Dow
ling.
And isn't the real value OF the act OF 1895
10 you" continued Senator krum, that you are
authorized to make an unlimited contract so
far as time is concerned, and no other water
company has that right?"
And why shouldn't have that right?'
Piled Mr.. Limburger, in fiery way
Senator Brackett then, al the urgent request of
Mr. Limburger, gave him till Friday morning to
hle an additional brief.
Mr.. Bannin the first speaker for the Mer-
chants Association. merely said he would ask
In behalf OF that association that the bill be
passed.
Henry W. Goodrich. I'm behalf of the Mer-
chants Association and of the City Club then
said Mr.. Chairman, / charge that there is
conspiracy to force New-York 20 abandon its
present municipal water supply system. The
Ramapo Water Company has been granted rights
not granted 10 any other water company. The
charter OF New-York was very ingeniousy
amended so as to prohibit New-York from TAX
ing away part OF the water supply Of II 900
square miles Of territory. Then the Burr act
was passed cutting OF Brooklyn from taking
water from Suffolk County,
Senator Mckinney, OF Suffolk County inter-
rupted Mr. Goodrich with the statement: ''The
Burr act had no more relation 10 the Ramapo
act than you have 10 the Chinese war"
i VIII say, then" said Mr.. Goodrich that Il
IS unfortunate that water is permitted 10 run
10 waste In Suffolk County which could be used
by Brooklyn"
On August s. 1899. Commissioner Dalton
startled the people Of New-York by declaring
that New-York should make a contract with
the Ramapo Water Company for 5000 600 600
The Merchants Association has demonstrated
that municipal ownership IS the cheapest for
the city. Mr. Goodrich said in conclusion that
The Merchants Associations plan to solve the
water problem was to have water taken for
New-Yorik Of the Hudson River at Pough-
keepsie
Arthur ]. Baldwin then made a legal argu-
ment for the Merchants Association in favor of
the repeal Finally Senator Ellsworth said: