New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-02
DUTCHESS COUNTY VILLAGES.
Effect of Taking the Water On Which Their
Very Existence Depends.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: Permit to thank you for the fair and
conspicuous manner in which you published my re-
cent letter on Water from Dutchess County" and
! that OF the Hon. John T. Smith referring TO the
same subject
In your issue Of Tuesday you refer 10 the same
edtorally and say: Some OF the statements IN the
letters seem 20 US extreme and not In accord with
what We have understood to be the law and the
facts" Then you quote from both letters. and
apparently controvert my assertion that there is
no law under which owners Of these homes and
business concerns can be compensated You say:
We Go not question the sincerity OF these utter
ances but must contrast them with some known
facts" and the facts cite those Of the case
OF Hiram Smith against the city OF Rochester. in
which the court compelled the city to pay him full
indemnity because It had deprived him Of water
power by taking water from a stream many miles
from his mill. You also quote cases in the north
ern part Of westchester County. where the city
has paid indemnity 10 men whose property It has
taken.
These cases. however, are not at all parallel. In
both instances the cities did take the title to
the real estate. but they did take property. A
right is property, and when the city OF
Rochester took water from the stream and thereby
deprived Hiram Smith OF power they took from
him property recognized by law. and the value Of
which could be assessed and paid for. The same
thing done in Westchester County. but we
are complaining OF where property will not
be taken. where there are no water rights. but
where the value or 1naI property
be destroyed completely IL It had been taken
The cases YOU cite like those Of the manu-
featuring companies on the two streams In Dutch
ess County. Their right TO use water is property.
and though in both the water from the stream
might be taken several miles away. the value OF
those rights will undoubtedly be paid for; they Will
suffer no hardship. But in both villages there are
homes which have been built and maintained by
the savings OF worknen in the factories. Their
value depends wholly upon the continuance OF the
| Sd 7ar hfYe Ines
houses whose existence depends upon the trade of
the wurkmen in those Industries. And there are
not merely three such cases; there are thou
sands OF them. These two villages together are
larger than some OF the cities OF the State. Indeed
a proposition is now pending to make one OF them
n city From 1900 10 1900 people are involved.
end there is no law. decision. nor rule OF any
sort under which they obtain redress. Their
rights in the water power 10 be taken are indirect
and intangible, but none the less real. The manu-
facturer can get pay for his water power and for
the destruction Of his business. but the owners OF
homes and places of business dependent upon that
business are not recognized in law though they are
injured by the same act and in the same proper
ton.
Perhaps may make This clear by saying
that II the real estate these villages owned
By the manufacturing companies and rented 10
"company stores" for their supplies then those
companies could put in claims for damages. and
would be entitled and undoubtedly would receive
paw the injury the whole Of their property being
ak consideration But because tne NOTh-
men and others have purchased their little indi-
ydual plots and the homes they live IN. and the
places OF business they occupy they are estOpped
from becoming parties 10 any legal proceedings and
would have no standing before any legal tribunal.
Note in this connection that the legislature has
provided protection similar to that OF the Smith
hin in another and cognate manner. IL any stream
IS ,lsed TO supply for drinking or household
purposes 10 any village or town, then New York
CITY is forbidden take it. If the village OF Wap-
pinger's Falls the village Of Matteawan had
either OF them laid pipes from the headwaters of
re streams then New-York could not touch them.
Is il Just that such prohibition should attach
10 the minor matter OF village waterworhs and be
forbidden when it pertains TO the existence of the
village Itself? -
we ask that this bill should become law;
We insist upon the righteousness Of IL, and de-
nounce the opposition to IL dishonest and shame
ful because ali the facts Justify US in doing
The plea of Ramapo is untrue Some OF those
who use IL doubtless have been deceived, and
Imagine they are speaking truth. but when Bird s.
Coler stands up IN meeting called TO denounce
what are called in general grab bills" and quotes
against the biz
That good old rule.
That simple plan.
That he may take who has the power.
And he may keep who can,
he saws wha. he knows be false and malicious.
Tho only grab connected with the is the
proposition TO grab our property. and * is to oe-
end ourselves against this that we ask the passage
OF this bill. JOhN l. fl-AII-