New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-04
NOT YET FREE FROM SUSPICION.

a, the various bills introduced az Albany last
I war 10 which tie descriptive term OF grab"
was applied b. common consent emily two sur
rfved the Adjournment OF the legislature. One
Of these was the Remsen Gas bill. conferring I'm
portgnt privileges upon The East River Gas
Company. II hsd been under strong suspicion
ever since its appearance On the calendar. hut,
thanks TO mysterious Influences which are SCI
com lacking IN the last hours OF d session. IL
found votes enough 70 secure its passage There
had been theory that # was OF such a charac
ter as 70 be exempt from the Mayors scrutiny
bu, It's promoters discovered in due time that
they we're srsvely mistaken in respect 70 that
detail. The bln was laid before Mayor Low,
and after careful consideration he interposed
veto which. the legislature having passed out OF
existence was necessarily fatal
On the face Of IL and according TO the repre-
sensations Of the company. the bill soGght 10
accomplish an excellent object and nothing
more. But its deeply interested advocates din
not erince The highest degree OF cancer In com
rnendlag II 10 the favor Of the public ano the
rnuoIcinai authorities They said that il was
aes,rned merely 10 permit the company, by lay
ing connections under the East River. 70 remove
eli Gas plnrts from the island Of Manhattan 10
an outlying region where they would mol De
nuisance II that had. in fact been the So'e
purpose and prospective effect OF the measure
Il might have escaped n veto IN spite OF soFne
defects; for nobody questions the advisaDiilty
Of hapisbinz the manufacture OF gas from the
hesrt ~ the city. But II clearly appeared from
an ANALYSTS ~ the scheme made by the Counsel
% the CORPORATION and the Mayor that IT con
mined provisions which It's benehciaries had
bored 10 conceal. and that by reason o. trick
OF words the company would have escaped the
necessity OF paying the city for valuable con-
cess,ons II wss with general sahsractlon'
therefore. that the public heard OF its demise al
the hands OF Msyor Low.
Our Albany dispatches yesterday mace known
the fact that Mir. Remsen has reinirOducec, IN
somewhat different form. the bill which was
err, suspected then condemned and finally put
"a 6es,h year ago. Mr.. Remsen has learned
something IN the interval. but VIE are by 10
means sure that be has learned enough. lie
now says that the chief objection TO bis former
bin wrs that Il contained provision giving
AWAY electric light franchises-an Instructive
admisslon-but that II is now shoTn OF that IN
attractive feature. We have no DOUBT that IL
has been improved By the operation. but we re-
eret that Mr. Remsen neglected TO alluoe TO sew
eral other repusnant particulars Of the original
nskeup. Does the bill still bestow large rights
in Long Island City which are not essential 90
tbe conveyance OF gas under the East River?
Is q peruanent franchise one of its provisions?
Has the clsuse which purported TO give tie city
a fair return but in reality did nothing OF the
sort been made clear and effectivef These and
some other questions need to be authorltauyeiy
answered
Last year Mt. Low and SIR. Rives made the
l,oint that the project was discredited by the
fact that It was pressed at Albany Instead OF
being frankly presented TO the city govern
ment which has full power under the charter
10 deal with all such matters. Why. they asked.
did not the company request the aldermen 10
grant the franchise and the Board OF Estimate
TO put a proper valuation upon it, Obviously,
because the company hoped TO escape observa-
ton at Albany and get more from an mad
vertent legislature than IL could expect TO get
through q Straightforward application TO the
local authorities That was held 20 be a valid
ground for condemniBg the scheme last year.
and the objection is as strong now rs Il was
then More light is Indispensable, and II Mr..
Remsen IS not disposed TO furnish II the public
will have 70 look elsewhere for the necessary
Illumination.