New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-27
IMPAIPING 4 GOOD BILL.

The action of the Senate Committee on Cities
in striking the water power provision from the
Mayors water supply bill will be widely re-
carded by thoughtful men as a deplOrable mis-
take whether from the point of view of public
welfare or from the less important one of party
policy We have not always sympathized with
the cry that this city was being misgoverned
and oppressed at Albany. On the contrary, we
have oftener had occasion TO rejoice in Albany's
rescue and defence of the city from local mis-
government; but in this case, If that emascula-
ton of the Mayors bill is persisted in, this city
will have cause to think it has not been well
treated by the legislature From the beginning
Of the present campaign for the much needed
increase Of Its water supply the city has been
required TO make concession after concession.
Originally it was free to take water from any
county in the State save one, but now 1t is prac-
tically forbidden TO take it from any county
save one, and now the proposition is to compel
il to take 1t from that county in the least advan
tageous and most costly and wasteful manner.
1t is proposed to deny to the corporation of the
city of New-York a common privilege that is
freely granted to private business corporations.
That we submit, would be a grievance to this
city, and we are glad TO see that the local rep
reSentatives at Albany, without regard to party,
are protesting against it.
Other concessions have been required Of the
city. and other changes have been made in the
bin on the alleged ground of avoiding injury or
injustice to some other community. But in this
case there can be no such plea. For New-YOrk
to utilize for its own purposes the water power
of its own water supply which would otherwise
run 10 waste would iniure and could injure no
body in the world excepting perhaps. the monop-
olists who would like to continue ex%Wting high
prices from the city for poor service There
may be a difference of opinion concerning the
question whether it would pay the city thus to
use its water power. For ourselves we believe
it would pay handsomely. That. however, is a
question for the city to answer for itself The
question at Albany should be simply whether
the city should be permitted TO make the expert
ment if it wishes to do so. That question should
surely be answered in the affirmative unless
there is some definite objection, and. so far as
we have been able to ascertain no such ohiec-
ton has been made. There can he no obiec-
ton on the ground Of hardship or injustice to
other communities. and if there has been any
valid objection any ground the public has
not yet been Informed of the fact.
SO much upon the score of public policy. So
far as Republican party policy is concerned. il
would not seem to be desirable thus to imnair
this bill. 1t certainly would not gain favor for
the party in New-YOrll City, ana we do not be-
lieve 1t would do so anywhere in the State
lHeIe il 10 popuIar demand Tor such action. as
there was TO some extent for the Duchess Conn
ty prohibition bill, and there is a great and ear
nest public demand that such action shall NOT
be taken. If any Republican politician is afraid
that through the enactment of the bill as II was
drawn the Mayor would gain too much credit
and prestige and would thus become n DANGER
Gus factor in State politics. he is much mistaken
AS bit of party tactics. the Republican nart,-
could better afford to enact the Mayors bin and
let him get what credit he could out of if than
to mutilate that measure, and thus give the
Mayor an opportunity to appear as the cbamnion
OF the people and as a martyr in their cause
II VIII be for the good of the Republican marty
as 1t will be greatly for the good of the publi Of
this capital for the Senate to restore tn the hin
Tie provision which its Cities Committee has
stricken out and then promptly to enact it into
law - iii'o