New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-30
FIGHT ON WATER LIKELY
COURT REVIEW THE SN4G,
Ne,O York Demands This-Agneso
Bill in Final Form.
Try TELEGRAPH TO TIE TRIBUNE.

Albany March 29.--Without the feature of re-
view nv the Appellate Division OF the action of
.ba state water Commission created by it. the
Agnev water bill. IN a form alleged to be final,
,oase IT'S appearance to-day. Nothing in the
various changes in the BILL aside from the elm
;nation Of this provision, was noteworthy. but
!. IS believed here that this may precipitate
disagreement between the New-York City adj
rninistration and the legislature. From the out
set Mayor Mcclellan. through his Albany rep
resentative. has insisted that any State commits
sion should be subject in its action to review by
the court, and on this point ex-senator Guy at
the water hearing before the Governor yesterday
said; Any failure TO put such provision in
the biu would be regarded a distinct act of
hostility 10 New-York City. for it would create
a tyrannical board unexampled in State COM
missions. for even the acts of the State Board
Of Railroad Commissioners are revocable by the
court. II would leave New-York City worse off
than it is ever was. depriving il of rights
and powers now possessed under the charter and
leaving it entirely and beyond appeal at the
mercy Of a state commission
Tonight Senator Guy would not discuss the
changes or say anything about the present form
Of the AgneW bin. indicating that he had seen
no official copy Of it and would not make any
statement until he had. But his position. and
through him that of the Mayor, on this Ques-
don makes il clear that in its present form the
bill viii be repudiated by the city administra-
ton, for this was the one contention on which
the Mayor has steadily insisted
The changes in the Agnew bill are all in the
line Of providing greater protection for local.
ties from which water may be taken, obviously
with the purpose OF guarding the interests of the
cIa-norous Ulster County obstructionists
The specific request was made TO the Governor
by Assistant Corporation Counsel Guy. on be-
half Of the Mayor. that there should be included
in the Slater Water bin practically the same
language as to the review by the Supreme Court
which is contained in Section 50 Of the Railroad
Law, providing that in the event of a rejection
Of application made by New-York City, the
court review OF facts should have power to
order. granting applications If the facts estab-
fish the case.
When Mr.. Agnew's attention was called to the
fact that his bill contained no provision for re-
view by the Appellate Division. he said:
Ny bin never had such a provision. II hasn't
been left out; il wasn't put there 1 find on ex-
ng proVsion The decision Of the 81 commission mn
and its action on any application may be reviewed
left out I saw the Governor and I shall have
but this is what Tie city wants is not going
70 De sauslIacto[y 10 II. Inc plain truth OF the
trust the personnel OF the commission be APP
& They have repeatedy asked Tor Il but tbey
have never signihed to me that without 1t they
Il
The oeruoran proceedings provided for would
enable any individual who was aggrieved to apply
10 the court for a hearing but would not, as
understand Il, allow the city, If, for example the
commission should decide that II could not build
the Shokan reservoir, TO appeal 10 any court.
An authoritative explanation Of the real mean
ing Of the Water Commission bill was secured
late tonight indicating the fallacy Of the city
contention with reference TO the bill In effect
what the city asks for is that in case of an ad-
verse decision by the State Water Commission
there shall be q review before the Appellate Dr.
vision IN whose department the lands affected
are situated. and this review is to be exactly as
II there were State commission and it had
made no decision. The Agnew bill. framed with
the direct approval of Governor Higgins, pro-
vides that the decision or determination Of the
proposed State commission shall be renewable
by the Appellate Division in whose department
the determination made, under the pro-
visions OF the Code OF Civil Procedure, the Ques-
tons to be determined on their merits to be
only questions OF law, including the question
whether there was on all the evidence presented
q pTeponderance OF proof in favor of the finding
OF the. commission.
The effect Of the provision asked for by the
city would be to render a decision OF the State
commission adverse to the city Of no effect. The
effect OF the provision actually inserted in the
AgneW bill would be TO put the presumption in
favor Of the finding