New-York tribune., 1906-06-05

ment II the work had been done for the de-
partment by Pfadenhauer. then the bill would
have been against the department and in favor
of Pfadenhauer. which is not the case All that
the bill shows is that Pfadenhauer became in
debted 10 the department. which Indebtedness
he paid by check OF course, Pfadenhauer then
became entitled to the receipted bill as vouch-
er. Who Pfadenhauer is I have no knowledge.
l draw to your attention the statement made
by Mr.. Meyer to the fact that the bill I'm ques-
ton was paid by the city; it, however. appears
upon the face of the bill itself that Pfadenhauer
paid the bill tn the city.
l notice, further. the statement that the city
made the connection without the knowledge of
the Citizens Water Supply Company. The i'm
probability OF this appeals 70 me with no in
considerable force, unless / can be led 10 be-
ieve that the city attempting to illegally
ana dishonestly attempt TO tap the mains of
the water company. and that I do no believe
have Yet TO hear Of an instance where the zeal
OF public official has led him to perpetrate an
act Of this nature for the sake of the munich
pality. / note also that the connection is stated
TO have been made at the instance Of some cne
not named. and that the city was subsequently
reimbursed by them. Who instigated the city 10
make connection. if il made by il. does
not appear. Although il does appear that what
the city is charged with having done was done
at the instance Of some one. and some Cne, no
doubt. interested i'm the result Of the operation.
Can il he that some person or persons know
ing the nature of the act and considering the
possibility Of subsequent discovery had the work
done i'm the name Of the city. but for their own
benefit?
The bill. which is pressed rather as a complete
refutation Of the departments position does not
answer the inquiry. nor. as | before stated. prove
anything whatever other than that Pfadenhauer
was indebted to our department and paid his
hill. Again. ! understand the statement given
out by Mr.. Meyer. il is that the connection COM
planned Of was made some four years before the
Citizens Water Supply Company purchased the
Wyckoff Heights Water Company. and that
after such purchase the former company con-
nected its large Cypress avenue main with the
old Wyckoff Heights main. which ran down to.
and was connected with. mains by the con-
nection i'm question The making Of the connec-
tiOn between the Cypress avenue main IN stan
hope street and the WYckof Heights main in
Stanhope street would certainly have shown
that the main i'm StanhOpe street was a live
one and it would have developed that its life
was dependent on the city's water supply
I rather disposed 10 accept Mr.. Meyers
statement-and l assume that he speaks largely
] do. by the information furnished him by
those who associated with him-that the
Wyckoff Heights main running down Stanhope
street was when he connected il with the
Cypress avene main a dead one. and subse-
quently thereto. and not at an earlier date, the
connection complained Of was made.
Mr.. Ellison said it was a matter of minor i'm
portance who made the connection. but the main
issue was that it existed and that the Citizens
Water Supply Company using the city's
water without compensation. He said that he
had no idea cf charging any with larceny"
as Mr. Never said i'm his statement.
]. Pfa denhauer is a plumber, with office AZ
No. 1sl Stagg street living at No. l6l Bushwick
avenue Brooklyn. He said last night that in
March. 1900 he employed by Mr. Van
Nostrand. who building several houses in
Stanhope street not far from St. Nicholas ave-
nue.. 10 run line Of pipe from the city main 10
the houses The BILL he said. was paid by Mr..
Van NOstrand. and he had no dealings with the
city far could remember. At that time he
said George Diemer. a brother Of Alderman
Diemer. was his partner and had had charge Of
the work AIr. Pfadenhauer said that he had no
idea where Cord Meyer got the bill.