The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-10-29
An Analysis of His Statement and Some
 Facts He OyerlOoks

Facts He OyerlOOkS| \ The State of Connecticut owns all the navigable waters and the land under the waters up to average high tide. It is not necessary to quote law to show this to the people of Bridge port who have only to\ remember that in 1905 the Legislature passed a bill giving some 45 acres of harbor bot tom to the Loconobi1e Company of America. Later they repealed the gift because the use that might be made of it threatened Seaside Park. Mayor Lee voted for this gift of harbor bot tom. He was member of the As- senlbly in the year 1905. Later,e when the hue and cry came, he worked for the repeal of the gift, claiming that he did not understand what he was do- ing when he voted for it.
 It would seem as if Mayor Lee ought to know who owns the navigable wa ters and the land beneath the waters. Did he believe when he voted for the bill giving the Locomobile Company 45l acres that the State was making the company a present of something that
 
 not own?
 When in 1907 he helped secure bill taking back a large part of these 45 acres, did he then believe the State was taking back something the State
 The Mayor ought to know what a harbor line is. It is in the nature of a building line. The one tells how close to the highway a dwelling may be set. The other tells how close to tIra pH, h1 hull I,n<, l " a eat A man can't, build a house beyond building line, and he can't build a wharf beyond a harbor line.
 Yet in answering the first question the Mayor says that discontinuing the city line did not give the railroad the right to fill in II acres of the harhor.' the right to bulkhead and fill in over that area. Pray then, what was the trouble about? What did the railroad sue for? Was it not because the line deprived it of the privilege of filling? Was not the suit withdrawn when the line was removed and the right to fill restored?
 The only fact contained in the May or's first, answer is that suit was brought. The suit was not based up- on the theory that the railroad owned the flats, but that it was deprived of it's privilege of wharfing out to the United States line, and Of filling in Il acres. F b to obtain t4land'' but to keep Il acres of the most central portion of the har- Dor for the use of yachtsmen, oyster men, the great oyster growers like the Radel Oyster Company and for all commerce. Every interest connected with the water was against the grab Every interest connected with the wa ter wanted that suit tried. It never was tried and never would have been. But the value of the harbor that would I, !, every cent of every judgment that could have. been obtained. What is the loss to the city on account of the removal of the Radel Oyster Com pany?
 The Mayors answers to the questions relating to the grant to the Locomobi1e Company are equally uncandid. There was a harbor line opposite the prop erty of the Locomobile Company. This is certain. A harbor line stops wharf tain. This harbor line was repealed; removed; wiped out The Locomobile Company can now fill in the harbor up to the United States line. Of course it has the same rights as any ether owner of the same tract would No owner would have the right to fill beyond the harbor line. Amy owner could fill up to it.
 The attitude of MT. Flames of the
 
 pressed, is reproduced in another part of this newspaper.
 If, says the Mayor, the Locomobile Company has the legal title to these flats the city should pay for them.
 The railroad company is now stopped from filling in more than Il acres by the combined government and city lines. It obtained the right to fill in these Il acres by getting both the gov ernment and the city lines removed <frnr fJnir. fn7~y,1n n1Oc will it gain the right to turn all the harbor that remains out to the channel into railroad yards by getting the har- Dor lines moved yet further from the shore.
 Move and pay! Is this to be the motto? Another move will give the railroad company II acres more An other move Il acres again. How much harbor is there to spare? How often does the mayor claim the line should move. and how often does he say the city should pay.
 The mayor appears to know even less about the Little Joker legislation than he knew about the tearing up of Main street by the Electric Light Con- pany. He is once more referred to the expose of this legislation as it was made in the letter writer by Harbor Master Charles H. Morris and sent to the senators and represep tatives which letter was printed in this newspaper May 20 1908.
 In his answer to question No. 10. the mayor virtually says that he believes the reduction of S5.47 in the price of arc lamps should be accepted and the investigation closed. He says that the proposed new contract is preferable be- cause it can be terminated upon notice The present contract provides for it's own termination in February. A new one gives no advantage in this respect Is it likely that the electric monopoly would offer a small reduction in the cost of lighting unless it were pretty sure the investigation would compel large reduction?
 In answer to Question 13 Mayor Lee says he does not know whethor the property of the Electric Light company taxable in this city is worth more than $300,OOO or not. But this news paper has shown him that. the electric light company in Springfield a smaller city is taxed on S1.470 % and has fur nished him a list of many other cities about the size of Bridgeport where the property of the lighting plant in each is assessed for more than a million dollars.
 If the electric light company ought to be taxed on $1 .000O 900 more than it now is should not the city know it? Would not the investigation disclose rL Tryl-~ 1r,.- -aan