New Britain herald., 1930-07-31

having an interest on the east ! branch Of the Pennington river and that the opposition of the Stanley Works during the last Legislature defeated the plan of the Hartford water board to obtain sanction to proceed with it's plans.
 1 Another point in the editorial is the claim that the interests of Hart ford and New Britain are identical. i and that the interest Of the Stanley corporation is private, though not to . be ignored for that reason.
 The facts are that whatever inter- asr the Stanley Works or any other corporation may have in natural watershed cannot be maintained against the interest Of the public of Il city or cites. Public necessity to j4nhing water comes frs, and mus: and will prevail. There is no nheI- hood that tho Stanley Works could successfully maintain its private interest against the public interest for an iade;erminate time, if that happened to be it's aim, or the aim Of any other private corporation. In our opinion, if the interest of any private corporation IS faced with the seIf-evident needs of the public as whole. the private cor porauon will not be able to win asa!ns, the public. Public policy and the law cannot be overruled by private interest.
 But in the present instance there Is TO likelihood of a permanent op- position of any private interest against the use of the watershed s water by the public. The Stanley Works was there first, but obvious lv # is not using the water of the east branch of the Pennington for drinking purposes The water is be- ing usad .or power purposes, and ii appears Q many an observer in this lty that there IS no need for per marcrt conflict between the use of the vatsr for power and drinking purposes. The other plants in New Britain. for that matter, are huge users Of city water and are as much interested in an adequate supply as anyone else. T. it is a matter Of cor porauon influence there is as much likelihood Of a corporation desire tc see sufficient water for the need ot the city in the future as there is < desire to this end hy the averag. citizen taxpayer.
 All Of which does not touch upon the relative rights of New Britain : and Hartford in the watershed under discussion. New Britain. without any doub, has prior rights, both a> q result Of forehandod development plans and the fact that the region IS New Britain's natural watershed IL is not Hartford's natural water shed. Any agreement between New Britain and Hartford would have tc 5 lake such. matters i-to account. w ! cannot afford 70 give more thai logic and circumstances would al | low. Hartford manifestly is attempt , ing to share in something it was no highly interested about during thf years when a farsightod board 1T . New Britain was taking measure. ments, so 10 speak. Of the city'' ) natural watershed supply. Comint , into the field last, Hartford now l. s very dcsirous Of gaining what t con
 siders it's needs in the district tha
 New Britain had for years regarded
 as its future source of supply.
 The value Of cooperation, 0 7 course is undoubted. Much depends . however upon what one means b, r cooperation. Hartford has show r much anxiety 10 share in this co
 operation, causing the impression
 that 1t expects too good share 0 Il inc results. This anxiety. frankly r has the tendency 10 place New Brit [ ain on IS guard. The burden 0 . proof rests with Hartford.