The Sewerage Law

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

THE SEWERAGE LAW

On the Mayor's communication relative to the Flushing avenue Sewer,

Ald. Scholes¹ called attention to the communication heretofore presented by the Sewer Commissioners, asking that the control of the city sewers be vested in them. The Sewer Committee it was supposed would report in favor of doing so, but they had doubts of the constitutionality of the law, and the subject was referred to the Counsel, who, setting himself up as a judge, had undertaken to pronounce in advance of the Courts that the Sewerage Law was unconstitutional. He contended that this Board was the creature of the Legislature, and that they were bound to accept and act on a law passed by the Legislature, until the Courts declared it unconstitutional. As for Ald. Kalbfleisch, the Chairman of the Water Committee, his hostility to the Water Commissioners was well known; and this attack of his on them in their capacity of Sewer Commissioners was his last card against them. As for the opinion of the Corporation Counsel, he had heard Ald. Kalbfleisch himself admit that he was unfit to try a case before a justice court.

Ald. Kalbfleisch² said he felt sorry that whenever Ald. Scholes rose he took the opportunity of making a personal attack on him (Ald. K.). With regard to the assertion that he was hostile to the Water Commissioners, or the Sewer Commissioners, it was false. He never had attacked either of these bodies; but he had attacked the water contract itself, the specifications on which it was founded, and the manner in which it was entered into. He hoped, for once and for all, that Ald. Scholes would keep within proper bounds, and not charge him (Ald. K.) with saying and doing what he never said or done. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Board had nothing to do with the question of constitutionality, or that the Sewerage law stood on the same constitutional basis as the Water Act. This Board were not elected to introduce water into the city, but they were elected to have control of the sewers.

Ald. Pierson³ agreed with Ald. Scholes that it was the duty of this Board to receive and carry out the law as it stood.

Ald. Taylor⁴ said he had a communication from the Sewerage Commissioners submitting the opinion of two eminent lawyers affirming the constitutionality of the Sewerage law, in opposition to that of the Corporation Counsel.

Ald. Douglass⁵ said, this Board now had legal control of the sewers, and they had no business to give it up while there was a reasonable doubt of the right of the Commissioners to the control of the sewers. It was for the Commissioners to establish their position before the Courts, before the Common Council would be justified in surrendering the sewers to them. He added that Ald. Pierson himself had admitted that the Corporation Counsel's opinion was more than half right.

Ald. Pierson said, so far from this the Counsel had admitted to him that he (the Counsel) was not more than half right--that he should have been more particular in indicating what portions of the law were unconstitutional.

Ald. Backhouse⁶ did not see how this matter could come before the Sewer Commissioners at all. It had been arranged with the U.S. Government long before the Commission was created.

The matter was finally, by a vote of 18 to 5, referred to the Water Committee.

---