County Road Wanted

New York, 1895

OYSTER BAY PUTS IN A CLAIM FOR THE NORTH TURNPIKE.

Chairman Wood Appoints the Standing Committees for the Year — The Bridge Bill in Danger — Some Long Island City Taxes Paid Over — The Legislature Arraigned for Piracy.

The board of Supervisors met at the Court House in Long Island City yesterday.

Counselor Wallace stated, that, with Supervisor Denton, he had attended before the Statutory Revision committee in reference to the bridge bill, and had made an argument in favor of it. They could not see the Governor. The fate of the bill was hanging in the balance.

Supervisor Koehler said the bill was very important and a committee should go to Albany at once and see the Governor about it.

Mr. Wallace said that Assemblyman Campbell had a bill in course of passage which would enable the building of a bridge over Newtown Creek at Hunter's Point.

Mr. Koehler urged his point for a committee. It was very necessary to have some one on the ground to look after the interests of the bill. Mr. Fairbrother was the only one opposing the bill. He thought the bill would knock out the Maspeth avenue bridge bill, which he wants built, and the Supervisors are opposed to.

Mr. Koehler was commissioned to go to Albany in the interest of the bill.

Chairman Wood announced the standing committees for 1895.

Asylum and Asylum Bills — Denton, Underhill, Everitt.

Armory and Armory Bills — Pople, Siebs, Koehler.

Bridges — Siebs, Koehler, Denton, Everitt and Pople.

Bounties — Underhill, Denton, Pople. Justices and Marshals' Bills — Koehler, Underhill, Siebs.

Undertakers, Coroners and Physicians' Bills — Siebs, Koehler, Underhill.

Sheriff's and Constables' Bills — Pople, Koehler and Wood.

Jailer's and Penitentiary Bills — Everitt, Underhill and Denton.

Poor House and Farm — Denton, Underhill and Wood.

Public Printing — Underhill, Everitt and Pople.

Court House and Jail — Koehler, Denton and Pople.

Highways and Cemeteries — Everitt, Denton, Siebs.

County Clerk's and Surrogate's Offices — Everitt, Pople and Underhill. Finance — Siebs, Everitt, Underhill.

Law and Legislation — Denton, Pople, Wood.

County Roads — Underhill, Denton, Pople.

Judge, District Attorney and Treasurer's Office — Pople, Koehler and Denton.

Miscellaneous Matters — Underhill, Pople, Denton.

John L. Bogart of Oyster Bay headed a delegation of citizens of that town asking for the improvement of the north turnpike from Roslyn to East Norwich, and making it a county road. Supervisor Underhill spoke in favor of the improvement. Ex-Supervisor Townsend said that the citizens of Oyster Bay were to meet on Saturday to discuss the subject.

Supervisor Pople moved a reference of the matter to the committee on County Roads, they to confer with the citizens of Oyster Bay and report back to the board.

City Treasurer Knapp, of Long Island City, said he had paid $45,000 of school taxes to the County Treasurer. Mr. Knapp made a severe attack on the Legislature for the piracy with which Long Island City was treated. Some bills had been passed affecting back taxes in Long Island City which were a robbery of the tax-payers.

The clerk received the following communication from Counselor Van Vechten:

May 6th, 1895.

To the Honorable, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Queens:

GENTLEMEN — I notice by the South Side Observer, which paper is controlled, edited and published by Mr. Charles Wallace, a brother of your present counsel, that your present counsel at the last meeting of the board submitted an opinion in writing to the board in reference to the matter commonly known as the Strong's Causeway matter. I notice further that in the course of said opinion, that your said counsel advises you that Chapter 607 of the Laws of 1893, under which the proceeding for the widening of Strong's Causeway were instituted, expressly provides that Article 4 of the highway law shall be applicable to such proceedings, and that your counsel takes it upon himself to advise you that I, as your counsel, slept upon your legal rights, and that by reason of my negligence you are debarred from instituting proceedings for review.

I am not interested in the advice given to your honorable body by your present counsel, except so far as the same reflects upon me, and to that extent I am most decidedly interested, and I beg to advise your honorable body, that if your present counsel had correctly read the statute in question, he would have ascertained that there was and is utterly and absolutely no foundation whatsoever for his statement that I in any way was negligent or permitted the time to elapse within which your board was required to act.

The provision referred to by the learned counsel is found in Section 2 of Chapter 607, of the Laws of 1893, and reads as follows: "Such commissioners shall have the same power as to the assessment of damages caused by the widening of such highway, as commissioners appointed under Article 4 of the highway law, for the discontinuance, alteration, or laying out of a highway, and as to such assessment, the same proceedings may be had for the confirmation, vacating or modifying such decision, as provided in and by said Article 4 of said highway law." Surely this language of the statute is plain, and he who runs may read if he will that this provision applies solely and purely to the assessment of damages in favor of abutting property owners.

In the matter of Strong's Causeway there were no abutting property owners whose damages were to be assessed for the reason that the abutting property is marsh land owned by the respective towns of Newtown and Flushing, and I beg to state that so far as your present counsel undertakes to reflect upon myself or my legal action, or my action as your counsel, in this matter, that such collection is unwarranted and unjustified by any provision of the law under which said proceedings were instituted. As to Mr. Wallace's statement that said Chapter 607, of the laws of 1893, is in conflict with the provision of the State Constitution, I have no comment to make other than if Mr. Wallace will examine the law sufficiently, he will ascertain that no less an authority than the Court of Appeals of the State of New York has decided that it is competent for the legislature to declare what is a city purpose within the meaning of the provision of the Constitution cited by him, and by parity of reasoning, it is equally competent for the legislature to declare what is a county purpose.

In justice to myself and in view of the fact that the opinion of your learned counsel will be spread upon the minutes, I ask that the board receive this communication and spread it also upon the minutes. Respectfully,

F. H. VAN VECHTEN.

—The Long Island Farmer, Jamaica, NY, May 10, 1895, p. 1.