As a measure of economy, the Commission recommends that his salary be fixed at $15,000, and that the Transfer Tax percentage be paid into the City Treasury. The Mayor's salary remains at $15,000.

DEPARTMENT OF BRIDGES.

No change of any moment has been thought to be necessary in the case of the Department of Bridges. It has, however, been deemed advisable that the exception which was made in the present Charter with regard to the East River Bridge, now under construction, should be done away with, and that this bridge be put in the hands of the Commissioner of Bridges. The Commission was brought to this conclusion principally because of the fact that the Commissioners of the East River Bridge have been treated both by the present City administration and by the Courts as a part of the regular City government, and that, as a result, the increased expense resulting from the existence of a separate commission was not offset by any advantages due to permanency.

The increased importance in the public mind of the question of tunnels has led us to recommend also that tunnels, other than Rapid Transit tunnels, be placed in the charge of the Commissioner of Bridges. No provision is made in the present Charter for these means of communication.

MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.

We have been urged by many of those who have addressed us to make provision for the ownership by the City of what are known as "public utilities." Water-works, gas-works, electriclighting establishments, ice plants, printing establishments, and docks are some of the subjects to which our attention has been particularly directed. We are convinced, for reasons which we need not here elaborate, that the present policy in regard to

the municipal ownership of all the water supply of the City, and of the wharves and bulkheads on and ferries to Manhattan Island, should be continued. We are not, however, prepared to recommend any wider general extension of the principle.

WATER SUPPLY.

It has seemed to the Commission that the Department of Water Supply should continue to be centralized and under the control of a single Commissioner. Accordingly no material change is recommended in the organization of this Department, except that on account of the importance and differing conditions of the Brooklyn water supply it has been deemed necessary to require that a Deputy Commissioner be located in that borough, and except that, for reasons above stated, we recommend conferring upon the Department the powers in relation to gas and electric conduits now vested in the Commissioner of Public Buildings, Lighting and Supplies. The Department of Water Supply, dealing as it does with the laying of watermains throughout the City, could easily deal with the laying of gas and electric conduits, and it might incidentally and easily test the character of the service supplied.

A very important question, however, arises in connection with the question of water supply, to which our special attention was called by a letter from you dated May 26, 1900.

We condemn the legislation called to our attention by you, which has given special privileges to the Ramapo Company, by means of which that company seeks to monopolize the most readily accessible sources for the supply of water to the City, and in the interest of the City and its citizens we recommend the repeal of that legislation.

We have retained in Section 471 of the Charter the existing provisions of law prohibiting the making of any contract for the supplying or selling of water, except with the approval of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, together with the separate written consent and approval of both the Mayor and

the Comptroller of The City of New York. We have also retained the provisions in the same Section providing that the making or approval of any such contract may be reviewed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

We have been urged to recommend the entire prohibition. of the making of contracts for the supply of water from any private source, so that there might be exclusive public ownership of the source of water supply in The City of New York. Although the Commission is satisfied that municipal ownership of water supply should be the general rule, yet there are exceptional cases in the Boroughs of The Bronx, Queens and Richmond, in which it is now essential, and may be for many years to come, that water should be obtained from sources not owned by the City; but we believe the present provisions of law, while enabling such exceptional contracts to be made, will sufficiently guard against any improvident arrangement upon a larger scale.

In Section 472 we have proposed amendments to the Charter which will enable the City to condemn water rights in all parts of the State. But we propose that in case of condemnation proceedings no sources of supply shall be taken which are in actual use at the time of the initiation of proceedings for condemnation "for the supply of the water-works of the people of any other city, town or village of the State, or for the supply and distribution of waters to the people thereof; or which in the opinion of the Court on such proceedings may reasonably become necessary for such supply; or to take or use the water from any of the canals of the State,” etc.

While these powers seem to give to The City of New York ample means of extending its supply of water as such extension may become necessary in the future, and also to give reasonable security to the inhabitants of those parts of the State from which the water supply must be derived, yet the Commission calls attention to the fact that the possession of such powers by the City will not fully solve the entire problem.

The constitutional provisions against increasing the City's debt operate in practice so as to make it exceedingly difficult for the City to borrow money for the purpose of extending its sources of the water supply. Money may, indeed, under the Constitution, be borrowed without limit for this purpose; but in case the total indebtedness, including that incurred for the water supply, exceeded the limit imposed by the Constitution, The City of New York could not borrow money for other purposes essential to its continued growth-such as the extension of its docks and the building of new schools-until the total city debt had again been brought within the Constitutional limit. The Commission therefore recommends an amendment to Section 10 of Article VIII. of the Constitution, which will so far modify the existing limitations on the incurring of indebtedness by cities as to except from its provisions indebtedness hereafter to be incurred by The City of New York for purposes of water supply. The justification for this exception is the profit incident to municipal ownership of the water supply, and that bonds issued and expenditures made for such purposes not only do not add to the burdens of taxation, but that they actually tend to reduce such burdens.

The

The necessity for removing restrictions upon the ability of the City to provide its inhabitants with a pure, wholesome and sufficient supply of water is urgent. danger of having the water supply of The City of New York thrown into private hands arises mainly from financial considerations. The day is not far distant when the pinch of water shortage will be actually felt. If, when that day comes, the City is unable itself to supply the needs of its citizens, theoretical considerations, however sound, will not be permitted to stand in the way of securing additional water by the means most speedily available. In other words, the constitutional limitation, operating it practically does to prevent the City from securing more water,

as

also

undoubtedly operates with constantly increasing certainty to throw the City into the hands of private monopoly. It is not to be expected that the people or their officers shall exercise such extraordinary self-denial as to forego the necessities of the present hour in order to undertake improvements and additions to the water-supply system, the benefits of which will not be experienced for ten or fifteen years. And when it is borne in mind that the supplying of water to the citizens of New York has always been a profitable enterprise, the Commission believes that there is no reason for continuing in force a constitutional provision which, in the present state of the law, leaves the citizens of New York only two unhappy alternatives: recourse to a private company for the supply of water, or the interruption of the orderly and necessary development of the City.

It is particularly to be noted that we recommend that this constitutional restriction shall be removed only as to future indebtedness, so that no sudden enlargement of the City's debt incurring capacity, leading to possible extravagance, can result.

DEPARTMENT OF DOCKS.

Acting under the same view of the importance of extending and increasing the facilities of this Port, we recommend that the limit now fixed upon the annual issue of bonds by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment without the concurrence of the Board of Aldermen for dock purposes be raised from three million dollars to five million dollars a year.

The organization and powers of the Dock Board are left without material change, except that the power to contract for repairs to an unlimited amount without competitive bidding, and the granting of such contracts upon mere orders by the Dock Board-a power which is liable to grave abuse-is made