﻿552 
  NEW 
  YORK 
  STATE 
  MUSEUM 
  

  

  damage. 
  The 
  case 
  presented, 
  however, 
  by 
  the 
  Syracuse 
  water 
  act 
  

   was 
  claimed 
  by 
  the 
  opponents 
  of 
  the 
  scheme 
  to 
  be 
  very 
  different 
  

   in 
  that 
  it 
  provided 
  in 
  effect 
  — 
  if 
  the 
  consent 
  of 
  the 
  Canal 
  Board 
  be 
  

   obtained 
  — 
  that 
  the 
  entire 
  flow 
  of 
  the 
  catchment 
  area 
  be 
  held 
  at 
  

   the 
  will 
  of 
  the 
  city 
  of 
  Syracuse 
  and 
  without 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  

   rights 
  of 
  the 
  riparian 
  owners. 
  Without 
  stopping 
  to 
  discuss 
  this 
  

   point 
  at 
  length, 
  it 
  may 
  be 
  pointed 
  out 
  in 
  passing 
  that 
  the 
  city 
  of 
  

   (Syracuse 
  has 
  taken 
  measures 
  to 
  become 
  possessed 
  of 
  all 
  the 
  water 
  

   rights 
  on 
  the 
  stream, 
  either 
  by 
  purchase 
  or 
  by 
  condemnation, 
  the 
  

   condemnation 
  cases 
  being 
  in 
  process 
  at 
  the 
  present 
  time. 
  

  

  As 
  a 
  further 
  technical 
  objection, 
  it 
  was 
  contended 
  by 
  the 
  

   opponents 
  that 
  the 
  Syracuse 
  water 
  act 
  did 
  not 
  provide 
  for 
  money 
  

   compensation, 
  but 
  for 
  the 
  construction 
  of 
  a 
  storage 
  reservoir 
  to 
  

   furnish 
  compensation 
  in 
  kind. 
  The 
  proposition 
  advanced 
  under 
  

   this 
  head 
  was 
  that 
  money, 
  which 
  is 
  the 
  only 
  measure 
  of 
  damage 
  

   or 
  value 
  known 
  in 
  the 
  commerce 
  of 
  the 
  civilized 
  world, 
  was 
  the 
  

   only 
  proper 
  compensation 
  to 
  make, 
  the 
  principle 
  of 
  water 
  com- 
  

   pensation, 
  as 
  extensively 
  developed 
  abroad, 
  apparently 
  being 
  un- 
  

   known 
  to 
  those 
  opposing 
  the 
  'Syracuse 
  water 
  act. 
  

  

  After 
  exhaustive 
  hearings 
  before 
  the 
  Canal 
  Board, 
  in 
  which 
  

   arguments 
  of 
  the 
  opposition 
  were 
  strongly 
  presented, 
  the 
  Canal 
  

   Board 
  finally 
  granted 
  the 
  permission 
  authorized 
  by 
  the 
  law 
  passed 
  

   in 
  1889. 
  

  

  Waterpower 
  development 
  discouraged 
  in 
  New 
  York. 
  We 
  have, 
  

   therefore, 
  the 
  following 
  contradictory 
  conditions, 
  tending 
  to 
  dis- 
  

   courage 
  the 
  development 
  of 
  waterpower 
  existing 
  in 
  the 
  State 
  

   of 
  New 
  York. 
  Special 
  mill 
  acts 
  applying 
  to 
  the 
  northern 
  part 
  of 
  

   the 
  State 
  have 
  been 
  enacted, 
  but 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  general 
  mill 
  act 
  

   applying 
  to 
  the 
  entire 
  State. 
  [Since 
  writing 
  the 
  foregoing, 
  Senate 
  

   bill 
  No. 
  679 
  of 
  session 
  of 
  1904, 
  An 
  Act 
  to 
  establish 
  a 
  permanent 
  

   commission 
  for 
  the 
  regulation 
  of 
  the 
  flow 
  of 
  watercourses 
  in 
  this 
  

   State 
  in 
  aid 
  of 
  public 
  health 
  and 
  safety, 
  to 
  be 
  known 
  as 
  the 
  River 
  

   Improvement 
  Commission, 
  has 
  received 
  Executive 
  approval] 
  . 
  On 
  

   Hudson 
  and 
  Mohawk 
  rivers 
  the 
  State 
  claims 
  the 
  right 
  to 
  the 
  

   waters, 
  while 
  on 
  the 
  Genesee 
  river 
  and 
  other 
  streams 
  of 
  the 
  west- 
  

   ern 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  State 
  the 
  English 
  common 
  law 
  rule 
  prevails. 
  On 
  

   Seneca 
  river 
  there 
  has 
  been 
  a 
  controversy 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  water 
  rights 
  

   extending 
  from 
  1830 
  to 
  the 
  present 
  time. 
  Due 
  to 
  restrictive 
  laws, 
  

  

  