When  I  was  counsel  to  the  New  East  Biver  Bridge,  I  was  strenu-
ous that  that  should  be  in  all  contracts  there,  because  the  works
when  completed  became  the  property  of  the  city.  In  this  case
the  work  when  completed  will  not  be  the  property  of  the  city,
but  the  property  of  the  Ramapo  company,  who  expends  its  money
for  the  performance  of  that  work,  and  it  does  not  come  within
the  provisions  of  the  statute;  and  I  do  not  know  that  it  ought  to,
by  contract,  be  brought  within  the  provisions  of  the  statutes  that


Nos.  26-27.]  3259

are  applicable  to  municipalities  alone.  These  are  the  four  points
of  essential  difference  between  the  two  contracts,  and  I  am  glad
to  be  able  to  point  them  out,  because  it  seems  to  me  it  removes
almost  entirely  from  this  Ramapo  company  the  criticisms  that
have  been  made  by  you  and  others  upon  the  impossibility  of  the
contract.  I  am  the  general  counsel,  and  Mr.  Lauterbach  is  the
special  counsel.  That  is  the  way  it  stands  as  a  matter  of  record.
J  once  was  before  the  board  of  public  improvements  to  speak
in  behalf  of  the  Ramapo  company,  at  a  public  hearing.  Mr.
Holahau  presided.  That  was  the  first  time  I  had  ever  seen  him,
to  my  knowledge.  And  the  next  time  that  I  have  ever  seen  him,
or  had  any  communication  with  him,  was  in  this  room  since  we
have  both  been  subpoenaed  here  as  witnesses.  I  never  heard  of
]Mr.  Lauterbach's  approaches  to  Mr.  Holahan  until  here.
