The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-08-05

quick and energetic action in relieving
us Of this monstrous nuisance, will glad
den the hearts Of every man, womun and
child in the ecommunity-ac aconsummation
most devoutly to be wished for. :.
AN OLD CITIZEN.
Mr.. EDITOR: have been q deeply in
terested observer Of events connected
with the city water supply. and at one
time thought that the interest univer-
sally manifested by the citizens warrant
ed the expectation that something would
be dono to provide a supply OF good
water. But I have been disappointed.
and now believe that everything that
has been done by the citizens was just
what tho water 20 nj any wauted I be-
i.cve they huvc been playing into tue
hands of that company nil the time.
Mr.. Pearce is smart mag, and he has
employed smart lawyers to help him, and
they together have been leading the peo.
pie of Columbia by the nose ali Che time,
and no doubt enjoy many laugh over
their brandy and ,ceN water, at the ease
with which they have done it. But, Mr..
Editor, however we'll such game may
pay Mr.. Pearce, it does not pay the peo-
pie Of ColumbiR, and We want it stopped.
We want good, pure water, and we want
it at once, and we must have it. and 1
think [ express the sentiment of the
great majority of the citizens, when
say, we aciK have it.
Now, propose to tell you how think
we con get it. We have been wasting
our time in ''inquiring" and Investigate
ing aud experimenting and suggesting,
and giving Mr.. Pearce the delay which,
[ think, is the keynote of his policy in
this matter, just as long as we can affurd
to do 80; and now we must do some
thing that is business. Now, what eau
we do? Well, wo can indict Mr. Pearce
for producing nuisance. 1 know the
City Attorney thinks differently, because
he says no one is obliged to use the
spout water. Now, with all defcronce to
his large experience and excellent jud9-
ment ir legal questions, think that that
is no reason why he can't be convicted.
For am not compelled, in law, to use
the water ont OF my we'll; bu: if Mr..
Pearco pours filth into it, so that when 1
go to draw up water to drink, L find filth
in the bucket, instead OF water. can he
not be indicted for it? Suppose that
stream of good water flowed through
the city, or any village or neighbor
hood. and the people who lived near
it were III the habit of using the
were to wantonly throw anything into
that stream which would render the
water unfit for use, would lie not be
guilty OF nuisance? Now, though the
people OF Columbia are not compelled in
law to use the water from the hydrants,
they have the right 10 do SO; and when
Mr.. Penrce throws substances into those
hydrants which are offensive and poison
Gus, as he does Gf [ remember DR..
Gibbes' statement correctly al the rate
OF at least forty grains to the half gallon
o: water, he should be punished for it.
And the law provides punishment, if
any Of our public men have the courage
to apply it.
But thnt is not our main remedy. Mr..
Pearce has not only no right to throw
filth into the hydrants, but it is his duty
to keep them filled with good, pure
water. This he con ntracted with tke City
Council to do. He has not done it, and
has. therefore, violated his contract.
The consequence is, thu City Council is
not bound by it. They need not pay
him what they agreed to pay; they can
proceed to supply tho city with water
themselves. and eau sue him for damages
for the breach Of his contract. And
this, 1 think, onght to be done What's
the use Of going "all round Robin
Hoods barn" for a remedy. when here
is one so simple right to our hands?
Moreover, believe that any individual
who is injured, or whose family is injured
by this water, can recover damages from
Mr.. Penrce, or from the city; aud 80 Can
any washer-woman whose business sut-
fers from it.
[ have kept silent thus long on this
question, Mr.. Editor, because I hoped
some one else would suggest these IDEAS.
But have not heard them suggested,
and now hope the City Council, or
some Of our prominent citizens, will act
upon these hints. and not be Mr.. Pearce's
dupes my longer. BUSINESS.
10 The Board W HsAh-GENTLEMEI:
There is no doubt but that your author
ity is supreme on the subject of abating
nuisances and preserving the health Of
the city, by reference to decision OF
Judge Pratt, Of the Supreme Court of
Now York, in n similar case. He sus-
tained the Board Of Health, saying they
had authority TO proceed in such mat
ters, and to determine whether it WAS
nuisance or not and abate it summarily.
1 think your duty is clear. Order at
once the Chief of Police to abate the
nuisance, and direct him how to Go it
peaceabiy; cut the connecting pipe be.