The morning call., 1892-09-07

foul and poisonous refuse into the spark
ling crystal waters Of a beautiful mountain
stream.
II tie people win the Taylor mill will be
compelled 10 construct dam or some other
contyiyance to prevent It's sewage from pol
luting the stream.
The case will be bitterly fought on both
sides.
Its quite evident that the Taylors will
spend two or three times the cost OF run
ming off the mill refuse in lawyer
fees and other litigation expenses rather
than be beaten.
Should the TayIors win the suit trout
fishing on PapeI-mill Greek will soon be-
come a thing of the past. except from
Tocaoma oceanward, and baneiui pre-
cedent will be established that may result
In the eventual pollution OF all the trout
streams In the State.
This. at all events, is the view taken OF
the matter by the sportsmen and anglers
and there Is much reason i'll their argu-
ment.
The sole question to be determined at this
trial is whether the refuse from the taylor
paper-mill is injurious to fish.
The CALI. has shown that there are
poisonous ingredients in the mill refuse.
Water taken nearly mile below the mill
upon careful analysis by Chemist Evans OF
this city showed two agents absolutely
poisonous to organized lie.
The Fish C0mmiSsi0n-be it set down TO
its everlasting credit-has also had an an
alysis made of the water polluted by the re-
fuse of the Taylor paper-mill.
Its analysis shows that organized life
could not exist in such water.
Botn these analyses prove more than
necessary.
The law is very plain. It says ANY sub
stance deleterious to fist"
Now The CALLS analysis showed the
least of the harmful ingredients III the
PapeT-mill Creek water is glue.
Ii nothing else but glue found its way into
the creek from the mills refuse outlet the
Taylors would still be breaking the law and
a conscientious jury must ind them guilty
as charged
That the accused will demand jury trial
when the case Is called this morning seems
TO 20 without saying, though the matter to
be adjudcated is a very simple one and
very easily determined by a competent
judge.
But the Taylorg will have purpose in
demanding jury trial.
Already it has been rum0red about that
if the case goes against the accused the mills
will be shut down, possibly the plant re-
moved. and at all events, eighty employees
thrown out of work.
Edward Taylor himself intimated as much
as this to CALL reporter few days ago.
And in this rumor is the reason for the
jury.
move our mill" is the cry Of the Tayl0rs.
And it Is expected that this appeal TO the
jury will be sufficient to secure verdict of
aequittal.
But the Taylors are reckoning without
their host
Marin County citizens know that this is
a bluff, and should the evidence warrant q
conviction, may be counted on to raise"
Marin County citizens are not to be
bluffed-nOt when they hold full hands"
themselves, at any rate.
II has been variously estimated that the
paper-mll refuse could be disposed of at
cost of from 500 to $500.
Would IL be cheaper to obey the law and
run off the refuse, or remove the mills to
another locality?
That Is the question.
That is the kind of a hand the mill-owners
are blnffing on.
A good ''pair" will beat IT,
And the Marin County citizens know it.
But suppose the Taylors did contemplate
removing their paper-mlll, Is ii likely they
would find another stream IN all the great
State where the inhabitants would be more
lenient than the Marin County people have
been?
Why, this poisoning and polluting have
been going on for thirty-six long years.
So long, in fact, that the Taylors think it
ought to last forever.
II man breaks the law for thirty-six
years does that give him an inherent right
to 90 ON breaking it forever?
If that Is true then how long must
grievous wrong prevail in order for it to
become right?
Here are some pertinent questions
If the Taylor mills are allowed to go on
poluting Paper Creek-and all the
other mills allowed TO follow suit, which is
only just-then what is the use of taxing
the people for the establishment and MAIN
teBance OF fish hatcheries?
If Taylor's paper-mill refuse kills 10, 900
fish year. how long will 1t take for the
State Fish Commission to stock that
stream at the rate of 6000 young fish every
year?
Is it profitable to raise fish in hatcheries
only to be poisoned by the refuse of mills
Is it profitable to place young fish in
Paper-mill Creek above the paper-mill and
permit them 90 be run Off in the Taylors'
private flume?
Is it right to use public funds to keep the
Taylor frying-pan sizzling?
Mr.. Taylor says 1t Is.
He admits that all the fish from up the
stream are run into the mills flume and he
says that is right
The law says 1t is not right.
What will the jury say?