The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-11-16
Sawdust.
A correspondent under the title of
" Mill Operator " writes;

Chill Operator writes:
In your editorial of last week under the
head of "Fish, Sawdust, Tannery Watts,
etc." you argue very clearly for the fish
and the fisherman, but against the mill
owner and manufacturer. You say: The
attempt by law to keep sawdust out of the
streams is right and reasonable" Perhaps
it is, but how many mills and shops are
there in Washington county, alone, that if
the above statement should become law it
would cost the owners from 800 to $500
every year to take care of their sawdust
and shavings? How many Of these mills
and shops are there that have room for a
dumping ground for this stuff where they
can burn it2 Not one in ten; and 80 an ex-
ira hand and team must be employed to
cart this refuse matter away, If they are
fortunate enough to find place for it. Not
one in ten of these mills wants an engine, as
they have plenty of power, and this law will
compel them either to hire an extra man
and team, or purchase an engine-and in
three cases out of four it will cause a shut
down in the business. And what is true of
Washington county is true of every county
in the state
The remainder of the correspondents
letter is a TRADE against " loafers and
"kid-g glove gentry" who, from his point
of view, are the only people interested
in the fish question. To give his view
of the question its greatest strength, we
omit his objurgations, which are neither
Just nor true, and are without "rhyme
or reason" The objections to dump
ing sawdust or any other form of refuse
into the streams do not, by any means,
end in considerations affecting fish cul-
ture. Land owners below mill sites
have rights which are invaded and in
terests which are imperilled by the too
unrestricted use of the occupants of the
banks above them.
Again, another view of the extent to
which individuals may use-or misuse
the public waters is well stated by the
Brattleboro Ph@niG. After quoting
with approval the WATCHMAN's re-
cent article, the Pbonir adds
There is broader ground than this, how
ever, which the Phgpir has already stated.
1t is that the public waters are public her
itage, and no one has a right to destroy
either their natural use or their natural
beauty, in which all the people have CON-
mon right. A strong effort is being made
to attract summer visitors to Vermont, and
the streams and the woods are the two fea-
lures which need caring for first of all
No class of people has made or is
making war so merciess upon the nat
ural beauties and the future revenues
of Vermont as the lumbermen. Nc
class, we say There are individual and
notable eXceptions-men who are pur-
suing the business of lumber mauufac.
turing with an intelligent regard for
the future, for the preservation of forest
growth and the beauty of the wooded
hills. But the average lumberman
skins the mountain ridges, adds fire to
the ravages of the axe and converts into
an unsightly and Improbable waste
what was once a delightful stretch OF
woodland, grateful to the eye, nursing
the streams, benetcent to man, temper
ing the climate, sheltering the cultivated
fields and shedding down the manifold
blessings the kindly forests hold in their
keeping. We welcome any effort by
legislation or private influence or enter
prise that will tend to enforce upon the
occupants of mil privileges along the
streams of the state respect for the
individual rights of fellow-occupants
and the broader rights of the people al
large, whose heritage the waters of the
| atata are