The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-02-15
The City's Water Supply and DAM
ages to the Manufacturers.
TWO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.
The City Has n Right To the Pawtuxet
Water In Pure state--The Manufsc-
turers Have Also Rights-Neither Need
Interfere with the Other.

was this week one case OF typhus in the
city, that the victim had lived here six
weeks, that his disease was unknown
until few days before his death. and
that the typhus germ is one of those that
can be carried IN waterfall these facts
only GO to show how easily the most
deadly disease may be carried TO this city
aud become prevalent in spite OF the
greatest precautions.
The question, therefore, which de-
mands attention is this one Of undefled
water. Speaking today of this subject
said one of the citizens who has studied
it carefully: ut makes little difference
whether filtration is practicable or not.
Every mechanical or artificial system of
filtration Is liable TO get out of order. 1t
is impossible TO build so perfect plant
that it will be free from accidents, and
even in the most skillfully constructed
filter beds leaks are not only pos
sible but probable. When they do oc-
cur the filth previously filtered out flows
in through in large quantities aud you
tee you against the dangers which must
result from themY
"Of course do not believe i'm filtration.
1t Is one of the greatest humbugs that
know OF; but, even granting that IL will
do nearly all that is claimed for it, il is
perfect system possible. This Is one of
the cases wherein the city can not afford
to purchase anything but the best no
matter what 1t costs within reasonable
limits. We can only get the best by
plan for getting water directly from its
sources OF supply.
'I know those Of us who believe in that
or similar plans are at once met with the
opposition that we will destroy or di-
minish tie water supply OF the manufac-
turers, aud that they will have good cases
for damages. That may all bs true. 1t
is claimed that these men have practi-
cally unlimited rights TO the use Of
water. They have not only the right TO
all that they use but they have the right
also TO what they do not use. In
a time of drought they may not have
en- ough, but in the time Of n flood they
h ave the right TO it ali IL they want it.
aud they can claim interference If they
don't get it all whether they use it or
not. In short, theirs is potential right
and the amount of water tnat they claim
is limited only by natures supply.
II may illustrate 1t in this way. /
have a horse in my stable that / do not
use. may never use it. My ownership
in the horse TO uff practical purposes Is
potential. You have no right To take the
horse simply because i do not want TO
use him or because he Is a surplus horse.
Neither have i the right say these men
even 10 the surplus water In the river.
Remember, however, if they claim
damages they must prove the amount OF
their damages. Their claims, of course,
will be enormous, and ii proportioned as
the NEwS said upon the damages
awarded in the case of Carr's pond,
would make it impossible Tor the city to
consider the plan AT all.
New that is one side OF the water sup |
ply question. lt is the manufacturers |
sue; but the city has IA side that is just |
rs good, in fact. just little better.
"Ihe waterways of the country are |
public property. Every one has the right |
- use them If he can get at them. The
can use this water, but the
;Ity has al equal right. Every on. who
Uses it can claim damages il the supply |
5 affected in any way. The law says |
hat the water may be used in auy way
but IL must be returned To |
he river 'undininished aud undefiled.'
low note those words. Do the manu-
acturers who take the water from the
goods. aud for bleaching lh.ir
return It to the river
? Do they return
t 'undefiled'a If they do not they
ire liable ior claims by the city for dam
iges.
Then again. the villages along the
tream must keep the water from be
less allow filth to run into IL they are
liable for damages too, and the cities in
urn have redress against the private
,wners OF property and can compel them
20 take care OF their waste matter
How great do you suppose the dam
lge is that the city receives every year
because of the filth that is IN our water
hat is directly traceable to thess millsg
q is incalculable.
'We have the right to this water. 'un-
Unfinished and undehled' If the manu-
acturers 90 not give IL To us the courts
Ire all in our favor. and we can easily
ompel them TO do SO. Iniunctions are
'ery easy things to get when one is in
be right and II ever we do thave a severe
pdemlc here, and that is not unlikely
his summer. the people will not stop at
njunctions.
THAT is the city's side OF the ques ion.
)f course both sides might en- er into
litigation, aud lawsuits bUtn costly and
numerous would arise. but my idea does
Iot include the probability of IA Lawsuit.
fere are two parties, the city and the
lanufac urers. Their interest, are
in fact they are nearly one and
be same under different titles Each
ave rights Each have claims for dam
ges, both claims sustainable at law: but |
be city's is the better and stronger of
be two. 10 sucn cases compromise is
lways possible. IL is in this case and |
hat leads TO the solution OF the problem
cry readily.
The city wants pure water, but IL
My wants enough for its own uses. IL
oes not need TO interfere at all with the
supply. Ii needs much
sss even than the surplus that these
nils do not use. There is enough for
9th and vastly more. This fact makes
compromise possible. Instead of going
nto the courts let the manufacturer. in
icate how much they need. Let them
ign over TO the city all their potential
lghss IN the surplus that they do not
gant. Then let the city and the manu-.
acturers withdraw all claims for dam
ges. and the whole question is settled
Or all time.
"by the storage system Of reservoirs
lie manufacturers will receive all the
vater they want at all times aud far
nore regularly than now. and the city
Till have "A pure water supply directly
b aiued from its sources. III You want
o filter tnat, well and good. 10 not ob.
ret. but filtered spring water is better
ban filtered sewage"
sixth District Court.