The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-01-23
PASSAN POLLUTION
How Gov. Griggs Helped
to C%ontaminate Jersey
City's Drinking
Water.
MADE A W OF THE RIVER
NeWark's Memorable Fight to Keep
the Supply Pure and
Wholesome.
MADE A w OF THE RIVER

- COlSlTucl Il fnalH sewer Will Sewer VI
lateral sewers emptying into it. The
main sewer was to be so built that its
contents would be discharged into the
Passaic River. The plans contemplated
sewers aggregating 1850 feet in length,
and the drainage of ITO dwelling houses
containing 1,126 inhabitants, shop stores
and factories in which l13 people were
employed, and a public school attended
by about 400 pupils. The section Of the
city in which those drains were to be
located was at that time rapidly build
ing up and increasing in population. The
sewers were not to receive the surface
or rain water, but were to be cleared by
means OF flush tanks, and it was esti-
mated that 10000 gallons of filth from
privies, sinks and factories would be emp
tied into the river each day. The in
take to Newark's water supply was then
located just four miles below The this
large quantity of filth was poured into
the Passaic. The city Immediately be-
came alarmed at the prospect of having
this large quantity Of sewage practical
ly emptied into its water supply, and the
Newark Aqueduct Board hastened to OBJ
tain from Chancellor MeGill an injunc-
ton to Stop the construction of the
sewer. They set up in their bill of com
plant that the proposed sewage would
pollute the waters that were supplied to
Newark and other communities and
would create a nuisance especially injuri-
Gus to the complainant. 1t also claimed
that If it should be determined that the
complainant would not sustain a special
and distinct injury it was nevertheless
empowered by special statutory author
ity to maintain this suit, if injury would
result to it, though it be merely in COM
mon with the remainder Of the public.
To this the city of Passaic, through
Governor Griggs, replied that in the first
place hat Newark had no right in the
waters of the Passaic River which was
not in common to all citizens of the
State, and that an injury to such right
could not result in sue a special and
peculiar injury as would enable Newark
to maintain the suit in her own name;
second, that in the absence of such spe-
cial injury it had no authority to MAIN
tain the suit; third, that if, under the
legislation from which it derived its
powers the complainant had obtained a
distinct right to the waters of the Pas
sale, such right did not clearly appear,
and should be established at law before the
issuance of the Injunction sought, and.
fourth. that in point of fact the proposed
discharge of the sewage would not pol
lutte or otherwise i%njuriously affect the
waters of the Passaic at the Newark in
take.
Voluminous testimony was taken. and
the question extensively argued by Col
onel E. S. Price and Mr.. Thomas N. Nc
Carter for Newark and Governor Griggs
and G.. p. Rust for Passaic. The Chancel-
1or rendered his decision at the May, 1889,
term of the Court. He reviewed the testi-
mony and argument at length, and held
that the waters of the Passaic River when
the tide GIBBS and flows, as was shown it
did at Passaic. belonged to the State for
the uses common to all its citizens, and
that the city of Newark had no special
rights In the water certres by reason of
its riparian ownership on the river or by
grant from the State which might be in-
jured by the apprehended nuisance and
enabled it by showing an apprehended in
jury distinct from that which would be
by the other inhabitants of the
State to maintain individual suit to re-
strain the nuisance. At the best the Chan
cellor held such special rights had
not been established by adjudication in
this State. Newark, the Chancellor fur
Their determined, was not in a position to
ask for a preliminary injunction when
the right on which it founded its claim
was. as a matter of law, unsettled. He
also held Ahat the proceeding in equity
to restrain a public nuisance was by
information by the Attorney General and
that the statutory authority given to
Newark to maintain a suit in equity for
nuisance to water courses connected
with its work, did not constitute it a pub
lie agent to sue to restrain a public
but merely clothed it with
power to sue as an individual might for
the protection of private property. At
the same time the Chancellor laid down.
the principle that an injunction to re-
strain a nuisance would issue only in
cases where the fact of nuisance is made
out upon determinate and satisfactory
evidence, and that if the evidence be
conflicting and the injury be doubtful
that will constitute a ground for with
holding the injunction. He further held
that If the injury be merely apprehend-
ed, 1t must appeal that the a~pprehen-
sion of material n irreparable injury
is well grounded upon a state of facts
which shows the danger to be real and
lIIllItSQldlC, SQGl1 OlkQ III IN
declared. did not appear in the case I'M
der consideration. AS in all cases of such
Importance an appeal was taken by New
ark to the Court Of Errors and Appeals.
the case was threshed over again.
and in the March, 1890, term the Chan
cellor's opinion was confirmed by a
vote Of s to 2. Mr.. Justice Dixon deliv-
cred the opinion Of the Court, saying:-
On March IS, 1889 the complainant ex-
hibited its bill in clla1icery to restrain the
defendants from constructing In the city
of Passaic certain public sewers therein
east their contents into the Passaic river,
and thereby, the bill alleged, would
render noxious the water drawn by the
complainant from the river for the use
Of the Inhabitants of the city of Newark.
tanned q rule, that the defendants show
cause why a preliminary injunction to the
effect stated should not forwith issue,
and, at Its return. the city of Passaic
presented its nswer with accompanying
affidavits, which inter ALA, negatived the
Passaic would affect the water at the
eomplainants intake. The rule to show
cause was then discharged by the Cham
Hcelior, upon two grounds-frst, that the
complainant had no authority to maintain
d suit to prevent such pollution Of the
to the Inhabitants or Newark; second,
that. as the spprehended pollution had
not yet taken place, and was not im-
.mediately threaeened, and 1t was doubts
full, under the proofs, whether such pollu-
iefericuss Is the city Of Newark there
fore, no case for . preliminary injunction
had arisen.