The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-06-28
Under Police Protection.

In has annual report just now ISSueu
Mayor Russ goes for the water-works
Company with gloves off.
He thus takes up the matter OF pro
lection of the Walnut Greek water
she'd
..Carelessness has been observed that
it is my duty to mention, and that
impels me to suggest the necessity OF
asking legislation on. The watershed
should be put under the police jurisdic-
ton of the city of Raleigh. Were this
done, immediate prosecution of VIOLA
tons of law would be insured; as it is
now, the law is violated with lmpunlty
Corporations are invariably slow to
prosecute, the Raleigh Water Company
is not an exception to the rule. they
know of several violations committed
during the year and the guilty parties,
vet not a prosecution has followed
little Yeates," a mill-pond over
grown with rank vegetation, situated
on Walnut Creek, one and three quar-
ter miles above the intake, the prop
erty of L. D. Castleberry, was, on or
about the 18th day OF October, 1898,
condemned by DR.. James Mckee, Su-
perintendent of Health OF. the city, in
the presence of the superintendent OF
the Water Company; again condemned
in early January, jointly by DR.. L. Il:
Hines. Superintendent of Health OF
Wake county. and DR.. James Mckee,
CITY Superintendent of Health, yet no
action has been taken by the water
Company. although two terms or the
Criminal Court have been held since
this joint condemnation.
s'If the impounding of waters on TINS
watershed is violation of law; ii the
decomposition of the rank vegetation,
with which this pond is filled, IS pro-
ductive of albuminoid ammonia as IS
alleged in the paper OF condemnation
to the extent of menacing the puoilc
health, should not some steps have
been taken to abate this nuisance! In
view of the fact, your Mayor has re-
peatedly approached the President and
Superintendent of the Water Company
and urged immediate action in tins
particular case. Does not the action
of the company approximate closely 10
criminal negligence? !.
.'This company holds thousands or
lives in its hands, and its indifference
to the appeal of your chief ofilcers,
looking only toward prevention OF
pollution of it's product. is unprece-
dented and should receive the fuil
measure of condemnation is deserves.
"This Board should exercise some
nerve. and force certain precautlon-
arv measures until the Legislature
meets. Thecompany should be requir-
ed to employ a careful, CONSCIENTIOUS
man as an inspector, whose duty should
be to go over, not only the bed OF the
creek. but each of its tributaries each
week. AS it now stands, the Mayor
and Superintendent of Health OF the
city are required to go over 1t once
wear. These officers should be required
to make an inspection quarterly
mot less than four Biological ex-
aminations should be required during
the wear at the expense OF the compa-
nv. and copy of each filed for refer
ence at the Mayors office with otner
records of the Board OF Health. AS
the sheds population increases -
does the danger of pollution. Inc
next General Assembly should DE ask
ed for stringent laws regulating the
report of all contagious and infectious
diseases developing on the shed, ana 7,
providing for its immediate removal.
This created quite deal OF sehsa-
tional talk yesterday.
Last n12nU tne w sbVSl Nii>t'
nv gaye this statement to the News
and Observer: ... !,
.sTn view of the harsh criticisms OF
the wafer company made by certain
parties, justice requires this statement
If IFbe facts in regard to the Little
Yates" or Castleberry pond. When
tbe conplaint was made about this
nond. If was referred TO the company
astornev who sent for Mr. Castleberry
stated to him the facts, and tried to IN
ance him to remove the DAM which Mr.
Casfleberry. after consultation with ms
attorney declined to do The company
was advised that they had no right "a
90 out and tear down Mr.. Castleberry
dam by force of arms, and that the dam
could be torn down only by due process
of law. The 'Act to Police and Protect
the Water Shed of Walnut Greek, etc.
laws 1887. ch. $500, after declaring
what is a public nuisance on said water
shed. provides as follows:
section 3. 1t shall be the duty of the
Superintendent of Health OF wake
county to exercise due surveillance over
the water shed mentioned in the pre-
ceding section, and to abate the nui-
sance therein declared and forbidden
IN tine HldIST pItSGilbPb ~ S-Ai''- -
laws: and the ''Act Relating to the
Board of Health" claws 1855, ch. 237
section 10. and Public Laws 1898, eh
214 section 22), prescribe Whenever
and wherever a nuisance upon premises
shall exist, which in the opinion OF thf
County Superintendent of Health i
dangerous to the public health. it shat
be his duty to notify in writing the par
tiles occupying the premises of its exist
ence. its character and the means o.
abating it, Upon this notification tht
parties shall proceed to abalte the nui
sance, but failing To do this, shah bt
adiudged guilty of a misdemeanor anC
shall pay a fine of one dollar day
dating from twenty-four hours afte
fhe notification has been served.
"When the company was notified o
the complaint about this pond, the,
hired a carriage and took lthe COUNTY
superintendent of Health out to eN
anime IT. the company's attorney drew
the papers prescribed by the foregoing
- Legal authorities. and these papers
4r,evslI,.es, ,.-f,h a written reference IL