The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-04-19

Sewerage Commission, appointed in 1896,
to study the publication of the Passalc
| Valley, and it was his conclusion, after a
| study of the subject, that it was neces-
sary that the sewage matter should pc
disposed of in some other way tnan ny
permitting it to drain into the Passaic
River. Mr.. Fteley thought that Tor sew
eral reasons the best method to folloW
to dispose of the sewag would be by
conducting the crude sewage 70 the sea
by a trunk sewer, and not permitting Il 10
enter the Passaic River at any point.
Thomas w. Leake of Jersey City. for.
merly inspector of the Joint Board OF
/ testimony by AFFIDAVIT to the filthiness OF
the river. 1t was his duty, he said, 70
patrol the river and to take samples Of It
at the Jersey City Water Works intake
and submit them to Prof. A. r. Leeds
, and G.. w. G.. Phillips of Jersey City Tor
! analysis. The water, he said, was full
! sewage matter from thekcity Of Paterson
coming over the Dundee Dam, and IN
! summer time the portion of the dam over
which the water of the Passaic ran was
covered an inch deep with filthy sewerage
substance.
William II. Hooker, superintendent of
Jersey City'S water works at Beaeyille,
! submitted his affidavit to the effect that
| during the years lS94-'95 the Passaic River
at the Jersey City intake became more
! foul and offensive and in 1895 was totally
| unfit for domestic use. He had seen dead
fish floating in the river at the intake
| killed by the sewage. In consequence OF
had paid the East Jersey water Com
| pany about $1,000 a day, or S365,00O per
| year. for water. When he was Street and
Water Commissioner, he said, the cost OF
Passaic River at Belleville did not ex-
coed 100000 per year, and from the river
| the Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City
| used q. 600. 900 gallons per day and the re-
| ceipts exceeded 81. 500 per day.
George w. C. Phillips, druggist, Newark
avenue and Grove street, testified BY afi,
dayit that he had analyzed the water ana
found it unfit for use as drinking water.
The analyses had led him to conclude
that the presence In the water at Belle
Vile at low tide of free and albuminojd
ammonia and chlorine in excess of the
amount generally formed was c~hargeable
to actual pollution by the discharge into
the river OF refuse and putrescible matter.
Ex-Judge Stephenson, for the Mayor
and Aldermen of Paterson, in reply said
that he had answered to the bill by de-
murrer and the principal points of his
for the refusal OF the injunction
were
First-The complainants had not in their
bill stated such a cause as entitled them
lands of the defendants.
Second-The bill did not set forth any
injuries to the compliments which gave
a Court of Equity jurisdiction.
Third-The bill did not show that the
condition of affairs alleged therein to be
injurious or constituting a nuisance was
caused by the defendants.
Fourth-The bill seeks to restrain the
defendants from using the sPassaic River
as d conduit for sewage of the city of
Paterson, whereas the city has a right to
use the river in the manner complained
of.
Fifth-The bill improperly joins together
different causes of action and different
legal n equitable claims which hould
be separately sued.
City Counsel Thomas C. Simonton. Jr.,
read a bunch of ~affidavits setting up a
great number of facts to show that Pater-
SONS sewers were not RESPONSIBLE for
the condition of the Passaic River. Even
ii the city had no sewers, he contended,
the stream. in the city of Paterson, he
said, were a thousand horses used for
travel, and the excrement from these ami
mails on the streets naturally washed into
the river. In fact, the washing of the
public streets was unayoidably poured
into the river. and differed little from sew
sewering into the river had done SO for
twenty years or more, and, therefore,,
had a preseriptive right to do 50, and the
city of Paterson cOtfld not be blamed for
these individual owners.
Mr.. James B. ~Vredenburgh rose to make
his argument for the injunction. In a
the facts already made known that the
city of Paterson was maintaining a nuis-
ance in pouring 100000 gallons of sew
Passaic River. The water, he said, had
been i~rretrievably ruined, and the air
above the water had been contaminated
with the focal matter in the water and
caused zymotic diseases.
The other side argued Mr.. Vreden-
burgh. SAY that they have a right to use
the river and talk about palatable water
and prescription rights; but the question
is that there is more sewage put into the
water than the water can bear, and it has
become a public nuisance and a menace
to health, and should be stopped. The
nuisance complained of is a public nui-
sance. We also complain that this public
nuisance has created private nuisanees1s
What is a public muisance?'' interrupt
ed the Chancellor.
THE pollution of the water and the
smell" the lawyer was about to say.
"As to the smell, they may have relief,
but how as to the pollution of the stream
by sewage? Is that a nuisance?" asked
the Chancellor.
Mr.. V~redenhurgh commended that it was,
and proceeded to riddle the plea that there
were prescriptive rights to po1lute the
stream. Such a contention he said was
absurd. The city of Paterson by pouring
its sewage ond the grounds of the defend
ants had practically taken their roperty
without compensation, and, in fact, said
.sYou amt stop a big city for a poor
man. The city should be stopped, be-
cause the evil was growing worse every
i understand" said the Chancellor,
"that the questions in this are purely
legal. The facts of the nuisance, | be-
iieve. are not denied. Will counsel pro-
coed to argue the demurrer rowg
Both sides having consented the 6
ment was begun after recess this after
noon.