The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-04-21
PASSAIC POLLUTION.
Close of the Case to Compel
Paterson to Abate
the Nuisance.
JOHN 2. sTocKToN's ARGUMENT
Contends That the Sewage Poured
Into the River Is a Menace
TO Health.

The legal battle to compel the Mayor
and Aldermen of Paterson, temporarily,
to stop polluting the Passaic River came
to a close late yesterday afternoon with
the closing on the part Of the
Attorney General and the REALTORS. ripar-
ian owners in the Passaic Valley below
the city of Paterson. That argument was
presented by ex-Attorney General John +.
Stockton.
The eminent lawyer addressed himself
first to the objections in the demurrer
filed by the city of Paterson to the bill for
injunction, and the first of these was
that the information was multifarlous,
and joins several causes of action. MI
stockton aid on this point that the rule
with regard to multifariousness, whether
arising from the misjoinder of causes
of action, or of defendants therein, is not
an infiexible rule of practice OF of pro-
eedure. 1t was a rule founded in general
convenience, which rested on a eonsidera-
ton of what viii best I'M the adj
ministration of justice without multiply
ing litigation on the one hand or drawing
suitors into needless and unnecessary ex-
pense on the other. The case of Lehigh
Valley R. R. Co. VS.. McFarlan, 4 Stew,
$50, settled that.
Replying to Counsellor S~tevenson's sec
ond point denying the jurisdiction of the
Court of Chanoery, Mr.. Stockton said that
it was we'll settled hat the Court of
EQUITY had jurisdiction to restrain exist
ing or threatened public nuisaaces by in
junction at the suit of the Attorney Cen
l..&--1 1111Ar
consideration. Mr.. Stockton said:-
9TH corruption OF a stream OF water
utilized as a source for the supply OF VIZ
ter to a town for the ordinary domestic
use of it's inhabitants and for drinking
constitutes a public nuisance, aIectlng
the health and comfort of an entire CON-
munity. and calls for the fnterpoSltion OF
the Attorney General in a suit to- enJoln
the wrongful act. HiS obligation TO act
for the protection Of the public Is not les
sened by the conditien that the town is
supplied thzeelgh LIE agency OF a priVaee
.xfublic navigable rivers are held by the
Estate in trust for the public The water
is subject to diversion for public purposes,
either BY the State directly or by dele
gated authority. The right TO draw from
public streams of water a supply. OF wa
ter for the ordinary use OF cities IN their
vicinity IS a public use and mas peen SO
recoerized. II is one of the most 1mpor-
fant public rights and is daliy growing
in Importance as population increases.
The HANl2dtloIl Ol liz SlLEdtn - III t1O
only public use to which these pubic wa
tiers may be applied
Mr.. Stockton's fourth point WaS Inat
the corruption of the water OF spnnllc
river was a wrong act when persons
were injured thereby and calls for the m
reference of the courts by mJunctton-
lie instanced a case on the River Iiames
at Kingston. England, where the wee
Chancellor denied an injunction TO pre-
vent the construction of a sewerage Sys-
TEN for the Borough of Kingston on the
ground that the nuisance did nor yet
exist. saying. however. that upon evidence
of injury caused. either to the general
public or to private individuals by reason
Of the discharge of seWage into the river,
so rendering the water unfit for manu-
TdCTures or Tor culinary purposes, he had
no hesitation in coming TO the CONCLUSION
that such nuisance ought to be arrested
by injunction"
Il insist, your honor" continued Mr..
Stockton, ssthat to pollute a public stream
is to maintain a common nuisance ana
there can be no prescription for the right
to commit a public nuisance. nor for the
conhscation of private property; prescrip-
ton being founded on the presumption
of a grant. Mr.. Briee in his work on
Ultra Wires says: Lapse of time is no
bar when the public is concerned; that
the public cannot. like a private indi-
vidual, be bound by delay or acquiescence
in the doing of wrong acts" This was
in answer to the charge of the city of
Paterson that Jersey City and the COM
plainants were guilty of lacnes.
Counsellor Stevenson having set up that
Messrs. Slmmonds and the other COM
plainants had<really no cause for relief.
been established in the famous English
ease of Goldsnid v. Tunbridge Wells
Commissioners. 1. R. ! Ed. ISL, decided
that any person through whose lane
polluted by the sewage Of a town and is
thereby rendered unit for drinking or
domestic use, is entitled to equitable re-
lief. When the pollution has been and
is increasing from time to time by the
additional sewage contributed by new
houses erected in the town. the persons
who allow the pofiuting substances to
flow into the stream are not at liberty
to Slain any right OF prescription against
him.
The impairment of value on the adj
joining real estate due to the continuance
OF the nuisance is a sufficient ground for
the interference of the Court" said Mr..
sons assistance that the riparian owners
in the Passaic Valley were not injured.
Mr.. Stevenson further said in mis- argu-
nent for the defendants that they should
have brought a suit ten years ago. To
this Mr.. Stockton replied that lapse of
time. would not bar a prosecution for a
public nuisance, and neither would the
lapse of twenty years even bar the rem
edy by abatement.
The city of Paterson having claimed
that it had a perfect right to use the
river to carry off it's sewage notwith-
standing the injury to riparian owners.
Mr.. Stockton replied that the use Of the
stream for the discharge of sewage to
the material injury of other riparian
owners without compensation, in the abb
sence of grant or prescription. was il
legal, notwithstanding the ewers had
been built under authority of law for a
public purpose. The authority for such
q view was Kellogg vs.. New Britain, g.
CT. 239.
1.-THE plea continued Mr.. Stockton,
that the injury. done by the sencroach-
ment upon private rights would be small
in comparison with the advantage to
the public, and that, therefore, some little
sacrifice ought to be made by private in-
dividuals is erroneous; no one can be de-
prived of his property without his con-
sent and without compensation. A right
to a stream of water is a part of the
freehold eff which no man can be dissiesed
but by Judgment of his peers or by due
process of law This Is an ancient and
fundamental maxim of common right TO
be found in Magma Charta.
My next point" said Mr.. Stockton, sis
that 1T does not strengthen the contention
to claim that the river is the only out
let for the drainage of the city, and pub
Co.