Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1898-01-29
No Inconsistency Here.

Without more than general
knowledge of the matter the JOURNAL
has taken occasion to defend G.. James
Orrick, secretary of the Cumberland
Board of Water Commissioners, from
certain criticisms upon alleged dis
crepancles between statements in the
report of that body ard others made by
him on the wltness-stand at Frederick.
70 bring the question down to at
least one particular a Cumberland
gentleman whom the JOURNAL highly
esteems transmitted copy Of the Re
port with the following paragraph dis
tlnctly marked
THIS leads US to recommend to your hon
orabe body plan looking to the continued
use of the present system, with such adj
dltiOnal plan as we find to be necessary 10
RENTER tie Wdter Of the Pofomdc rjCer clear,
~hoicsontc AMI pa'dtable In VIEW OF THE EN-
CEsSIvE COST OF THE OTHER TWO PLANS MEN
TONED, re regt,d tie Potontac riye, as tie only
pyucticoi source Of tie city water supply. The
sutficlency and convenience of tins supply
cannot be questioned. TUE QUALITY Is As
BAD AS WELL CAN BE AND SHOULD BE REM
EDIEp AT ONCE and this we are confident can
be done completely and at cost compare
lively small.
In order to meet this as etfectually
as possible the JOURNAL asked Mr..
Orrlck for information
After thanking the JOURNAL for its
fairness he said:
| have not a COPY of my testimony as
written out by Mr.. HendriCkson in my pos
session at this moment and therefore, will
rely upon my memory.
First. however, | wish to suggest to our
friend that there is difference between a re-
port of such a nature as that presented to the
Council by the Board of Water Commission
erS and legal testimony In preparing their
report the Commissioners were expected to
avail themselves of the service of experts, and
embody the knowledge gained from them in
their report; whereas, a witness is permitted
to testify only of his own know ledge-to
facts and not to theories, however well es
tabshed those theories may be. So that in
comparing this report with my testimony,
our friend is trying 10 compare things es-
sentlally dissimllar.
Secondly, the matter contained in the re-
port was decided by the Court to be not
seiila.ie ~ 'lie case ana was hot permitted
which, | think. would have est,bushed nv
position more fully
Now, to the report;
me PT1ihaSrapi inarheo py our lrieiio pc
"MiS' meaning the running expenses of a
Statioh at EVltt creek. In view OF the ex-
ceSsiNe Cost Oh the other TWO plans, we were
ieu 10 our coiiclusloll 10 recommend the
oouhcli 10 PURIFY tne fotothac river water by
ilalufal silhu Lltratloh, etc, before pumping
II Ihto the Guy mains
may say, III passing, that after most
lnoiouSil ana pToifacted lnVestisatioh OF the
supJect lhe Ihllaueiphla water ooard nave
come come, ~ tne same Conclusion IN regard 10
'ileir water, ana the water OF the ochuylklll
rlEer Is certainly very lhuch worse thah that
vi Iiie ouo Ii , A..
~" wiz opSelNe, however, 'ilat our
Is pleuicaleu upon the rel
a'.e coS.S Vi tiie ~ steill ana Oh course, our
i''.i III 'ie elioics vi iiasuiai sau ll.rdtloli
as i''i as was pei niitleu 70 SPEAK d! rleu
ei i, teasSerieu my pelei IN .he elncacy Vi
oii'' :! o.eii' ,mel eio!t, iil " see any W.
,,aS tne eApiessioi u is
oM th anu NY ''"'e'e''' Vi '"'''
o'i ' It,.' , ..,.
Nv, neu iGM places Vi, your oopy
t;na ai ~ thn nom 'H 'o'
3D. NM vi .G paSe' "e'iS III HIN
i>'' NV On P'''''" maj N9u'
la the quotation above Mr.. Orrlck' S
marked passages IN the RepOrt are in