The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1898-06-10
ON
SEWERAGE
Battle Imminent Between the Borough
and Property Owners.
DISCRIMINATION is ALLEGED
But the Borough officials Reply That tn,
only Question at Issue is as to
whether an Existing Public
Nuisance is to Be or Not
to Be Abated

To all appearances the borough is about TO
enter upon "a litigation that bids fair to rival
the famous Flynn stone wall case i'm interest
and complication. The points involved will
be similar to those which were brought out i'm
the famous case referred To- and. should %
legal battle bc declared, some very interest
ing phases of public and private -cworaa,
will be placed before the court
For months complaints have bpru made
before tine Borough Council concerning a
nuisance created by a sewerage outlet on
West Centre street The Council has not
neglected the matter and repeated conferences
have been held To- devise means to abatc the
nuisance, but all have failed. A few weeks
ago it looked as if the enigma presented was
about to be solved, proposition having been
made that the properties contributing TO the
nuisance be connected with the large sewer
laid on West Centre street by private parties
who received a right of way from Council to
construct the line. Several Of the property
owners were disposed to act on the PROPOSE.
tiou and comply with the condition of ten
dollars to be paid for each lot connected, but
others demuTcd and tine nuisance continue.
to exist
Asa last resort the Chief Burgess aud
Health officer have instituted suits against
all the property owners concerned, number
ing about 2, in all to recover the penalty
fixed by the borough ordinance where %
public nuisance is maintained. These suits
are to be heard ON the nth inst. and they
will determine whether or not the matter is
to go into the courts.
Some Of the property owners are very de
temined i'm the matter and evidently have
made up their minds to fight to the bitter
end. From a. conversation had with one of
them, it would appear that one Of their
claims is that the nuisance is indirectly, il
not directly due to discrimination shown
| by the borough authorities in the past.
That several years ago property owners in
the affected section of the town asked per
mission to lay joint sewerage line, but
Council withheld the license. few years
| later, it is claimed, the same privilege which
the old Council refused to grant to people
| having properties which the sewer
would have drained was granted
to syndicate partly, if not almost
wholly, composed Of people owning no prop.
erty in the district referred to- Now, it il
alleged, the defendants have no altcrnativ,
| but to pay ten dollars each 10 the syndicat,
/ for the privilege of connection, because
Council will not grant permits for the laying
Of individual lines ON the ground that il
| will be inadyisable to sanction multiplicity
of sewer lines under the public thorough.
fares.
So far as can be learned the position Of the
| Borough Council appears to be that it has
nothing to do with private sewerage until q
public nuisance is created and then there i.
only one course to pursuc-an enforcement OF
the ordinance to compel an abatement of tn,
nuisance. In the present case there are
twenty-eight properties contributing to the
nuisance, all located north of Centre stree
and west of West street. To give each on,
Of the property owners the right to lay an in
diyidual sewer, or even half Of them, Dor
ough official maintained to-day, would be uu
reasonable as such an event would result il
the streets and alleys being almost constantly
open or out Of condition ON account Of re
pairs to one or more of the lines.
1t is understood that the property owner
also maintain that i'm view of the fact that
large quantity of surface water is drained in
to the stream which has created the nuis
ance, the borough should provide publi
sewerage at the point of outlet, but on thi
point it is understood that the borough otIi
cials claim the decision in the Flynn cas-
offsets the contention.