The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-07-14

RELIEF SEWERS.
Argument in the Appeal
From the Chancery
Injunction.
NEWARk'S POLLUTION CASE
Sayre Company Declares
100, ooo,o 900 Gallons of
Sewage Daily IN
Passaic..

tHt JUNE ltEII VtuliESd11
will not meet again until September %
when the first general conference, to con-
slider cases presented during the term
win be held. The term was an unusually
long one for this season of the year, the
June term as a rule being concluded be-
fore July A.
Among the last cases presented was the
appeal of the city of Newark from the
| Chancery decision enjoining the construc-
ton of the central relief sewer, which was
| to empty into the Passaic. The injunction
| was granted at the instance of the Marcus
| Sayre Company. it being proposed to emp
ty the sewage into the Passaic at a point
near the factory of that concern. The
| case was one of the most important, II
not the leading case, argued during the
| term, involving as it does the great ques-
| ton of the pollution Of the Passaie-
Joseph Coult opened the matter to the
Court, on behalf of the city of Newark
| who stated the case and read the opinion
| rendered by the Chancery Court. He was
followed by ~ex-Judge Thomas N. McCar-
| ter, who spoke for the company, and said
that no question of greater moment con-
fronts the State of New Jersey than the
pollution of the Passaic River. He de-
scribed the former purity of the stream,
and then told of its pollution.
McCarter said that, at the present time,
there are nine large sewers emDtying in
TO the Passaic within the city of New
ark, the total amount of the house sew
age poured into the river through them
being A,410.04O per day. The total sewage
poured into the river from all sources he
believed to exceed 100, 100000 gallons per
day. Mr.. MoCarter next told Of the pas
sage by the city in 1898 of the ordinance
for the construction Of the central sewer
which caused the suit. This proposed
sewer would empty into the river at a
point hfty-hve feet distant from the plant
of the Sayre Company. The testimony
adduced before the Chancery Court was
then considered at length by Mr. McCar-
ter. to show that the proposed W
would clearly create a nuisance to the
Sayre Company, and he wound up his
argument by presenting the following
legal points in support of an
OF The Chancery degree
"The fact that this sewer is to serve a
public need can not avail against the prl-
vate injury to the complainant, especially
when, as shown in his case, it is perfect
ly possible to bring about the desired re-
suit by the mere repairing of an inter-
cepting sewer already constructed, but
allowed to fall into ~disrepair. The doc
trine of the balancing of injuries is re-
pudiated in this State. The right OF an
individual to sue to enjoin a private
nuisance of this character is unquestion-
ed. Permission to build sewers does not
give authority to create a nuisance Tne
building of such a sewer as this, under
the evidence in this cause, must, from
the nature of things, create a nuisance,
and therefore will be enjoined on final
hearing"
Mr.. Coult followed in a lengthy and
elaborate argument. He said 1t was adj
mitted that the Passaic is polluted and
that the waters have become unfit for a
water supply. at is not denied, but adj
mitted," he said, that the waters of the
Upper Passaic, between Belleville n
Paterson, where the influence of the tides
are very little felt in seasons of least
flow and during the dry months of the
summer. become very foul. emit offensive
odors to the discomfort of the people re-
siding along it's banks, and, possibly, to
the injury OF owners of property along
the river. 1t is, however, denied that
these -euuen are suffered within
the limits of Newark, and it is shown
that the reason why Newark has thus
far. been exempt from these injurious
effects is because it lies nearer the ocean
n the tide within the limits Of the city
of Newark. rising and falling about six
feet every six hours. brings in a quantity
of water from the ocean to some extent
~impregnated with salt, the effect of
which is to relieve the city from tEese
harmful results.
1.-THE amount Of the pollution of the
Passaic, bad as 1t is" said Mr.. Coult, lis
very greatly exaggerated In the trial of
This cause, ii was on both sides assumed
that the amount of house sewage would
be measured by the quantity of water
used each day by each %inhabitant, and
that 100 gallons per day was a liberal es-
innate Of the quantity used. Using our
own experience and judgment. 1t is clear
that this estimate is exceedingly liberal.
A very large proportion of the water used
in any city, from common experience, dur
ing the summer months, is for lawns and
street sprinkling. Little of this finds IT'S
way into the sewers. The total sewage
into the Passaic does not exceed on any
basis of calculation 40,Oo0, 900 gallons a
day."
Mr.. Coult then treated at length the
questions of the effect on the sewage by
the tidal flow. concluding the argument
as to this point as follows:-"From every
point of view it is clear that there Is a
sufficient quantity of water flowing into
the Passaic River within the limits OF the
city of Newark to take care Of the sew
age discharged within the city limits It
may be true that at points above the city,
where the river Is practically a fresh
water stream, In seasons of least flow the
quantity of sewage and other deleterious
matter discharged into the river, compar-
ed with the quantity Of fresh water low
ing into the stream, Is too great for safe-
ty, but at no time does this condition
exist within the limits Of the city Of
Newark"
The question OF odors was next consid-
cred by Mr.. Cou1t. He said that If doors
do arise from the river within the city
limits BY the pollution OF the water at
times, 1t would afford the complainant no
ground for an injunction. The proposed
sewer would not in any way Increase the
odor In the river. as It was intended to
relieve other sewers and was to be built
according to modern ideas for the purpose