New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-05
PASSAIC SEWERAGE AGAIN.

We regret to observe that our usually well
informed and sweetly reasonable contemporary,
THE Sunday Call" of Newark. n. J.. was dis
pleased in advance with the report of the New
Jersey State Sewerage Commission concerning
the Passaic River problem, and incidentally was
also displeased with The Tribunes attitude
toward it, going indeed far as to reckon our
comments IAN example of decay" The decay"
consisted, we are told. in starting with false
statement as to the situation" and proceeding
through half column of Misrepresentation to
"the conclusion that they do these things better
abroad" AS a sort of postscript we are in
formed that The Tribune couple of years ago
took the other side of the question. All Of
which would be interesting If it were true.
The false statement to the situation"
with which started was that the condition
of the Passaic had become intolerable, but that
unhappily the Sewerage Commissioners were
not agreed among themselves as to what should
be done about it. Well. the report of the Com
mission declares in the directest manner that
the pollution of that river should be stopped,
and urges prompt legislative action to that end;
which seems to confirm what we said about the
magnitude of the evil and the urgency of the
demand for its abatement And then, instead
of recommending some one plan for doing the
work, the Commission reports various alterna-
tive plans, and suggests further investigation
and consideration to determine which of them
should be adopted. We really think that gives
at least slight tinge of color to the assumption
that the members OF the Commission were not
fully agreed among themselves as to the best
plan Of abating the evil.
Our half column of misrepresentation con-
sisted in argument in favor of 30 treating
the sewage Of the cities along the Passaic that
it should be freed from its most Objectionable
elements before being poured into that river
We observe that the plan Of action to which
most attention Is given in the Commissions re-
port provides for precisely such disposal Of the
sewage. If our Newark contemporary does not
approve that plan, 1T has the right 10 dissent
from it. But certainly its quarrel is with the
Commission and its report fully as much
with The Trlbune's article based thereon. The
members of the Commission are men of ability
and experience. and they have given much time
and labor to the work, and 1t really seems to
us they are entitled to a little more grateful
treatment than to be summarily dismissed as
guilty of wholesale misrepresentation
AS to The Tribunes conclusion, however, our
contemporary suffers from a Misrepresentation.
1t was not so much that they do these things
better abroad as that what some men can do
other men ought to be able to do. We do believe
that the sewerage systems of some European
cities are better than those Of some American
cities. But over and above that we believe
American cities capable Of providing them
selves with the best systems in the world. We
do not believe in sitting down in the mud and
saying a thing is impractcable cant be
DONE when, as a matter Of fact, it has been
done and is being done successfully by other
cities. We believe that what Berlin can do
New-York can do what Breslau can do, Newark
can do; what Frankfort-On-the-Main can do
Paterson on the Passaic can do. 1t is not
question Of ability, but Of willingness, of enter
prise, of "gumption." That was the conclusion
Of our argument
Finally, as to the postscript, we are afraid our
contemporary has not read The Tribune in late
years with informing care. Otherwise, 1t would
have been impossible TO make such a blunder
as to say that couple of years ago we took
the other side-meaning, if anything, that The
Tribune then opposed a system of sewage rem
dering and publication. The fact of record as
our files attest is that The Tribune's attitude
and several times two years ago, and in fact
ever since this question arose, namely, that
rlvers-whether the Passaic or the Illinois, or
Piper's Brook-should not be polluted by pour
ing crude undiluted sewage into them, but that
the sewage should first be purified by chemical
or mechanical treatment, and nothing but the
innocuous watery part discharged into the
streams That was our contention two years
ago, based upon the information which our
critic credits us with then possessing That
is our contention now, based upon the same
satisfactory information.