Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-02-05
THE HOUSE.

This was suspension day in the House,
and Mr.. Bartholdt (Mo) was recognized to
move the passage, under a suspension OK
the rules, OF a bill appropriating $4,000 for
the appointment of an expert scientific
commission to investigate the pollution OF
rivers which threaten the water supply in
more than one state.
Mr. Hopkins Qll.) and Mr.. Richardson
(Tenn.) demanded second, which was or
dered by unanimous consent. This permit
ted forty minutes debate on each side.
Mr.. BarthoIdt, in advocating the passage
Of the bill, opened with some general re-
marks about the necessity of protecting the
water supply of large cities. The bnl, he
said, had been unanimously reported. 1t
had been Endorsed by the legislatures Of
fourteen states and the boards of health OF
sixteen states. Mr.. Bartholdt refrained
from any reference to the Chicago drainage
canal during his remarks.
Mr.. Cannon Qll) opposed the bill. II
the proposed investigation should be made
at all there was national academy OF
science, which had done better work for
the payment of travelling expenses than any
commission.
The marine hospital service was more
competent to make the Investigation than
any commission. Mr.. Cannon said he very
much doubted whether 1t was necessary to
make the investigation at all. There was
the case of the Chicago drainage canal.
he said, where it was charged that the
sewage Of Chicago was reaped by the city
OF st. Louis. He suspected that that was
what moved the gentleman from Missouri.
But that case was now in the courts.
Mr.. Bartholdt interrupted to say that ne
was willing to admit that, as the represen-
tative of St. Louis, he was seeking to pro-
tect the lives and health of the people Oh
that city.
Mr.. Hopkins Qll.) said that Mr.. Bartholdt
had disclosed the purpose of the proposed
investigation. Why this newborn zeal OF
the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Bartholdt said that he had introduced
a bill in the Fifty-third Congress, before
there was any cutlery against the Chicago
drainage canal
Mr.. Hopkins said there had been no at
tempt to press the bill. He said the appro-
II ST.. Louis was so poor she had to pass
around the hat let her representatives do
SO privately. Uaughter)
The Case of the Potomac.
Mr. Pearre CMd.) supported the bill, urg-
ing that the Investigation would not be con-
fined to the Chicago drainage canal. 1t
would cover rivers in all parts of the coun-
try. He cited the case of the Potomac
river which supplied Washington. That
river had been found to be polluted by the
marine hospital service.
Mr. Richardson opposed the. bill on the
ground that the government had ample
facilities to make investigations of this
character. beSlQeS, the ndu power
to prevent one state from polluting the
water supply of another.
Mr. Bartholdt insisted it would be better
to have this question investigated by an
impartial, non-partisan commission.
This was the view taken by Mr.. Hepburn
Qowa), who said that the bill was not an
attack upon the drainage system OF Chi
cago. 1t was a disputed question as to
whether water polluted speedily purified IT.
self It was a matter Of supreme impor-
lance to the health Of our people that we
should know the truth.
Mr. Joy (AAo.) spoke In favor Of the bill,
contending also that st. Louis was not ar
rayed against Chicago.
Defeat Of the Bin.
The bill was defeated-ayes, 66; noes. 81.
Mr.. White IN. Co. at this point rose to q
question Of personal privilege to reply to
an editorial denouncing his course in Con-
gress which was printed in the Raleigh.
N. c., News and Observer.
Mr.. Robinson Qnd.) secured unanimous