The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1900-12-28
THE UNDERGROUND WATER.
Straight Through to Earth's Center
1t Is the LandONner's.

SIf81Rnt through TO fIuFth'S NenCer
1t Is the landowners.
Referring to the decision of the court
of appeals by which the city of Brook
Ign is restrained from the use of its
driven wells on the ground of their
withdrawing water from the surround
ing districts operated as market gar
dens, decision that will cause salts
faction to many whose interests as cul-
tivators always have been in danger of
being jeopardizcd by the building up
Of residential districts, American Car
dcning comments as follows:
The process referred to has been go
ing on for years in the ncighborhood of
Brooklyn with perhaps greater intensity
than in any other city. The situation
Of Long Island and its formation have
rendered it peculiarly susceptible. The
proximity 10 Il largo city has made it
an area Of dense population for pco-
pie who wish to retire after the days
work is accomplished, and the fertile
character Of its land. together with the
level surface, has made it a very con
veniont spot for the location of vCgc-
table growers ana truckers who came
to supply the wants OF The first named
class The conditions for cause and
effect to be quickly operative were eX-
celicnt.
A condition that has been known
and realized for years, SO far as the
farmer class is concerned, came to such
pass that action was brought IT he
courts by benjamin f. Forbcll q list
the city OF New York, and a historic
rendering is the result. Judge Smith
in the original trial took the stand that
the act of pumping water from another
Mman's land. and which was the actual
formulation of his business and living,
was TO be regarded as Il trcspaSs, and
the precedent now established by the
| unfolding of that decision on appeal by
! Judge Landon strengthens the general
| position of the agriculturist in Il re-
mGrkahlc degree. He is no longer to
be the easy, impotent victim of the sue
cess of other enterprises The water
which flows under his soil cannot in
future he taken from him with i'm
punity. 1t is Just as much his as the
crop which grows on the surface by
means Of the water which it draws up.
/ The case in question awards the plain
\ tiff damages to the sum of $4,000, with
costs.
The case is briefly this: Forbcll was
! the lessee of certain farming lands near
Spring Creek and used Il portion of his
lands for growing celery and water
cress for the New York market. This
part of his farm was on low lying land
near Jamaica bay. The growing Of eel
cry requires an extraordinarily large
supply of surface water, and on For
bells land the dip of the underground
water shedding stratum was only
| about foot below the surface. 1t was
the claim of the plaintiff that the effect
of the pumping at the Spring Creek
station was to lower the underground
water table on his land and to render it
useless for the growth of celery.
The facts in the case were not long in
dispute as Forbcll was able to produce
numerous witnesses who upheld him in
his assertion in regard to the unlitness
of his land. He likewise summoned the
engineers of the water department,
4 who testified that the pumping station
sucked its water from all the land
within radius of at least five miles.
The decision then practically rested on
the question of the right of Iandown-
ers to the product of their land to the
center of the earth. well established
principle of the old English common
law which had never been gainSaid. At
the original trial in the special term Of
| the supreme court on March g. 1899.
! the PLAINTIFFS attorney called attention
to previous decision of Judge Hatch
| in which distinction was drawn lc-
tween the right to intercept running or
percolating water on or below the sur.
face and that to use artificial means to
draw by suction from beneath adjacent
land the water to which it was natu.
rally entitled. On this distinction the
presiding justice, Wilmot NJ. Smith.
awarded the decision to FOrhell. grant
ing the injunction. to become operative
as soon as the case should be fully set
tied. The appellate division affirmed
the decision, and the court Of appeals
has now established distinction
which cannot fail to be Of the utmost
consequence in all future questions in.
volving water rights.
Careful Speaker.
What did you expect to prove hy
that exceedingly Homo windod or,,,,,,...A
of yoursY asked the friend.
Il didn't expect to prove anything"
answered the orator "All boped IN
do was to confuse the other fellow 50
that he couldn't prove that | didn't
prove anytbing."-Answers.
Matter of Foresight.
Mrs. Iinks is 80, and she calls her.
self middle aged"
swell, maybe she expects to i've n
be 100."-Chicago Record.