New-York tribune., 1903-02-09
MAY MEET OPPOSITION.
Ne,c- York Legislators Agree 7o'f"
Mr.. Gr7ggS.


:, >o.-Jsrsev ever applies to the Legislature
of this state for permission to nave Tue pr
nosad passaic sever empty into uhs iaiD
tbere will be q most thorough seaio'l'Ne "
..asttu..;o,, Of the merits Of the case. Members
~ tbe legislature who were Vlsiteo pS a. iit
,,rs rsnorter yesterday were generally opposeu
. 49,. ,aae The article in The Tribune OF last
r.5 ..+t,nS forth ex-Attorney General
r,s,s oninion of the proposed trunk sewer
"a hean read by them with lively interest," ana
tho views of Mr.. Griggs had met nearly III
sorsenent to which was added the oesre ~
nrotact the interests of this State Inc iesi'-
Iators seen said they could not tnlnK Oh any
rs.son vbv New-York should give another
State permission to empty its sewage at 'he
doors of this city, to the injury of properly Hho
the detriment of public health. On the other
hand reasons were many against the sFdh'i"e
of this permission. they declared
On the purely legal question as to whether
York state Lad the right to forbid New
Jerseys making the proposed sewer empty INTO
the bay near Robbins Reef, opinions were ol-
x-ided Tt was said that the outlet Would
doubtless be on New-Jersey land, this state
could not prohibit it, but when the re1use from
the sewer polluted the waters OF the harpoi
under the Jurisdiction Of this State there "ouio
he ground for protest while if private property
interests as the oyster beds in the lower naroor'
fishing interests and bathing beaches with 'he
rights belonging thereto, were injured the ''o'
ard the citizens of the State would have cause
for legal action. 1t was doubtful, Hoeeu' II
this state could give permission which would De
Iags1 If the interests of her citizens were
harmed b,, the use made of this permission
The Senators and Assemblymen who com
mented on the subject yesterday had han no
onportuuity to examine carefully into the oe'dlN
of the trunk sewer plan, and IN most cases
prefaced their statements with that anhouloe-
,nan+ They were however, individually looking
into the scheme, and promised tnat New
Jersey's request for permission to empty her
s.r,aeA into our harbor'' came before the legis-
,a+ure the State across the river would nave
to give excellent reasons for the granting OF
the permission and answer many pertinent
questions.
SENATOR ELsBERG's OPINION
Senator Nathaniel A. EIsberg said that he did
not like TO give an offhand opinion, In view OF
the gravity OF the question involved, but he
agreed entirely with the opinion or eS-A'tofheE
General Griggs. He continued;
In fact. I doubt if the State is competent 10
give permission to another State for thing not
in the interest Of this State, which would affect
iniurioustv the interests OF this State or any
mart of this State or any Of its property holders
Then there is the question of the public health
to be considered This great mass or refuse'
the drainage of nearly half OF Ne"-Jersey'
emitted into New-York Harbor, would doubtless
have an injurious effect on the citys health II
this question comes before the legislature reel
sure it will meet the most conservative treat
ment. and would not pass on IL untii AFTER d
thorough investigation.
Assemblyman Richard J. Butler, OF No. 2so
Tenth-ave, had not studied the plan. so he
would not give an opinion on II. Pm for the
neepuI". he said. "and if this thing is goin to
hurt the interests of the peepu or this state
I'm down on it. wouldn't like to say 1nucn soouI
il till after i've discussed it some but it's up to
the peepul If they don't want this sewer, then
I don't want it. The peepul will have 20 tell
how they stand on it.
Assenblyman Edward r. Finch considered
the proposed plan an antiQuated method of
disposing of sewage. IT should think. he said,
that New Jersey might find better way to
dispose of her refuse and one which would
make less trouble for her and for this State.
haven't been able to go into this in detail, SO |
put my opinion this way: If this plan should
be proved detrimental to the best interests of
the State, or to property interests. l should be
opposed to it, The question should he thor
oughIy investigated
WOULD CONSIDER STATEN ISLAND
Assemblyman John f. Mccullough, of the
Xth District. raised the question of probable
injury to Staten Island health and property.
Unless New-Jersey show where the
good of this State would come in. I'd not favor
giving permission for this sewer" he said. II
haven't looked into il much, but l don't just
see why should give foreign State a right
TO empty her sewage out into our harbor. Why,
the tide would sweep this rubbish up the North
md h1S ISlap hiS
question comes up in the legislature, I'm going
to act that none OF my people here. or none
of my friends down on Staten Island could
come to and say why didn't | ask how this
permission was going 10 affect them I'd want
to be very careful that everything was right
before I said yes to this plan
AN OLD SCHEME.
Senator George w. Plunktt recalled history in
giving his views. He said:
This is the first I've heard about Jersey
since 1881. In 6j had a Thirteenth ave in this