New-York tribune., 1903-02-06
TNDFR STATE. NOT FEDERAL POWER SAYS GRIGGS.
EX-4 ATTORNEY GENERAL DISCUSSES PASSAIC SEVEh
pr 4N-OPPOsI7TON or NEW-YORK Authorities
THIS STATE NAY OBJECT.
Leaders Of Legislature Seem Hosf'te
10 the Scheme
IRY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l

Albany. Feb. 5.--The leading Republican mem
hers of the legislature are divided III oplhio"
about the proposition. which it is said VIII SOON
be submitted to them as members OF the Iiid
iority party, authorizing the authorizes VI
New-Jersey, in a. Legislative enactment OF thls
State 10 build a gigantic sewer and empty 1t
into New-York Harbor near Robbins Keel
Senator George r. MaIby said that old treaties
between the States of New-York, Connecticut
and New-Jersey gave the first named State the
right to regulate commerce In New-York Har-
bor but each State controlled the land unher
water within its own boundaries. IF Robbins
Reef was within the dominion Of this State II
would be serious question for the legislature
of this State to consider whether 1t would grant
the right to New-Jersey to construct sewer
out into New-Yorl Bay.
II don't know" said Senator Malby. whether
any objection would be made by the legislature
of this State to New-Jersey building this sewer
If sewer should harm the oyster industry
would be opposed TO a bill to authorize the
building of it, and I also would be opposed to
it if the sewers contents should poison the
water about Robbins Reef"
S. Fred Nixon, Speaker of the Assembly, who
is a member of the Land Board of the State,
whose members have charge Of the land under
water about New-York Harbor, said:
In my opinion, New-Jersey should take some
of the money it collects from corporations and
construct works for the destruction of sewage
and not build such a that suggested
The modern way of dealing with sewage IS 10
employ it in the enrichment of land
Senator John Raines president pro tempore
and Republican leader of the Senate, would not
say more than: II think the suggestion that
we give New-Jersey such authority should be
most seriously considered
ASseunbIvr11a0 Merritt of COun-
ty. said
get the consent of New-YOrk State to the build
ing of this proposed sewer. l certainly shall be
opposed to it. New-Jersey should follow the
example of France and Prussia Berlin and
Paris have sewerage systems which employ the
sewage. Berlin gets q large income from the
farms over which the sewage is run
Senator George A. Davis. of Buffalo, said:
Upon first consideration of this proposition I
should say 1t would he against the policy of
this State TO permit NeW-Jersey to come into
this State and dispose of this sewage. There
will always be danger of contamination that
should he avoided if possible. In this State the
towns and villages manage to take care Of their
own sewage.
Senator Henry W. Hill, of Buffalo. said
Such a sewer mieht not be worse than New
York deluging New-Jersey with its sewage, for
I understand that the sewers of New-Tork
empty direct into the East River and the Hud-
son River But no harm follows, for the water
is salt. and acts as an acid. and moreover, the
tides strong and rise several feet in the
NarrOws daily and wash out the harbOr- New
York is most fortunately situated i'll this re
spect. 1t dispose of sewage easily and
safely owing to strong currents of water from
He'll Gate through the East River and also
down the Hudson River, The flow of water is
strong outward. and thus the harbOr is Cleansed
of impurities. If this sewage of New-Jersey
should be discharged near the Narrows / think
no harm would follow. for the sewage would be
washed away. Yet this matter Of the oyster
beds must be considered. ] remember that two
years ago the Senate Committee on Cities con-
sidered thoroughly the question Of the dispose
of the sewage of New Rochelle. in WestCheSteT
County and that made them take the sewer
far out into the Soun7 in order to protect the
oyster beds