Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1905-01-09
HARTMAN GIVES
HIS OPINION TO
WATER BOARD
CONTINUED From First Page.)

and never return it to) the Brandywine
creek-a right they clearly do not possess
against any other riparian proprietor
lower down the stream.
The parties OF the hrss part have no
right TO sell the Brandywine water for
they do nos own Il. Their rights are simp
~ TO use the water as Il flows by them
as explained IN part III, Of this opinion.
They have the right TO have the water
flow by Thorn ana they can part with this
right 10 riparian proprietor above them
but the water II diverted must be re-
turned TO the GREGG before Il reaches the
J riparian n proprietor lower down the
stream. The Lea Company, for instance,
as Gar as the oitys claims is based on
the rights OF the parties of the FIRST part
could perpctually enjoin the diversion OF
said water The sale Of said water there
fore Tor which the city Is 20 pay so much
money would be a worthless sale and IL
would not be worth the paper Il would
he written on. The city, however for
tunatciy owns water rights at what Is
lnowi as the third dam opposite the
water rights OF the Lea Company and
Il was intended in case OF the execution
OF the proposed contracts 20 shut on at
the third dam at the cltys sluice vol
4 ume of water equal to that taken out Of
the stream az Rpckland and thereby leave
to tbs Lea Company IT'S fun amount Of
water to which Il is entitled In this way
il was hoped 20 avoid liability TO the Lea
Company. My objection, however, In this
case goes simply to the legal right OF the
Ill no
at all and II does not consider the pos
sibility or probability OF the city Itself
In another way independent OF them
making good right that they themselves
do not possess ana therefore cannot sell.
With the assurance therefore that II the
proposed contracts should be executed
that the sluice OF the third dam would
be partially closed as above explained
and that the money would be Forthcoming
for the completion of the water works
would advance this objection as a tech
nicai one only, but otherwise 1 would urge
/ II as a substantial one. And with this ex-
. PLANTATION make this my third objection
! 20 the proposed contracts.
". The parties Of the first part re.
, qulre the city to pay them Tor the city''
own water by virtually preventing Tho
city from talSing the water az a poin
where il would cost the city nothing an,
forcing the city to take the water at {
! point where II is supposed the waite
would be pure, and all because the stream
D between the above mentioned points 4
T contaminated by these very companie
!. contrary to the city's rights as a ripariai
A proprietor and an open violation Of al
A act Of the legislature.
= The city is riparian proprietor on tn
Brandywine and as such possesses IN
same rights as the other riparian propri
u etors-the parties Of the first part one q
these rights is 20 have the water low
q Il IN as pure a state as 1t came TO th
q one fGrtharest up the stream, viz: III
y Jessup Moore Company at Rockland. III
right is based on;
ID 4 Its right as riparian proprietor and
+ 2. Its right under an Act Of the Legi
! lature prohibiting the contamination {
the stream.
The city therefore has double rigl
to nave the water reach IL at Mark
II street in as pure a condition as II WI
lr when it reached Rockland. And If Il
It parties Of the first part should respe
its rights and obey the Jaw by not col
stream for three miles. from Rockland
n Market street would sull more sett
= what impurities would be in the wat
a land the splash Of the water over the rool
and dams wouldaerate Il mad thus q
water. I am informed by Doctor Robi
the bacteriologist, would be even pur
at Market street than at RocNand. Al
az this point, Market street. the CT
would get not only pure water but q
al water would not cost it a cent And
IN would get at Market street an averal
OF Of iOO.OOO00O gallons Of water per day.
er view Of the above and the conceded IA
v that the city was about to accept q
N Rookland site only in order TO get pur
- water which purer water the city Is d
prived OF at Market street through Z
contamination OF the stream by the pa
ue ties of the first part the legal featur
IN Of the case at once present themselv'
e. The city certainly has no right throu
u its officials TO pay n third person mon
for it's own property And Il likewise h
no right to pay a third person money
thep rivilege Of enjoying the use Of
~ pronerty when it's deprivation OF n
use Is the result OF the wrongful and
r. legal acts Of others which wrongful a
as Illegal acts the city. by asserting it's rigl
he can absolutely prevent. And the C
nh through its officials not only can not
~ act but officials neglecting properly to
=. charge their duties and to do those a
which they are in duty bound TO do wol
40 be guilty Of non-feasance in office 7
no act prohibiting the contamination Of
I'm Brandywine refers 70 all streams in &
he eral the waters Of which are used
SIS, drinking purposes and is found on p;
in sg6 Of the code and it prohibltes any p
II son from placing or dlsoharging or p
ter hitting one to place or discharge in
,or stream.
- l. Any dye stuffs. drugs chemicals
other substance or matter of any k
- whatsoever whereby and by means whe
an Of the said water so supplied as and
70 a drink or beverage as aforesaid 81
lily be made and become noxious to the heo
Of or disagreeable 10 the sense Of smell
ifs taste" and
ige q The excrement or refuse incident
me privies, hog pens or slaughter houses.
hat The penalty for violating the first 7
- vision is a line of between $1,000 and s.
- and the abatement OF the nuisance
10 the penalty for violation Of the sec
re- provision is a fine OF 500 and the abs
meut of the nuisance.
ep- The law being thus clear and a rem
cir being pointed out by which the conta
fall nation of the stream can be stopped
ace clearly becomes the duty OF the board
In order to escape the charge Of being gu
CHI Of non-feasence i'm Office TO see that