The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-09-03
POLLUTION OF THE WATER
SUPPLY

Without desiring 10 llluulSe Ill lui =
ther discussion at this time of the sub
ject of water, The Caucasian will ven
ture the consideration of Judge Bells
note in connection with DR.. Blanchard S
answer to Mr. keene of the Water
works Company, published in the Jour
nal and Times of recent date. In this
letter is given the reasons for the
granting of new trial and its decision,
which is self-explanatory, as follows:
Doctor Blanchard-In the case of the
City VS. w. K. Henderson, | gave a new
trial for the reason that it occurred to
me after judgment that the premises of
Henderson, complained of, are situated
near the discharging mouth Of Cross
bayou, and some distance below the in
take of the waterworks, while above
said point of intake and drainage into
Cross bayou was large negro settle
ment affording many times the pollution
that Henderson's premises do, and that
to abate the Henderson nuisance and
permit the other, would be so much like
closing the spigot and leaving the bung
hole open, as to amount to palpable dis
elimination (Signed) I. F. BELL.
Until the publication of this note of
Judge Bell in connection with the water
question, few of the citizens of Shreve-
port had knowledge of such decision,
and its prusal therefore was surprising.
In this contention the city proceeded
to have abated what was alleged to be a
nuisance, but on new trial was rem
dered the decree which is unquestionably
subject for fair criticism. If there
was a nuisance; if the water was being
polluted, the offense, if proven, should
have been ordered suppressed and the
offenders held under the authority OF
law. There are many citizens who,
while not conversant with the techni-
calities of law, are of the opinion, and
The Caucasian is one of the number,
that Judge Bells decision was not re-
sponsive to the facts and the conditions
governing the case. The only issue was
plain, and in which other offenders were
not connected: Was there nuisance
Was there an infraction of law? Did
the city prove it's case? If all these III
quiries are answerable in the affirmative
| there was only one course to pursue as
outlined by the law Because other were
equally at fault but not then called tc
trial and against whom there was nc
charge, should not have led to the sin
gular and remarkable ruling or opinion
"that to abate the Henderson nuisance
and permit the others would be SO mucf
like closing the spigot and leaving the
bung hole open, as to amount to pal
pable discrimination.
In the City Court District Attorne,
Foster secured conviction, which upor
appeal to the District Court was affirmed
by Judge Bell, who, at a later date
granted new trial for the reason ex
planned in his note.
In these efforts DR.. Blanchard, presi
dent of the Board of Health and healtl
officer, was striving to have this an
other nuisances suppressed, but ther
was little incentive for encouragement
left after this ruling
| That there are nuisances in conjunc
|tion with the bayou is self-evident, an
these nuisances should be abated with
lout regard to the offenders, and whe
labated the conditions in and about tn
bayou will become much improved an
Twill relieve much of the source TO
; complaint.
In the application of lazy and justlc
the facts of the case on trial, aad nc
others not on trial, should be the guild
for a decision. 1t is unfortunate that tn
city, in this issue, was not maintained
not because of any citizen or firm beln
involved, but simply because of its e
fleet on others who commit nuisance
with or without the knowledge OF la
and its requirements. The law appllc
Bile to nuisances should govern and
j, enforced regardless of whose may
o concerned.