The Morris County chronicle., 1908-02-04
THE SEWER
ARGUMENT
The Various Phases Of the
Subject Presented BY Coun-
sci Of Both Sides.
JUSTICES DECISION RESERVED

Sum6ub III UIle dppllCdUlOu Ol OeOTRe
G.. Frelinghuysen, B. Ogden Chisolm
and Alexander c. Humphreys for a
rule to show cause why writ Of ma
damus should not be issued, taking
ing the question of the location Of the
location of the disposal plant into the
Supreme Court for decision.
John 0. Fl. Pitney made the prin r.
pal argument in behalf Of the appl.-
cants, first reciting ip detail all the
action of his clients in the matter and
the actions of the board of sewerage
ia dealing with them. He claimed
that the State board of sewerage had
not approved the plans on which it |
was intended to build the plant, and
that the location had been indefinite
from the start, till the time work was
actually started in December, also
that there is not enough margin in
the plant to provide for the growth of
the town and the engineers had |
claimed that the town will not grow. |
IL has been decided by the highest
court that the town has no right to
put particle of sewage in the Whip |
pany river. One of the commissioners
is disqualified to act, because Of own
ership in land which it is proposed to
use. The commissioners claim that |
they do not know whether they have
the power to 90 on below, this matter
should be settled by the courts before |
money is spent. The law of 1907 mod
ities the whole procedure, preventing
going into another municipality with
out the express permission of the
township committee of that munich
pality.
w. w. Cutler for the commissioners
denied the claims, stating that the
matter of location had been settled be-
fore the election that the plant is OF
sufficient size to meet the needs Of the
town. That that board had made
great study of the conditions and re-
ported what they found to be best
that the State board had approved
the plans; that Mr.. Burke's action
was proper in securing the land and
that the law Of 1907 did not apply.
There was of course considerable ar
gument as to what had been done,
whether the contract with Salmon
Bros, was effective last June or only
after the Mayor had signed it and as
to whether the stakes and flags set
last July were for actual work or only
to show the State board where it was
planned to build the plant, and as to
powers CT the commissions. Judge
Cutler claimed that Mr.. Frelinghuy-
sen was in laches and could not show
the plant to be nuisance, which Mr..
Pitney denied, claiming that his client
also had standing as a property owner
in Morristown to inquire as to the
right of the town to spend money on
property it did not own, and said he
had never objected to the work going
on within the town limits.
e. K. Mills said he came prepared
to argue the points, touching the con-
stitutionality, but Mr.. Pitney said he
would not raise that question nor the
legality of the election, nor the consti-
tutionality of the act.
e. A. Quayle appeared for the con
tractors, while G. f. Wilson assisted
Mr.. Pitney.
After the finish Of the case -Cort-
land Parker, of the firm of G. & w.
Parker, acting for Hanover township,
made argument for writ in behalf of
the township. He also claimed that
the site moved about from one town
ship to the another, but just at pres
ent appeared to be in Hanover, giving
the committee power to act. The
committee had passed formal resolu-
tion forbidding the plant last July,
but work had been actually started
despite the notice. The plant, he de-
clale5, would be a nuisance per Sc,
bringing into the township the filth
of $4,000 people against the will of the
township and putting up a plant to
care for this filth. The Whippany
river runs for five miles through the
township and might be filthy for all
that distance, because of the work
| proposed
The town has no right to go in an
other township and exercise the police
po weiS belonging to that township,
the act of 1902 being simply permiS-
sive to the town in case permission
could be had under the other laws to
go in another township. 1t is an ad-
ministratiye function given. The law
Of 1907 being general applies, the Sal
mon contract not being effective as
far as Hanover was concerned until
work was started. 1t also violates
the law regulating the public health.
Jugde Cutler argued, taking the
opposite view on the questions from
his opponent, Justice Parker, stopping
the argument Of Cortland Parker to
hear the other side, saying that it is a
grave question If city can walk over
into another municipality without
saying by your leave.
| At Che conclusion Of the argument
he said that the question raised in the
Hanover case involved the police
powers of the municipality. A writ,
he said, should probably be ALLOW ed.
The other case is not so strong, buU
the applicants may be entitled to
writ, although there seems no use OF
two writs. The case should be heard
80. ...k