The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-04-23

 BILL BRINGS OUT
 MUCH DISCUSSION
Fred S. Beardsley, Appearing in Favor, Presents Monster
 Petition
Former Senator Judson Leads Advocates of Proposed Bill--
 KIeiner for Opposition

Hartford. April 2s-In the hall of the
 House yesterday there was a hearing 1 upon the anti-po11ution bill, so-calIed l and Charles KIeiner corporation coun- se1 of New Haven appeared against 1 the bill as drawn by former Senator
 Judson. He said that it was generally
 conceded that something will have to | be done to stop polluttng the steams 1 of the State but he thought the bill l as prepared by MT. Judson was alto
 gether too arbitrary and ought to be 1 amended in many particulars. MT. Judson who appeared as leader
 Of the advocates of the bill said he was willing that the proposed meas ure should be amended provided the 1 basic principle which it sought to at- l tain was not lost sight of. He fnVit- 1 ed MT. Kleiner to meet him and go over the bill section by section and prepare such amendments as may be proper.
 MT. K1einer declared that the bill was unconstitutional
 MT. Judson replied that was what the opponents of the public utilities bill said when the bill passed yet he
 observed they never cared to make a test case of it.
 Corporation Counsel Hubben of Nor walk also opposed the bill on the ground that it was in the interests of the oyster and fish industries only and
 
 been given to the needs of manufac-
 turinge concerns.
 MT. Judson said that the bill had
 been drawn with care and in the hope that every legitimate interest would
 be fully protected but 1t was primar- fly a sanitation measure and such
 should be considered as a construc-
 tive idea He invited the critics of
 the bill to join with him in amending
 it's weak spots if such defects existed and he would not say that there were
 not provisions that might be changed with benefit
 Fred S. BeardsIey of Stratford ap-
 peared in favor of the bill and pre- sented a petition signed by over 1S,-
 e83 citizens who also favored the measure. MT. Beardsley in his ar gument in support of the proposition said among other things:
 '-The waters belong to all the in- habitants of the state and to the gen. eral public, who should have the right and privilege to use them for pleasure or profit in as sanitary and clean a condition as possible. Their original condition was pure and undefled. Why should cities, towns and individuals be allowed to damage these public waters by dumping sewage and other wastes in them to the harm and loss of other individuals and the public in general?
 AS A61lO d4OA6 O0I S4AOTOS d0JOA1- ing the houses, business establish ments and resorts are valuable to their owners and in their natural con- dition attractive and healthfu1 places in which to live. Why should these lands be damaged and the attractive ness and healthfulnesS be destroyed by others?
 Rivers, bays and harbors were once filled with hnny fish providing profitable employment for many, 8 healthful food supply and attractive recreation for the sportsman. Now the fish are gone and with them the advantages once derived from them. This has been caused, without doubt by the discharging of wastes into the streams. What excuse can be found for this wasting of the states resour- ces? Large sums of money are year ly spent to re-stock these streams and the state continues to allow the de- struction to go on. Is the claim that direct sewage into adjacent sreams IS the cheapest way to get rid of 1t, sufficient reason for allowing this nui- sance to exist and to continue?
 ''The entire shore line of the state has become a summer colony. The women and children are sent here for a summer outing for pleasure and re- creation and gaining health. Resi- dents of our inland cities and towns build their summer homes along these shores and spend their leisure hours with their families enjoying boating, bathing, etc. On account of the filth l brought down the rivers and carried | by the tide and wind along these l shores the waters are made unsafe | for bathing, unpleasant for boating | and unsightIy to look upon. What | justification is there for allowing cit 1 les, towns and manufacturing plants to inf1ict this damage and danger on 1 the other fellow, and what is to be l said of the residents of cities and | owners of manufacturing plants that will defi1e the waters and then send their wives and children down to the shore to bathe in their own pollution.
 "At low tide the flats and shoals around our cities are foul smelling, unsightly and unhealthfuI, caused by the dumping of all the filth of the into the waters to the damage of adjoining property and the shame of the inhabitants What js to be said of the Civic Pride of cities that will spend thousands of money and much energy in advertising the advantages of their city and then toll crate such a nuisance, and when visi- tors come to town to look over the ad- vertised advantages, take said visit DTS out into the woods when the tide Is out for fear of making them sick to say nothing of living and doing business themselves amidst such foul 
 "Our rivers and harbors are the rendezvous for yacht clubs and hum 1reds of natty sailing crafts and mo .or boats are sailing here and there around these waters. Are the yachts men entitled to the use of clean wa .ers or must they continue to navi- gate constantly increasing filth? painted and fitted yacht, anchoring in some of our harbors or wing at some of the docks in our cit es will have her paint turned black and her metal fittings tarnished in a lew hours Is there any warrant .or allowing this condition to exist?
 ''The large majority of the fran snises under which the oyster lands