[Morning Session.]
Mr. SCOTT'S bill [S. 95,] to prevent the fouling of streams (by slaughter houses, etc.,) from which water is taken for use of cities or towns, which was under consideration at the adjournment last night, was taken up - the question being upon the amendment of Mr. Glessner as modified by Mr. Dwiggins to wit: so as to provide that no penalty shall attach unless the water-works are erected above the limits of the city: and that the bill shall not apply to the owners of pork-houses, manufactories, etc., heretofore erected.
Mr. HARNEY contended that the pollusion of streams was a necessary incident of the growth of cities, and contended that public policy was opposed to such wholesale destruction of the rights of property as the bill contemplated. This question requires more careful consideration than can be given to it by the Legislature at the present time. In the city of Indianapolis it might be a question whether the city's supply of water shall be kept pure, or whether it is better to banish the factories using that stream as a sewer, or remove the water works above the city. This matter will develope itself hereafter into a great question, and even now it is worthy the gravest consideration. And it seems to me this question is one that should be adjudicated by the Courts. The soot from hundreds of smoke stacks in the cities blackens the snow on the streets, and all cities have drains that bear their refuse into streams, which makes them unwholesome. This city could not exist if it would not empty its sewers into a stream somewhere. It is a fact we must admit that we cannot preserve the water of streams pure and the air pure and at the same time congregate large masses of people in one place and carry on manufactories on a large scale. Great cities are watered by measures reaching beyond such effects. New York conveys water thirty or forty miles, and Boston had to acquire a primary right before it could get water.
Mr. SCOTT. It may be possible that this bill will need some amendments, but it is not that terrible monster the Senator would have us believe. As yet I do not know where all these factories and great public improvements are that he talks about; if there are any along this river here, I have never heard of them to any great extent. The idea that a woolen factory or a pork house must of necessity occupy white river so as to destroy its waters is utterly preposterous as a question of necessity or fact. It is only a matter of tolerance and does not page: 393[View Page 393] militate against that principle of common law that a person using the waters of a stream above shall not use them so as to destroy them for the use of his neighbor below. Science is preparing itself to consume and utilize that smoke the Senator speaks of. It is only a question of time, sir; and if it must be used it should be put up so high in the atmosphere that it will not injure the health of people in the neighborhood, but because we allow smoke to escape in the air is no reason why we should allow our streams to be poisoned. There has been a law on our statute books as long as I can remember prohibiting persons from contaminating streams by throwing refuse in them. A man cannot obtain a prescriptive right - the statute and the law are in advance of him - and because people have erected pork-houses on the banks of a stream it does not give them the right to foul it. About a month ago I was on the banks of this river about fifteen minutes and I think I saw five wagon loads of refuse from the pork-house, I suppose, emptied into the river right where the waiter works are that supply this city with water. Will the Senator say that is a matter of necessity? that it is a matter of right of presumptive right? that the men owning pork-houses have the right to enjoy that privlege? If the Senator had a dead cow and should throw her into the stream he would have to answer for the crime before the law; and what is the difference? Now, sir, while these things are in their infancy it is time they should be checked. Where a great city like this is permitted to take water from a stream for the inhabitants, they should be protected from impurities being cast into the stream. I think probably the number of miles above the stream named in this bill is too high; I think five miles is little enough. I think the stream would purify itself in that distance, I don't think the Senator has thought enough about that bill. I would like to move that this bill be referred back to the Committee with instructions to shorten the distance. Let it go to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. GLESSNER. Let it be referred without instructions.
Mr. SCOTT. I have no objections, I wan't to get it right, that's all I want.
The motion was agreed to, and so the bill was referred without instructions, to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
