OCR Text |
Show NEW YORK HARBOR LITIGATION 719 in practice, be nugatory. But equally well informed and credible witnesses testified that the proposed treatment would produce the stipulated results and that the source of such pollution, if any should be caused by the Passaic sewage, could readily be traced to its origin, and we think the probabilities greatly in favor of this conclusion, having regard to the opportunity secured to the Government for determining the quality and content of effluent before it is discharged into the Bay and the effect which it may have on the water in the immediate vicinity of the outlet. It is also argued that this stipulation is not binding upon the State of New Jersy because executed only by the Sewerage Commissioners, and that it is invalid for want of power in the Attorney General to so stipulate on behalf of the United States. But since by act of its legislature the State of New Jersey specifi- cally authorized the Sewerage Commissioners to execute the stipu- lation and by its special counsel entered of record its approval of, and consent to, it, we must and do regard it as the valid obligation of the State as certainly as of the Commissioners. As to the United States: The intervention of the Government was allowed upon allegations that the inadequate treatment of the sewage proposed would result in injury to navigation and commerce: by causing of solid matter, to the extent of thousands of tons annually, which would fill up and shallow the channels of the Bay; by rendering the Port of New York less serviceable and attractive to commerce and offensive and unwholesome to persons using and living near it; and by causing injury to the hulls of vessels by the character of the effluent to be discharged. It was also averred that practically irreparable damage would be caused to extensive properties owned by the Gov- ernment adjacent to the Bay. Having regard to the large powers of the Government over naviga- tion and commerce, its right to protect adjacent public property and its officers and employees from damage and disease, and to the duty and authority of the Attorney General to control and conduct litiga- tion to which the Government may be a party (Rev. Stats., §§ 359, 367), we cannot doubt that the intervention of the Government was proper in this case and that it was within the authority of the Attor- ney General to agree that the United States should retire from the case upon the terms stated in the stipulation, which were plainly approved by the Secretary of War, who afterwards embodied them in the con- struction permit issued to the Sewerage Commissioners. Although this stipulation was filed and. the Government withdrew from the case on May 16, 1910, the remaining parties went forward and took a great volume of testimony, the taking of which was con- cluded in June, 1913. Five years passed before the case was brought on for argument at the October Term, 1918, and upon examination this court, having regard to the long time which had elapsed since the taking of testimony was closed and to the rapid advance in sani- tary science then in progress, suggested in the record, directed that additional testimony should be taken in order that the court might be advised: (1) As to any practicable modification of the proposed sewer system which might improve it and reduce any polluting effect upon the water which might be caused by the effluent to be discharged; (2) as to any practicable plan or arrangement for sewage disposal which |