86 Sanitary Vagaries : [February, 
lawyers. But it is, I submit, grossly unfair to manufacturers 
and to municipal authorities. Both are, surely, in common 
fairness, entitled to have open to them a clear, definite state- 
ment of what is legal and what is illegal as regards the pol- 
lution of rivers, so that they may know when they are obeying 
the law, and may feel that when so doing they are not open 
to any proceedings whatever. 
Another defect in the ACt of 1876, and in all existing law 
on the subject, has only been brought to light within a few 
months. The Law provides remedies in case of the pollu- 
tion of any river, brook, lake, or other piece of water open 
to the air and light, but concerning underground waters it is 
silent. A brief explanation will here be necessary. A cer- 
tain person, A. B., had within the limits of his property a 
well which supplied his household with potable water. On 
his neighbour’s property there was also a well, disused as a 
water-supply. The said neighbour, however, took upon him- 
self to turn the sewage of his house into the abandoned well. 
In due course of time the various kinds of polluting matter 
found their way through the intervening subsoil, and conta- 
minated A. B.’s well. The latter took proceedings at law 
for the abatement of so serious a nuisance ; but the judges, 
finding neither statute nor precedent bearing upon the 
question, were compelled to decide in favour of the defendant, 
as he had not broken the law. 
Hence there are two open and palpable defects in the ACt 
of 1876, and it might be naturally expected that in any 
attempt to amend, or rather to supersede, that measure, 
those deficiencies would not have been overlooked. Such 
expectations, however, if entertained, are delusive. On 
carefully examining the new Bill, as printed, I find assuredly 
no provision against the pollution of underground waters, 
and just as little any attempt at a codification of the law 
on river-pollution. On the contrary, it is distinctly laid 
down that — “ The powers given by this ACt shall not be 
deemed to prejudice or affeCt any other rights or powers 
now existing or vested in any person or persons by ACt of 
Parliament, law, or custom ; and such right or power may 
be exercised in the same manner as if the ACt had not 
passed, and nothing in this ACt shall legalise any aCt or 
default which would, but for the ACt, be deemed to be a 
nuisance.” Here, therefore, the notion of codification, 
as far as the language used is intelligible to other than 
lawyers, is distinctly repudiated. 
I may be asked, What is the novelty of the new Bill, or 
on what can its claims to supersede the ACt of 1876 be 
