We were surprised, a few days ago, to learn that the city of Yonkers had made a night raid on the lower three mill dams in the Nepperhan, and had broken a waterway through them. May I, without offence to anyone, say how the situation looks to me?

Instead of any breaking down of mill dams, I had been expecting that, by next summer, we should get the benefit of our trunk sewers, for which we have worked so long, and for which we have paid so much, and that we should then see again the water of the Nepperhan running clean and bright over the top of the dams as I used to se it.

This water power of the Saw Mill River—the Nepperhan we call it now—created Yonkers. The lower dam was built in the old Dutch times, two hundred and fifty years ago. And when I first knew Yonkers, now nearly fifty years ago, there were six old mill dams in use in the village, just as there are to–day, or were a few days ago. And yet the waters of the Nepperhan then ran “clear as mountain brooks” into the Hudson, and were used for almost all house purposes, except for drinking. And the boys went fishing in the mill ponds.

But with the great increase of population and of business following the opening of the Hudson River Railroad, the waters of the Nepperhan became defiled with the wastes of a growing city, for which as yet no sewers had been provided. You will remember Mr. Editor, the development of the sewer question in Yonkers, for you bore an active part in it. Our charter provided for local sewers. But when the increasing wastes of a rapidly growing city, and the increasing defilement of the Nepperhan forced upon us the questions of a general system of drainage and of sewers, much discussion followed before the system we have been constructing was finally adopted.

One proposal, even then, was to break down the dams and to make the Nepperhan itself a rapidly running open sewer. In opposition to this plan, it was shown that, in the first place, such an open sewer would itself be a nuisance, and, in the second place, that the waters of the Nepperhan wen clean were of great value to the city in many manufacturing operations, taking the place of the more expensive supply from the city water works; and in the third place, that the money value of the six water powers, which were private property, and must be paid for if they were destroyed, would be much grater than the total cost of all the sewers necessary to keep the Nepperhan clean.

On this basic, after several years of discussion, the Charter was amended substantially as it stands to–day, providing for trunk sewers, advisedly that we might save the water power of the river, and might keep its waters clean. The amendments were introduced and passed late in the session. Of course, we were dependent on our representatives. I was one of a delegation which went up to get the bill introduced. The delegation also included: Norton P. Otis, J.H. Hubbell, Theodore Gillman, R.P. Getty, M.H. Ellis, E. Belknap, Dr. Baht [spelling ?], Ervin Saunders, C.E. Waring, and perhaps one or tow others. And I have always had a kidly feeling for Senator McClelland for passing it. Of course, he was not then Senator. Senator Nelson promised us that it should pass the Senate. But there was strong opposition in the Assembly from some Yonkers people, who feared the assessment which the new legislation might bring. And, of course, Mr. McClelland, who then represented us in the Assembly, desired to be just to both sides. But he promised us that if we could satisfy him that the bill was proper it should be passed. And he did pass it. And I thanked him. And I have been sorry sometimes that he is on, what to me, is the wrong side in politics, so that I cannot vote for him.

And I think that it must be said that our local authorities in Yonkers have endeavored wisely to carry out this law. The key to the whole system, the great trunk sewer, from the Hudson River, at the foot of main street, up along the margin of the Nepperhan, sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, now extends to the Moquette Mills. The last, or upper section is, as I understand it, about finished, and the sewage from the factories and mills has now for tow or three months been discharged in the sewer, and not in the Nepperhan; and, as a consequence, the water of the Nepperhan has greatly improved, and, notwithstanding a good deal of house drainage which still defiles it, has become comparatively clean. THE STATESMAN tell us that the water now flows over the debris of the lower dam in beautiful cascades. It is only now, therefore, a question of enforcing city ordinances to make the waters of the Nepperhan as clean as they were fifty years ago.

And now, when all this work is done, and sewers ready to take all wastes, why destroy the mill dams which the sewers were built to save?

It is true that while the sewers were building, and no other drainage possible, the local authorities have been almost compelled to permit temporarily the discharge of house and of factory wastes into the river, until they could provide the remedy which is now provided. It has not been the dams which have been a nuisance, but the house wastes and the factory wastes which have gone over the dams.

If it should be alleged that the mill ponds still contain the animal and vegetable wastes of the past twenty years and more, should it not be replied that these wastes are much less dangerous when covered by water than when fermenting in the open air?

But this further question is too large to take up here. My letter is already too long. I have not written to criticize nor to blame any one, but only to express fairly how the situation strikes me now. It is well to hear both sides of a question. And if, in the end, it should appear that I was wrong, it will be to the credit of THE STATESMAN, that it was broad enough to give, even the wrong side, a hearing.

We regret to find Mr. Cornell on the wrong side of this most important subject. The dams have been confessed nuisances for the third of a century past. They have retained hundreds of tons of filth which have been usually covered with water in the winter, but exposed to the sun in the summer, filling the air with sickening, noisome and dangerous odors.

It may be possible that if the channel were narrowed and walled up the stream might be rendered less offensive, and even available for power during some parts of the year; but when the stream is low in the dry seasons, it is entirely unreliable for power.

The City Board of Health and the State Board of Health, after repeatedly having the dams examined by experts of unquestioned capacity and honesty, unanimously declared the dams to be nuisances. That they have been nuisances—and very dangerous nuisances—for the third of a century past, cannot be doubted. We think it is high time the nuisances were suppressed, and that the Board of Health is entitled to support and commendation in the action it has taken for their removal.