The sewerage question is one which demands the fullest and most complete investigation. It is one on which no one man or set of men sliould arogate to themselves perfect knowledge. It is one on which the public nèeds to be mformed thoroughly and any proposition looking toward a sewerage system must neccessarily be subjected to honest criticism. ïhe mere fact that such a proposition is criticised is no sign whatever that the critic is opposed to sewerage. If an honest criticism occurs to a resident of this city and he fails to give utterance to it, he is lacking in at least one of the elements of good citizenship. "VVhen sewerage does come it will be after many bright minds havfi given utterance to theii'khonest opinious on the subject. And sewerage will come in time. There is no doubt about that. This is said because the chairman of the joint sewerage committee at its recent meeting saw fit to denounce the city attorney as an enemy of sewerage because he suggested a legal question which should be settled before sewers were built and the Washtenaw Times more than hinted the same charge. The committee very justly decided to investígate the point raised. Until that point is settled to the satisfaction of the city, no sewerage will ever be voted. Had the committee seen fit to reject the investigation into the effect of sewerage upon the Huron river and as to what suits for damages might lie against the city in case sewerage was emptied In it, the proposition for sewerage would have been beaten by the people three to ofle. The members of the committee may be satisfied in their own minds that sewerage will in no ways be detrimental to the river or give rise to a stench that may cause but more disease than the sewers will prevent unless they can give to the public tangible, cogent argumenta on that point, the sewerage question will not be settled. The people.pay the taxes. They say whether or not the city will be sewered, and the people think for themselves. The chief value of a report does not lie in the names attached to it, but in the reasoning advanced in it. The pérople will exercise their right of free speech andfree judgment and the only way topass any public improvement is to consult the'people. The mere tact that a dozen of our best business men should announce themselves in favor of any proposition in which the whole people are interested will not carry sucli a proposition nnless the people understand it clearly enough to see that it is for their good. Each and every citizen is directly interested in the question. And if any questions looking for fuller Information are asked, it is no sign that the questioner is not a good eitizen or in favor of sewerage. In the opinión of the Argus the city ofAnn Arbor must sewered within the next few years. When sewered, it shouln be done by the city and not by any private company. Sewers should be under direct and absolute control of the city, and a private company has no such interest in preserving the good health of the city, as has the city itself . If it is conceded that the city should build sewers, before this is done the question of where the sewage shall be emptied is a proper one to answer. Will the Huron river carry it off ? Will it pollute the water of the river ? As a matter of law, a city has no more right to pollute the waters of a river than has an individual. If it will wliat damage suits may the city expect ? This was the question sprung by the city attorney who suggested to the joint committee that if the river would be polluted, it would be cheaper for the city to acquire that right by proceedings in chancery, than to stand damage suits afterward. If the Huron River is sufflcient to carry off the sewage, the plan of Prof. Greene, in the opinión of this paper, is an excellent one. It has been widely commended and was drawn by a thoroughly competent man. Considerable more might be said concerning the various plans for raising money to put in sewerage, but the first question to be settled is that concerning the Huron river.