Daily Los Angeles herald., 1883-01-09
VITRIFIED SEWER PIPE,
Gladding, McBean & Co.
pRopRIEroRs.
SAN FRANCISCO: I23 Market strcct: 1910 and
1914 Market Street; Is and II McAllister St.
OAKLAND: ITO and il72 Broadway.
Mandatory at Lincoln. Placer
County, CaIlfornIa.
10 Patrons and Correspondents :.
PRoPRIEToRs

TO Patrons and Correspondence
We publish this circular rs the best way Of
answe ering the inquiries still frequently made by
the inexperienced, relative 70 the comparative
merits Of Cement and Stonsware Sewer Pipes.
We know Of no better way Of obtaining reliable
information on any subject than by seeking the
opinions Of those whose occupation and official
duties have necessarily made them familiar with
that subject In ali its details.
This method OF investigation has often been ap-
piled to the question now under consideration,
and tho opinion thus obtained, Of tho many
prominent civil engineers throughout the coun-
try, have been published, and become public
same here, for the information and protection Of
all who may be interested In the matter.
From the mass Of testimony before US, we first
select the following letters addressed TO J. B.
Moulton, City Engineer Of st. Louis No., which
were written by prominent civil engineers In va
rious parts Of Of the United States In response to
his request asking for = statement Of their views
and experience to the comparative value OF
these two kinds Of pipe for sewerage purposes.
These opinions were collected, ~ we were in
formed, not for the information Of Mr.. Moulton
himself, whose convictions were ther already set
tied on this subject, but for the satisfaction OF
the Sewer Committee Of St. Louis, some members
OF which were not then well informed In the
matter; but this correspondence, together with
the repeated failures Of cement pipe In that city,
seems to have been conclusive. for about that
time the use Of the cement pipe for sewerage pur
poses was discontinued in st. Louis, by order Of
the Sewer Committee Of the City Council, and
the manufacture of the cement pipe there has
This correspondence was first published in the
st. Louis Democrat" prefsced by an explana
tory letter from Mr. Moulton, as follows:
Essnrras sD.rAarsaz1 s.. Loun,
March 27. 1873
To the Editor Of the "Democrat:"-rhc ques-
tion as to the comparative merits Of cement pipe
and clay or stoneware pipe for sewerage purposes
has been 30 thoroughly agitated Of hate, perhaps
Il Is no more than due to the public. the Sewer
Committee and myself, that the correspondence
which has been had with eminent civil engineers
throughout the United states, for the purpose OF
getting the best sttainabie information on the
subject, should be published In full, and fur
nish you herewith the whole Of said correspond
ence, and request you to publish IL all, pro and
con, so that our citizens may be able to Judge for
themselves whether or not the Sewer Committee
acted wisely in excluding the cement pipc from
the city sewers. ~ Mlr-
Ysurs, respectfully. J. B. MOULToN.
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 20, 1879
J. h. Moulton. Esq., City Engineer:
DEAR SIR--4ne branch sewers In this city are
generally built Of brick, and vitrifed clay pipes
are used for attachments and house DRAWINGS,
and occasionally for short distances In streets.
Cement pipes are manufactured here on lin
tied scale, but 90 far as my observation goes,
have not given satisfaction. SO much care Il re-
quired In obtaining good material, and having
them properly made, that the quality cannot be
depended on. Although somewhat cheaper than
the vitrified pipe, there Is much uncertainty in
them that should not be willing 70 risk their
general Introduction.
Cases have, been reported to me OF cement
pipes where they have all had to be taken up on
account Of their deterioration. Brick are cheaper
here, and Of such excellent quality that they
have the preference for lsrge-sized drains.
Yours, truly, SAM'L L. SMEDLEY,
Chief Engineer
BALnnoEk. september.2. ls72
J. b. Moulton, Esq. City Engineer
sIR-Your Communication Of the Goth is at
hand. and must say in reply that we have used
the cement pipe manufactured in this city in two
instances only.
Our sewers for city purposes are large from
four to seven feet in diameter--for which we use
hard burnt brick In their construction.
Our experience with the cement pipe has been
such as to compel us 70 report unfavoraby upon
its future use.
Two years ago we laid about 100 feet Of the
pipe six-inch diameter. for the purpose Of dra's-
ing a spring; about six months ago we were OBJ
liged to open 1t for repairs, II having failed to
drain, when we found 1t had softened or yielded
10 the action of the water to such extent as to
render two sections useless.
In regard to the .'stoneware," or glazed pipe. I
tzu sAl HotniuS oiuCfdillt not having useu u IOf
city purposes. 1t is, however, quite extensively
used for private sewers. and seems to answer very
we'll.
You will excuse haste Should you wish further
on the subject. will be pleased to
furnish In detail all have.
Very respectfully. JSo- II. TEoMEGEs.
City Engineer.
ToLEDo, September 2, 1879
J. b. Mouiton, City Engineeer:
Dnxg Srp-Heya the use of cemenf nina vas
after short trial and the vitrincd
zed pipe exclusively used In the construc-
tion u our pipe sewers, concessions, ETC., which
I think 70 be quite superior to any cement pipe
which have seen tested, in evenness Of texture,
hrmness durability, and its qualities to resist the
sction OF sewer acids.
H. 4. THATCHER, City Engineer.
MlsssAroLn. hinn.. Sept g. 1877.
DEAR SlK-The experiments have made with
sewer pipe are, that filled a pipe with
salt and water, and find that salt acts on them 20
that think 1t would eat . hole through in no
very long time. Acids will have great effect on
thsm. And know Of no means Of ascertaining
which are good and which are poor. In our city
here, for the above reasons, l recommended the
use OF vitrihed stonsware pipe, which was adopted
BY the City Council.
would be pleased 70 receive copy Of your
laws relative 70 the paying for sewers. paving ETC.
Respectfully yours, II. u. CARSON,
City Engineer.
LITTLE Rock, Ark, Sept. 5, 1879
J. Moulton, ESQ.,, City Engineer:
DEAR sis-your letter, dated August 10Th,
asking my opinion in regard to cement sewer
pipe, and those OF stoneware. has come duly to
hand. ! have. therefore. the honor to state that,
In my opinion. stoncware pipes are arpreferable
to those Of cement. Your reason for abandoning
the latter Is, as far as my experience goes, per-
fectly correct, viz the want OF uniform lecture,
the influence Of acids, and easy breakage We
have used in our city extensively the stoneware
pipes, and have found the same, when hard
burned, well yitrifed and glazed, to answer all
demands
Respectfully yours. GEORGE wEHE.
City Engineer.
LAwRkSck, KAN. Sept. ). 1874.
SR-In reply to your inquiries In regard TO rel
ative value OF cemept and stoneware pipes, can
only say that have used stoneware pipes with
entire satisfaction. Specimens Of cement pipe
have been left at this and other cities. They are
too delicate foI use. and fall to pieces with the
slightest blow. We have local manufactories
which make very fair stoneware and earthen-
ware pipes, at reasonable prices | can see no
good reason for abandoning them for rners ex-
Respectfully, yours,
HOLLAND WHEELER. City Engineer,
JEKsxy CRY. September 8, 1879
!. h. Mouton, ESQ.,:
DEAR sIR--In transmitting to you my opinion
In regard TO the merits of concrete drain and
sewer pipes, would say that my experience has
led me to the csnclusion that vitrihed or glazed
pipes are superior In every particular, and have
eDdeayored to use as little cement
PIPE as possible. There can be no real question
Of which Is the best. I have given this subject
the most thorough attention. and am conAdent
am right, and thne will prove Il. Cement pipe
never will answer = safe purpose until 1t can be
after being laid in the trench and covered. I
nave known sewer. to cave In, built Of II, and
make . most disagreeable state Of Affairs, from
the fact Of not knowing to what extent the break
extended. verylrespectfully,
JNO. P. CULUDO, Chief Engineer.
ArarsrA Me- Septamhar & Is,a