The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-26
THE STATE-HOUsE PLUMBING.
1t Is Condemned by the Conference of State
Boards Of Health as Manifestly Erroneous.

The Sanitary News of Oct % publishes at
length the statement made by the Indiana State
Board of Health to the Conference of American
State Boards, recently held at Toronto, together
with the reply of the committee Of the associa-
tion. After q full review of the points at issue,
the Board of Health asks the following questions:
l. Should the passage of brick sewer under
a building for human habitation be approved
z Should earthenware drain pipes be used
within the foundation walls of building for the
purpose of conveying sewagel
B. Should iron waste-pipes from urinals and
washstands connect with earthen pipes within
buildingl
4 Is the venting of soil pipes into brick iues
and chlmneys admissablel
.. 1t it not as necessary for traps to urinals
and washstands to be vented as those of water
closets2
O.. Should soil pipes be provided with fresh
air inletsl
z. Should the sewage of a building be depos-
lted In the sewer within its foundation wallsl
The answer of the committee is as follows:
Your committee would state that it feels it
unnecessary to answer catecorcally the above
questions. There are certain principles in house
plumbing that we believe to be upon a solid ba-
BIS, and dangerous to depart from.
The foremost OF them is, that in the removal
OF sewage it should be done through the
alum or heavy iron pipes, proportional to the
work to be done Starting from point at least
hVe feet exterior to the walls of the house, and
extending from that point through the house and
out at the top to height determined by sur
rounding circumstances. Its course should be as
direct as possible and its position where it's in
spection would at all times be matter of OBJ
servation; in other words as much in sight as
possible
The question of any trap upon the outfall
may be debatable; but your committee think it
desirable, and especially so from the fact that
certain advantages claimed for its absence are
much more fully realized by the fresh air inlet.
Your committee consider the fresh-air inlet
an essential. Its action is two.fod. The cur
rent of air which it stimulates is a prevention to
the formation Of gases and is medium of safe
removal of such as may FORM The arrange
ment of the inlet to prevent freezing ia easily
provided for, and such difficulty is in no sense
valid objection to its use.
In regard to the large sewer, a part of the city
system, we are at loss to understand the neces-
slty of its location within the walls of the State
house building but if such is the case it IN
doubtedly should be of heavy iron pipe. Bricks
cement or mortar furnishes but an imperfect
opposition to the passage Of sewer gas. and
their use within the walls of habitation as a
contalner, as in their use in large, unven-
tilated sewer, or as both a container and con-
ductor, as when the soil pipe is entered into
chimney fuels of the most reprehensible char
acter.
The data in the fifth question for its specific ap-
plication in this case are insufficient In general
terms it would be answered in the affirmative
We have not thought it necessary to discuss to
any considerable degree the reasons for our con-
illusions of the methods pursued in the Indiana
State house or for those recommended; because,
1t IS common knowledge to those who
have made themselves competenS to Judge, that
the principles in the first case are known to be
and found to be vitality defective while on the
other hand those recommended may be consd-
cred to have passed through the speculative
and experimental period and become fairly fun
damental
We commend the action of the State Board of
Health of Indiana in its endeavors to bring about
correction of the errors so manifest in the prn-
clpes that appear to have guided the plumbing
OF their new State house and upon its insistance
that the plumbing of its State buildings should
always conform to and keep pace with the ad-
vances made in sanitary plumbing All of which
is respectfully submitted.
WILLIAM CANNIFF, NJ. D.. Of Ontario
Il. c. JORDAN Z. E., of Maine
G. B. THORNTON, M. D., of Tennessee.