The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-01-28
SEWERAGE AGAIN.
SALT LAKE CITY, January, q, 1887.
20 me AittOr Of The HERALD.

plans N lde for this city by Mr.. LoWrie, the
en7Reer engaged by the city for the purpose,
and ma ,ng stretures upon that gentleman
which are unjust and uncalledi for. What
ever may be said of the plan of drainage
into the blocks it should be understood that
MI Lowrie is not responsible for, it, but
Simply drafted PLAZA aborating that idea
Rtmy suggestion Accompanying the docu-
mems is another Ian and one perhaps
more suited to THE HERALD's ideas which
is alto ether street drainage " Neither
p en- has yet b Ell rported TO the City
UouIcll. and the discussion of them. al
though quite proper considering the great
importance of The question. should, in my
opinion, be confined to the advantages or
1nferiorsty of the plans themselves, rather
than to personal attacks upon the indi-
viduGis who may or may rot have originated
them. Very res pectfnlly,
F ARMSTR )NG, Mayor
The HERALD had no intention of
making personnel attack uponMr Low
Iie. On The contrary, our belief is that
he is decidedly, clever engineer. II
what was said has been construed into
an attack on the gentleman, the fault is
either in our own or others misinter
probation of the meaning OF words. The
objection was to the engineers interior
block plan of sewerage. We are glad to
learn that as an engineer he was not the
author of the scheme, but we are sorry
to learn that as an engineer he &C
septed. endorsed and recommended the
plan The Mayors good intentions ID
trying to shift tbe responsibility from
the shoulders of Mr.. Lowrie to his own,
il seems to US. will place the former in
q position where he en- be criticised if
anybody feels inclined in. that direction,
AS we understand the matter Mr.. Low
RE was employed as professional and
expert engineer to present q plan of
sewerage TOR the consideration of the
Council, not to accept 3 plan pre-
sented by the Mayor or by anybody
else. II Mayor Armstrong; scheme
10 the enc We must have what necessity
was there for calling in an engineer?
It doesn't require a professional to
work out the details of the plan, the
scheme having been agreed upon and
adopted. The details are mere matters
of measurement and multiplication,
which can be performed as well by one
Who can resd the figures on the tape
line and is familiar with the multiplied
tion table as by the highest priced ex-
pert in the land. By adopting the
Mayors plan Mr.. Lowrie made himself
responsible for it; and if he does not,
as an expert engineer, approve the
plan, he certainly has laid himself
liable to very severe criticism, for in
natter of this kind the Mayors sugges-
ton ought to be no more to him than
the suggestion of any other man of in
teliigence; and the suggestion of no.
body should be accepted if it is opposed
to good engineering or to the welfare of
the community.
But this is not question of men; it
ia ministerial who devised this plan or
who will present any other. Certainly
II fsrthest from the purpose of TIE
HERALD to find fault with men, our sole
aim being to prevent the adoption of
q bad plan of sewerage, and to
secure the adoption of the very
hest system to be had within the
means of the people. The Objections to
the "interior block plan" seem to rs so
many and so formidable that the pro-
priety of even presenting 1t for adop-
ton Is questioned. The more it is
studied the less thfrs is seen in it to
recommend it. The only thing in Its
favor is its alleged economy. its advo-
Gates even admitting that the street
Man is preferable, the cost being
souaI. We ara not clear that
measurements of distances will
mt show that street drainage
will be actually cheaper than the other,
notwithstanding the fact that the en-
o;neer makes the house connections in
the street plan for the district proposed
81 no severed cost $131 900 and in the
hIock plan only S57 800. the laterals to
cost s29, 500 and sS5 300 respectively, the
totaI difference being s7S, 500 in favor OF
tha block scheme. To make this differ
zoe Mr.. Lowrie assumes that sinks and
oIosets EiIl,aH belong distances back Of
re street iine-in many instances far
tar than the widths of the lots them
Les If sill our blocks were as orig
.I,v Matted that is to say, eight one
nore and a-qlarter lots to a block and
- one residence on lot-eVerybody
;rht reach an interior block sewer
",.t,nt crossing the premises of his
"a;obhors; but the original city lots
:ts;r the district defined IN the plan
W. been so cut up and divided into
l.',d,rg pIats and narrow strips, that
DuA s-eds of people would necessarily
hu - run drains through other
as.o .han their own to reach a
pfs1u. and N spy, iastanGss "a much