The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1888-01-31

III InlS letter 4. St6ttu-
81 have written quite enough on sew
ering and draining to refute the
statement that 1 approve the mode
adopted by Colonel Warning all around,
and any person may learn this by look
ing at my published Suggestions for
Main Sewering revised to 1s1S)-
I'm these suggestions il will be seen
that insist upon right lines and true
gradient, with manholes or lamp-holes
at each change of line or gradient, spec
iaI arrangements for steep gradients
and abundant provision for sewer and
drain flushing and ventilation. In so far
as Colonel Warning departs from these
suggestions / entirely differ from him,
and if he persists IN disregarding these
precautionary works against failure.
without being either a wizard or a
prophet, 1 predict failure; because the
sewers when closed in will be beyond in
spection without breaking down to them,
and this operation must be blind hap
hazard work.
Il know quite well that to work under
the rules may cost more money in the
outset, but will tend to great saving in
the long rum"
This was replied to by Colonel War
ing April 1, 1881. in which he defined
the ESSENTIALS and non-essentials OF a
sewer system as follows: .
Observation-Disclosures of all storm
water, absolute cleanliness. perfect pre-
cision of gradient, regular. automatic,
efficient flushing, complete ventilation,
and perfect construction
-Essentials-"Laterdi alignment:
and facility of inspection
On April Is. 1891, appeared a commu-
nication from Edward S. Philbrick. C..
E. of Boston, in which he defended the
use of manholes, and stated that
''In emitting them Colonel Warning
launched out upon new and unbeaten
paths, pursuing methods which had been
discarded as bad ones by nearly all en-
gineers who had had much experience
in the construction and maintenance of
city sewers during the past generation,
both in this country and IN England"
This discussion on the need of man.
holes was continued during portion of
the year 1881, Messrs. Rawlinson, Phil
br OK, and G.. X. Radford agreeing with
the position taken by this journal in OPP
position to that assumed and defended
by Col Warning. In our issue of March
20, 1884, we published a statement pre-
pared for us by Mr.. Anthony Ross, Su-
perintendent of Sewers, giving cost of
the Memphis system for the years 1882
and 1888. In 1882 fifty distractions were
reported, with a cost for removal of
$657.15. In 1888 seventy-three obstruc-
tons, at a cost for removal of $7S2.15.
These distractions were ali in the 6-inch
laterals. Mr. Meriwether, the engineer
at that time also stated, in reply to a
question from Mr.. William Ham Hall,
Engineer of the State of California.
1.-The omission Of manholes caused con-
siderable embarrassment, mainly for
want of proper observation and as a
means of cleaning out, etc
Mr.. Meriwether also reported that up
to that time forty-four manholes had
been put in by the city, none by War
ing"
The experience as then reported in our
columns at length and the present report
of Mr.. Herring of that acquired since that
time should convince any one of the mis-
take of trying to reduce the first cost of
a sewer-system by emitting this very es-
sential feature. We anticipate that
very considerable amount of work will
be done during the next five years in the
building of pipe-sewer systems, and we
present this information feeling assured
that it will serve good purpose, if it en-
ables an engineer to convince commit
tees of laymen who have the matter UNI
der consideration that an attempt to save
the cost of putting in proper number
of manholes is unwise economy.
REPORT.
To the Editor of the Engineering and Building
SIR-The following is written in re-
Spouse to your request to report the con-
illusions arrived at from a recent inspec-
ton of the Memphis sewerage system
while attending the meeting of the
American Public Health Association.
held in that city November Sill
1t is now over six years since the sew
erage of Memphis. as designed and built
by Colonel George E. Warning. Jr., was
completed. The deviations that were
then made from the principles which had
previously been elsewhere adopted-in
other words, the novelties" which en-
titled the system to be called ''Waring
system in distinction from others
have had an ample opportunity to re-
ceive a thorough test In view OF the
notoriety that had been given to it in
this and foreign countries, and of the
criticisms made by American and Eng
| lish engineers and in your columns at
the time, it was particularly interesting
10 see how far the praise and blame
were merited, ard what real advances
the science of sewerage engineering had
made.
| The works since their completion have
been in charge of Mr.. Niles Meriwether,
Engineer. and MIR. Anthony ROss, SD
| perintendenr. These gentlemen have
| endeav ored to manage and extend them
as far as practicable in accordance With
the instructions left by Colonel Waring.
and both from the interest they have
| taken IN securing success for the work
entrusted to them and from the results
| they achieved have proved themselves
| in every way competent for the task
| For the sake OF clearness, let me
briefly review the essential features OF
the 'sWaring" system in Memphis and
point out those which were novel:
Firsr-Exclusion of all rain water
from the sewers While both in Europe
and America the silt-bearing street
VI alter had been excluded from sewers
wherever the separate system was
adopted, vet no other city had made the
| attempt to strictly exclude also the COM
paratively clean roof and yard water
Second-Soil-drainag by an indie
pendent system of pipes leading to sepa-
rate outfalls. This feature was not a
novel one.
Observation-Disclosures Of the street-sew.
ers through the house-drains and soil
pipes. This practice IS in use in a mum
Der Of European cities
Fourth-Autou1atic flush-tanks at ths
bead Of all$he lateral sewers. Although
such tanks had before been advocated
and used elsewhere, yet nowhere Was il
doue 70 the same extent - in Memphis
Hffh-No mnnhoAoD On the la3eRnls
Ihi1 SsntnxO was entisely novel.