The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-26

lne IOllOWlng mus piace III linz mr.
rEAL as a supplement to the letter of Col.
Warnings which we published in our issue
OF the 22d inst:
NrwPoRr, r. l., April Is, 1889.
30 the Editor Of the Engineering News
An editorial bearing the above heading,
which recently appeared in your paper,
has been sent to me from Memphis. Will
you allow me few words in replyp
might object TO your way Of putting
the case for did not come "beforo the
country with my proposition to give the
iever-stricken and bankrupt city OF Mem
phis a novel and model sewerage sys-
tenn" read paper before tho Ameri-
can Public Health Association at Nash
vile, suggesting n modification Of sewer
age practice. had no thought or oxpec-
taiion of is early adoption until men
from Memphis, who heard II, said Il was
precisely what that city needed. After
ward. as an engineer Of the National
Board of Health Commission, / did not
recommend il, and il was adopted by tho
authorities. 1t was not yet, in any sense,
iall TO find in any OF my writings an
announcement that the principal features
of the system recommended were ZEN
tirely new" After the Memphis work
was completed for 1880 | sent paper 10
the Sanitary Institute OF Great Britain.
and Mr.. Rogers Field said, in discussion
following lis reading, that the conditions
described "were altogether unprece-
denied" You also say that early in 1880
announced that these features "would
constitute a perfect system of sanitary
sewerage" The only authority can find
sor the quotation is that l said In my
Nashville paper QS79E Sin my judg.
nat, perfect system Of sanitary sewer
aye for small town or a large one would
be something like the following" Then
followed the first suggestion OF the details
of what aftcrward became system. You
say that the proposed system was TO em-
body" certain features among which you
quote ian entire absence OF man-holes,
and the utter disregard of alignmcnls 40
far rs the question Of examination or
cleaning il concerned" | cannot find
that | ever wrote that at all. did say In
NV English paper, in describing what the
Memphis system had embodied, THE
most striking departure from ordinary Gus
tom aud prescription Is the entire absence
of man-holes aud lamp-holes, and the utter
disregard OF the alignment OF the sewer, 80
far as the question OF examination or
cleansing IL concerned"
You say that considerable experience
had already been gained with sewers which
substantially excluded rain water. early
In the fiitics such sewers had been built in
England, aud by 1873 a number Of towns
were at least partially supplied with
them" Here you have been seriously
mislod. No sewers had been built in Eng
land, at the time stated, which substan. |
TALLY excluded rain water. The system |
that came nearest 10 IL was probably that |
at Tottcnham, built In the filtics, but that
admitted water from paved courts aud the
overflow from water butts receiving rain
water. Rain water was never "substan.
TALLY" excluded from sewers until II was |
done In Memphis.
You refer 10 n discussion following
paper sent BY me TO the Institution Of
Civil Engineers in London. No paper
scnt by me on any sewerage system was
ever read or discussed before that inslilu-
ton.
III proper for me 10 say that the plan
for the sewerage OF Memphis included |
had 20 b. omitted because they could not |
be afforded. aud that experience without |
them led 10 better devices for accomplish |
ing their effect in the ease Of small sewers,
and / releras 10 this 10 what | subsequent.
ly wrote about such omission.
You imply that the view generally held
4 shat the admission Of some slorm.watcr
from roofs OF paved back yards" il benefit
cial In the next paragraph you say that,
In Memphis, thc amount Of water, noccs-
Harily slight, suuuptitiously admitted from
yards and roofs, In spite Of the strictcst
regulation ''made Il necessary 90 build
several ovcrilOws and relief sowcna.
You say that no official riyicw Of the ac-
iual working OF the system appeared be-
fore Mr. llarliord's paper. Major Hum.
phrcvs, the very able engineer IN charge
Of the sewers OF Memphis, who was giving
them constant attention, made very
complete report concerning them In July
1881, giving really morc information about
them than IL to be found In any other
document
In December, lSS9, the city engineer
said. The system, In the main. has 40
far worked admirably, and has given en-.
tire satisfaction"
Ia 1883 Mr. Herring visited Memphis
aud found that is sewerage system had
been 10 far changed as 10 BE- substantially
another system from that which built,
arriving at the conclusion that, with II,
changes, Il had become ''as good ~ amy
city or town suitable ior lis application
could wish Il TO be-"
Mr. Baldwin, who had been employct
under me In the construction Of the work,
and Who was very familiar with every par
OF IL, went 10 Memphis and made a tho
rough examination Of the whole system
making n report concerning Il whicl
showed Mt. llcring's report 10 be- essen
TALLY untrue. Mr. Baldwin's report wa
made Official" hy the official certificate 4
The correctness of IT, statement signed b
the City Engineer. superintendent Of sew
cfn and assistant superintendent Of seven.
and the chief assistant engineer, thcso be
ing the only officers who had had 90 u
with the sewers since they were given u
by Maj. Humphrey, who also wrote In tai
connection. awhile the liability Of "a
O-inch pipes 10 become olrirucicd seem
70 me about the only defect Oi tho system
u has the advantage that partial ohslruc
lions soon become complete aud impcrn
lively demand attention, aud there u cor
Hcquently little danger Of the sewers b,
coming filthy when city authorities ar
negligent" Ills letter sustained Nj
Baldwin's statements In all respects.
In his report cor 1885, the city engine,
said Thus Gar no fault can be ioun
with the manner In which the system b,
worked. The excessive quantity Of mu
In the water Is the chief cause oi trouhl,
Tho small o-quarier.inch supply pip,
90 the flush tanks become closrcd Wit