The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-11-01
THE SEWER QUESTION.

To THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES: In to-
days number Of The TIMES you have on
the front page an article headed MANY
Serious Objections to the Interceptor
Proposed by Mr.. Herring" in which, and
also in an editorial, you say that many
prominent and practical engineers of
Roanoke oppose the interceptor as not
being the right thing"
1 am far from claiming any promi-
nence in my profession, but out of tho
sixteen years 1 have been an engineer
have spent six or eight years in practi-
cal and theoretical sanitary engineer
ing-iu very difficult drainage districts,
too. Still 1 did not think was able to
critlcise the work of such q well-known,
able, careful and prominent sanitary
engineer as Mr.. Rudolph Herring.
have, therefore, kept entirely aloof from,
but at the same time followed, the dis
cussion of the sewer system here with
full interest.
This whole opposition Of late seems
to me only to be- new illustration of
the Lilleputians trying to drag down
the Giant. as the worst objection l eau
find against Mr.. Hering's plans seems
to be his prominence as sanitary on
gineer.
The only two engineers here in Roa-
noke, as far as ] have observed, who
have publicly criticised or opposed Mr..
Hering's plan are Mr.. ]. G. Rawn
and MIR. Dunlap, the city engineer. AS
for Mr.. Rawn's ability as an engineer,
! have the greatest respect, but from
his biography in The ROANOKE TIMES,
Sunday, April 5, 1891, it does not appear
that Mr.. Rawn ever spent any part of
his professional career in practical san
itary engineering.
AS to Mr.. Dunlap's capacities as q
sanitary engineer know nothing what
ever; but doubt very much If he has
spent twenty-five years of his profess
sional experience in the exclusive study
and practical execution of sanitary
engineering here and in Europe, as Mr..
Herring has.
Two of the most prominent members of
the engineering profession here, Messrs.
WV. Coe and c. s. Churchill, of oheNor
folk and Western, took the same stand,
during the discussion at tie public
meeting last Monday. They are both
engineers, whose words have weight
and are recognized inside the profess
sion.
The opposition, among other things,
charges Mr.. Herring with being too
theoretical, and not as practical as our
prominent practical engineer right here
in Roanoke. Yes, Mr.. Herring has under
gone a highly theoretical education,
something absolutely necessary for any
engineer who wants to make himself
prominent, and something, l am sorry
to say, many engineers lack to de-
plorable degree. But Mr.. Herring. be-
side being thoroughly theoretically edu-
Gated, has spent twenty-five years in the
practical solution of his theoretical
education as q sanitary engineer. fact
that none of the practical engineers
and critics of Roanoke can come up to.
l have had the pleasure in actual
practice to carry out some of Mr.. Her
ing's SO called theoretical plans, in more
difficult sewer districts than Roanoke,
too. l can therefore. from prac tical OK
perience, testify to the practicability,
minuteness and accuracy of Mr.. Her
ing's plans. 1 can only say it was q
pleasure to 60 by them; they were ex
cellent in their practical details, and
the work done by them stands to-day as
indisputable proof of their practical
value.
AS for the interceptor, the real casus
belli in all this warfare. Well, Mr..
Herring has both in his preliminary as
we'll as in his final report in detail and,
as far as can SEQ to satisfaction. stated
his reasons for its adoption. The op-
has thoroughly aired its views, after
my opinion, without shaking Mr.. Her
ing's reasons the least bit.
For mo now at this late moment to
repeat all this matter would be useless,
so much more as thorough investi
ton OF all the pros and cons would
cover whole number of THE TIMES,
and newspaper is not the proper
place anyway for such q detailed tech
nical investigation. So much will I
say. though. The opposition in ali the
objections seems entirely to have lost
view of this very important fact that
Mr.. Herring, when he planned his sewer
system, including the interceptor, for
Roanoke, was not only looking out for
the present need, but also for the
future.
have before me both OF Mr.. Hering's
reports, as we'll as also Mr.. Dunlap's. 1t
is self-evident from the first start that
MIR. Hering's plan is based upon che
only correct foundation, namely, that
Roanoke is rapidly growing city, and
therefore her sewer system should be
planned with the view for eye, that che
would probably within the next 10 or Is
years double her present population.
The sewer system should therefore pro.
vide not only for the immediate need,
but 1T should now re started so that it
could be extended for future use with
out any alterations and for the least
possible expenses Because. as Mr..
Dunlap says in his report, ''changes in
sewer plans are expensive" So far does
Mr.. Dunlap in his report agree with Mr..
Herring, as he later on says. that no