Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-08-07
wnAr 1ns slArs CHEMIST SAYS.
yaiae Of AnaIysss--our People should
Have No Apprehension.

Or. william II. TAYLOR, State Chemist.
hajnc asked for HIS views on the subject.
prepared the following FOR the .DIsrsIcni
J cannot bat feel that Df. hcGu're's deauneis-
damaelne aud unjust Tho purity OF the water
has beeu repeatedly investigated. and quite -.
Gently the subject WAS most thoroughly loons ss
into by ogr Chamber o. commerce, whsh v Ia
tides Of tho question wero fully presented nna
dincussed Tho outcome OF these inyosugh.ioDs
has always been the sane.t1e purity " W.
water has boon sustained bat tnere ~ a. 49,
sons who think that tie fpeculati0ns Ok ~ ~
tingnished surgeon form safer pass ~,
judging tue character 81 water than the actusi
observations and experiments OF wafer eng
neers and sanitary chemists. nna so ~;
Gnires dleparaging utteranccs have occasioavu
nn amount OF alarm and distrisf, when y -
markable. sofne % cur peCple oeless Wy ~,
water 70 be bat little else tpan poison, ana ~
their CONSIDERATION have abandoned the pure
water OF the river fr tho polluted water OF
springs and wells. The deiusion tnus sprsaa
abroad By a gentleman OF grcat influence mas
been tbs cause OF much discomfort, eApsn ,sa
and apprehension 70 our citizens, WINE the
harm L has done 10 the city in the estimation OF
strangers must De very considerable.
NOT An EXPERT on pnISKBG-wATER.
Nov, ms for me, fully recognize the value OF
DR.. McGuire on any subject within bis protin.e'
and should pay respectful attention 70 hls siase-
ments on any point In surgical or medical prac-
tee but do not think he could or would cleiin
70 be an expert on drinking-water, and hence
/ cannot accept HE opinion that our water sup.
ply Il 1xious for no better reason than inas
the opinion Is ne opinion, but must require some
substantial argument or fact In It's favor p3iore
en- subscribe 20 Il. And indeed, 40 Iar Ioil
regarding him as a safe guide IN the matte, oi
the purity OF the wafer, have the uinoss NO
trust of him in this capacity, for think that ne
himself has clearly shown that he believes tDht
bad water Is better than good.
lie says that sample OF water from ms Gun ,l.
try place and another from the river we're sent
20 some chemist" to be analysed, and that tne
chemist reported that the water from his farm
was suspicious and that rom the river, IS IAr as
he could tell, was FREQ from impnriiy. VOW "
may not be generally known that mo sVme
chemist who made these analyses h. no lees
chemist than Professor Mallct, DR.. hcGnires
friend and correspondent whose opinion on
another phase OF the matter she Doctor puD-
fishes. These samples OF water, known at the
time only as No. / and No. 2, were submittei py
Superintendent Boiling 10 Professor hailet,
who reported that No. Che river water) "seems
20 be of very fair character but that the re-
Eults for No 2 OR. McGuire's spring water
a. show this 70 be Of totally different nature and
class It among winters OF highly-snspicioEsc narac-
teri: and chemists generally. studying the re-
suits OF these analyses which are 70 be found ia
Superintendent Bollings report for last year.,
viii agree that Professor Mailet judged cor
rectIy rs TO both waters. And yet, In defiance OF
this formidable statement from an eminent
authority and friend, DR.. Mcclure put himself
10 the trouble Of bringing this " highiy-suspi-
cious water into Richmond 10 drink instead OF
tho good water already here, and judging nom
Professor Mallsts anal sis, took In, venture 10
say, more sewage in q day than l, wno drink
river water, take In In month.
But HE SURVIVED IT.
He has survived, and / will not express sur
prise thereat. though were j TO reason hastily,
as Is too much the custom, might do 80, Tor u ~
probable that many Of the springs In the Vicinity
OF his farm are OF the same suspicious character
as his. and have heard that n few days ago a
man died soon after taking drink from one OF
those springs. l do not know OF any such dls.
aster Detailing drinker Of river water. But
do not care 70 press this fact az an argument 10.
its superior purity 1 only wish 10 point out
that II Dr. Mcclure can Withstand the use OF the
neutrality-suspicious. water OF small and clrcum,
scribed spring, they are not likely 70 be harmed
who drink the bold-nOwing water OF mighty
river ~,
What confidence then can we place in DR.. Nc
CURE as n c0Hn0isSeur In waters when he dellD-
erately and after its evil character IS pointea
out 10 him by an authority whom he himself es-
teens, prefers the bad 70 the good? IL Is true
that Professor Mallot in the letter which DIR. Nc
CURE publishes appears 20 say that be cannot
tell from chemical analysis only whether wafer
is pure or not Yet this is precisely what he DID
tor Superintendent Boiling In the analysis OF
waters No. and No. 2 10 used the methods OF
chemists, and no others, and based his statement
that one water "seems to be Of very fair charao-
ter and the other {" OF highly-suspicious charac-
ter" exclusively on chemical results. IL Is not 10
be supposed that he would have used any OF the
subtleties OF chemical phraseology 70 Snperin-
tendent Boiling, who y not chemist and could
no: be expected to understand their nice disttnc-
tlOns and still less Is II 70 DO supposed tbat ne
would have stated these positive conclusionsi Il.
he believed that the means BIZ which he had
reached them were worthless
CHEMICAL ANALYSES Is or VALUE.
Tho fact is that chemical analyses is Of great
value In determining the sanitary character OF
water. II has It's limitations, and Ike other
erts-the art Of surgery, for example-cannot DO
all we could wish, but these limitations are wen
understood, and when they are allowed for II Is
renab Bile, and is used with confidence by the best
chemists the world over. At any rate, whatever
may be ts real value 10 IL, aside from actual ex-
perience in the use OF the water, the best means
we have, and az the very lowest estimate that
can be put upon IL, we may venture TO suppose
that It IL perhaps rather more trustworthy tnan
tine mere dictum OF "A theologian or physician or
surgeon however eminent these gentlemen may
be m their several vacations.
shall not attempt 70 refute the hypothesis OF
tho germ in the water. IL ie useless . Ivy, for
20 the true believer In germs oil things are pos
sible. To them the trlning fact that the germs
do not do what they are said 20 do - OF no mo-
msnt-it Is sufficient that they ought 10 do It.
That diphtheria, typhoid-iever Asiatic cholera 90
not prevail with everybody everywhere ana ali
tho time. a. they should do II the fnlly-de-
yeoped ideas Of the bacterioloSists were cor
rect, Is to these worthy students OF nature an
anamoly most unaccOuntably Disappointing and
disgusting. Nothing pleases them moro :Aan
Tor an epidemic 70 break out 10 some pltco anu
for a microbe 70 be hshed out OF spring where
his ancestors have been living harmlessly and
unsuspecte1 since the days Of Adam. Those
who think tha. tho bacillus OF Lynchb1rg and
TuckahOe creek Is especially aggressive may
usefully consider that germs are not a new in
vention but only recent discovery, that they
can be conveyed by food as well as by drink, by
persons as we'll as by things, and that OF tho
thousands Of mediums through which We may
imagine their evil influence Is exerted river
water, 30 far from being the most likely, Is per-
haps among the least 90.
SHOULD HAVE no APPREHENSION.
In conclusion can confidently assure our pso-
pie that they should not have tho least apprc-
hensicu In drinking our hydrnnt-water But IN
deed their own personal experience OF Tery many
years Of use ought 10 convince them Of this fact
without the assurance OF anyone, and despite
the assertion Of any one 20 tho contrary. Inc
water has again and again been examined by
various chemists working independently OF one
another, and recently by a bactenoogist also,
and all Of them pronounce " pure. In fact, all
who have lahoriousy investigated the water
itself are its friends its enemies are those gem
- han y :