The record-union., 1898-12-10
THOSE HIGH SCHOOL PLANS.
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
rs DISTURBED.
Cost to be Inquired Into-City
Water Supply and Other
Matters Considered.

There was a good attendance at the
meeting of the Chamber Of Commerce
last night, called for the purpose OF
nominating officers to be voted for at
The annual election in January and TO
consider any other matters that mlgnl
be called up.
Most of the business was of the reg
0lar character, but toward the close OF
the meeting one matter was called up
that caused quite a stir among those
present-the plans for the proposed
High School. 1t was stated that, while
it had never been contemplated to erect
building to cost upward of $S00OO,
the plans adopted by the City Trustees
cannot be carried out for less than
from $4,000 to $150.0OO.
The chamber promptly appointed
committee TO investigate the matter.
NOMINATION OF OFFICERS.
On motion of H Bennett commit
tee of five was appointed to report a
list of nominees. The Chair named as
such committee Mr.. Bennett, II. l..
Lightner, Joseph Steffens, L. Tozer and
r. D. Stephens.
The committee retired, and on re-
turning submitted the following list of
candidates:
President, Frank Miller; Vice Presi-
dent, William Schaw; Treasurer, A A.
Van VOORHEES,; Committee Chairmen-
Commerce L. Tozer; Manufactures, H.
j. Small; immigration and Land, r. D..
Stephens; Mines and Mining, w. d.
Lawton; Ways and Means, T. B. Hall;
Statistics and Library, o. w. Erie
wine; Law and Legislation, A. j.
Bruner; Membership and Grievance,
II. I. Lightner: Parks and Public I'M
provement, L. L. Lewis; Exhibition, t.
L. Enwright; Reception, William
Land; Public Affairs, r, I. Bentley.
SEWER SYSTEM = ENGINEER
GRUNSKY'S REPORT.
During the absence of the Nom-
mating Committee, President Lindley
called up the sewer question. He stated
that Engineer G. E. Grunsky visited
the city, examined the plan of the
present system and subsequently sub
mitted the following report of the
question:
Sacramento. Nov. 9Th
Directors of the Sacramento Cham
Der of Commerce-Dear Sirs: In con-
ference with your committee, the pro-
posed extension of the sewer system of
Sacramento has been discussed, and
I now desire to confirm briefly my
views as verbally expressed at that
conference
Should 1t be permissible to discharge
sewage into the Sacramento River, as
the city is at present doing, there is
no valid reason why the sewers should
not be extended as proposed, the ex-
tension conforming as it does to the
requirements of the combined system.
On the assumption, however, that
sewage must be disposed of in some
other way than by discharge into the
river, it at once becomes apparent that
the sewage proper must be collected
separately. as it is only by such sep
arate collection that its volume can
be kept sufficiently small to permit of
its being rendered harmless by some
satisfactory treatment.
The main sewers, already construct
ed can, under a separate system, be
made to serve as collectors for rain
water only, and there can be no OBJ
lection to its delivery unpolluted by
sewage into the river.
The separate system involves not
only collection of the sewage proper
independently of the storm waters, but
also a satisfactory disposal of the
same, which in the case of Sacra-
mento would probably be either treat
ment on filter beds or use on a sewage
farm
Once the ultimate necessity for a sep
arate system has been conceded, 1t
would be we'll to plan all extensions Of
the mains of the present system, as
though they were part of a system of
drains for storm water only. Taking
this view of the matter, some slight
modification of the projected work, SO
far as streets selected to be severed
are concerned, might be advisable.
Very respectfully,
c. E. GRUNSKY, Civil Engineer.
Mayor Land said that at the recent
conference with the City Trustees and
Board of Heath. it was thought the
present system would answer-under
the conditions mentioned by Mr..
Grunsky-and If later on a second or
double system should be deemed ad-
visable the work would not be thrown
away. The Improvement of the pres
ent system would cost about $150,000.
while new system on different plan
would cost about 100000
o. w. Erlewlne stated that he had
written to the Mayors of six cities, and
had received answers from all but one.
The Mayors of these cities reported that
they were using what is called the