The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1900-08-08

ana there Is nothing more offensive
than purifying kitchen wastes.
The late Col. Geo. r.. Waring in
speaking OF u former report of his
says: In common with the rest OF
the world ut that time, / believed
that focal matter constituted the
chief factor In the sewerage problem.
1t is hardly necessary for me to say
that ! am now convinced that focal
mater may be regarded as almost
tritling when compared with other
| wastes.
But sanitary works are expensive,
and taking an economic view only,
the question is sometimes asked, do
they pay? Can one affo,L to save
the typhoid victims? The answer is,
that combining ourselves to the same
ecOnOmi" view, we cannot afford to
the average human life is worth
50, ZOO to the community. Assuming
merely for the sake Of illustration
that you have six typhoid deaths
per year, you suffer an annual loss
of 1900. But there are ten cases of
typhoid to one death, and the aver
age duration of illness is 43 days.
The value of the time lost from work
at $l.00 per day would amount to
$3.50 for 60 cases, and the doctors
and nurses bills and medicines will
not be less than $50 per case, making
$4,000 more, or total annual tax
levied by this single preventible
disease of SIT $50, which is equivalent
to q capital sum OF more than $780,
600. You can substitute your actual
typhoid deaths and figure the result
yourself. Nor does this take into
account the indirect loss to business
from occasional epidemics, and the
repelling of capital and industry and
immigration for the fear of them. ut
can readily be seen," says Prof.
Mason, that public works which
could eliminate a reasonable fraction
OF this great tax would pay for them
selves In the course of few years,
even though they were originally
expensive"
The introduction OF sewerage need
not involve any increase in the gen.
eral tax levy, the interest and cost of
operation may be met by an annual
charge for tho use Of the service lust
rs water works revenues are raised,
so that those who are directly bene-
fitted shall be taxed.
, The first question to be considered
|, in approaching the problem here, is
, shall we have the combined system
, which provides for the removal OF
rain and house drainage in the same
, channel; or the separate system
4 which handles house drainage only
! and leaves the question of rain water
us distinct problem. The former is
, much more expensive at first, bu,
! some day 1t will be necessary for yor
: to provide for the removal of storm
, water in closed drains, and if yor
look that far ahead, it will be cheap
, er to DO 1t now in q combined sys
r tenn. You will be ut once amply
repaid for the extra cost, in the i'm
prOvement of the streets and lots
Tho combined system is universally
/ used abroad, and i'm the larger
American cities, while the separate
system is most popular among the
a smaller places i'm this country, and il
, has many able advocates who urge /,
! on other grounds than it's cheapness
The relative advantages can only be
T determined by actual surveys in eacl
! particular case.
! The next question is the ultimate
, disposal of the sewerage. The
, simplest. cheapest and most genera
, practice is to- discharge the crude
sewerage directly into flowing
stream. The next is To- first etfec,
the publication by chemical pro
a cess, ana expensive and unsatisfac
tory operation. Another method i.
p Purification by bacteriOlogical trert
I ment, system which is yet scarcely
! beyond the experimental stage, bu
which offers great promise and still
, another, the success of which il
|, amply demonstrated, is agricultural
. irrigation.
q L have examined the country about
= sumter, and am Informed that the
, stream OF Green Swamp, is is fee
r DelOw Tie city, and can be reached
, In distance of mile and q half
which affords sufficient gradient 70,
an outfail sewer. J. believe that the
volume and velocity of this strean,
, are sufficient to dilute and convey
Z away the sewerage you would dis.
charge into it without OfTense or dan.
: ger to- the few people living near it.
IL it should ever happen i'm the future
'hat by reason OF your growth, on
. more stringent state laws, it should
become necessary to discontinue the
, use OF the stream for that purpose. q
lew acres OF the low lands along the
; stream could be converted into q
sewerage farm, and You could dispose
OF your sewerage in that way. The
cost OF preparing such Il farm would
be very little, and the profit of it's
cultivation would give handso me
return on the investment.
Of course without surveys it is i'm.
possible to do more than make q
guess at the probable cost Off sys-
TEN of sewers, and it is perhaps un-
wise to attempt actual figures at this
stage. and any that give are t.,
be taken with extreme caution. /
nave assumed that twelve miles of
mains, including the outfall. as suf
mcent to meet your present needs.