Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1901-07-06
BAD ENGINEERING.

Chicago, June 24.-TO the Editor:
Engineer Randolph on River Improve.
ment" heads an editorial I'm the Record.
Herald of recent date. On reading the
| article one cannot help being impressed
forcibly as to the great need of prac.
teal system of sewage disposal. unat.
| tainable by what has been wrOngfully
designated drainage channel. The
editorial says the report Of the engineer
Is compact and comprehensive In
treatment and eminently sound In It's
views"-nOt as to the miscOnceived
drainage channel, but "as to what Is
best calculated to promote the interests
Of navigation In the river at this time"
What Is the matter with reporting OH
the subject as to which, ut the present
time, the public Is most interested in,
the cause Of the non-success of sewage
disposal by the so-termed drainage
channel-what Is the reason of the non
success?
The editorial refers to the commits.
sion composed Of expert engineers as
having presented plans which are
more Or less visionary and impractical.
ble." 1t certainly cannot be imperti.
nent to ask, Can there be found any
where plan which has proved ana
will prove more visionary and imprac-
ticable' than the misnamed drainage
canal; ii so, why not bring 1t out, and
place 1t ON exhibition as sort of bas.
relief to the channel?
The editorial says of the expert en-.
glneers: Their report emb0dies much
valuable engineering data, concerning
the feasibility OF various projects for
widening the river and for connecting
the sanitary canal with the Calumet
district" but how about furnishing any
good engineering data for making a
success Of the canal; would 1t not be Of
more benefit to the public II assurance
could be given OF practical sanitary re.
suits, even for the small region at pres
ent draining through the south branch?
So far as heard from, no great sue
cess, as yet, has been achieved In dis
posing OF the sewage Of the original
Chicago sanitary district, except pos.
sibly in the minds eye OF the sanitary
trustees; and, under the facts as they
exist, what Is the good OF engaging In
useless talk for greatly increased ter
ritOry regarding the sewage disposal?
What and how will the removal of the
center pier bridges Ia first necessity
and the deepening of the river improve
the sanitary conditions with only a
fourteen-fOOt cut, giving a 100000 cubic
foot flow per minute from RObey
street, for twelve miles or more down
the canal, possibly the Sanitary Trus.
tees may know, but, II so, they wisely
keep the information wholly within
themselves.
Engineer Randolph, it will be noticed
does not put himself on record, accord
ing to the editorial, as champion OF
the canal for sewage disposal me,
dunn, but he has no hesltancy in recon-
mending the improvement ito promote
the interest Of navigation at this time, >
and unquestOnably the maritime inter
ests will be the better subserved, fol
the canal will never succeed as a sani
tary measure.
Is it not fair presumption from the
engineers report to assume that he re
CARDS the success of the drainage chan
mel as impossible of accomplishment
outside of a transportation canal tC
LOckpOrt? And as a matter of fact
would not Chicago have been better of
to-day, laying aside the commercial