New-York tribune., 1901-10-21
LARGE CITIES NOT BEHIND SMALL ONES

An accomplished gentleman from Chicago, Mr..
Alexander J. Jones' is travelling in Europe in
quest of hints and suggestions for the solution
of Chicago's sewer problem. He has found that
various cities dispose of their sewage by f1ltra-
tion by chemical precipitation or by other
modes Of purifying treatment, instead of pour
ing the whole crude mass, as Chicago does, into
a river, TO pollute that stream and to offend and
poison the people Of other communities. Still,
he seems to be confirmed in the characteristic
Chicago opinion that the Chicago system is the
best practical one. These sewage publication
schemes, he says are all right for small towns
Of only 100000 population thereabouts, but
they are not practicable for Large City such
as Chicago.
We have heard that argument before con-
corning New-York well Chicago, and there
is really nothing in it. AS a matter of fact,
sewage publication by chemical and other treat
ment is most conspicuously successful in Paris,
which is a much larger city than Chicago, and
so the major and minor premises of Mr.. Jones's
argument are both knocked into a cooked hat.
But apart from that there is no conclusive
reason why a system Of sewage disposal, or of
water filtration, or Of garbage utilization, which
is successful in place Of 100000 inhabitants
should not be equally successful in one Of
100000 or Of 100000. Indeed the rule is
that the larger the place the more successful
the work is. That is a common rule Of busi-
ness, that things can be manufactured in large
quantities more cheaply than in small quanti-
ties, and that work can be done more cheaply on
a large than on a small scale. If it costs so
much per capita to dispose of the sewage of
town Of 100000 it should, and under decent
management would cost considerably less per
capita to dispose of that of city of 100000.
To 1
so much a gallon, 100000 gallons can be
filtered at lower rate.
We have said that all this applies to New
York as we'll as TO Chicago Take the matter
of garbage, for example. The city now pays
Percy Nagle big sum every year for dis
posing Of the stuff in such way that large
proportion OF 1t promptly reappears upon the
various beaches near New-York, TO be most
offensive nuisance and a menace to health BY
way of contrast the town of Darwen, England
TO mention one OF many such examples-has
erected a crematory in which 1t burns all its
garbage. In that way the garbage is disposed
of absolutely without offence, for no odor comes
from the works. and almost no smoke-not half
much smoke Health Board permits TO
issue from various favored chimneys In this
city in open defiance of law. But incineration
of garbage is expensive? Well even IL it were
as expansive as Iercy NaSle IL would De
preferable 10 him, for 1t is efficient and he is
not But matter of fact it is not expensive
On the contrary, II is economical and profitable.
Darwens garbage destructor provides steam
power TO run the local electric light works and
trolley roads, and thus is actually source of
profit TO the municipality. Only about thirty
FIVE tons OF garbage a day are disposed of at
Darwen. But it is perfectly obvious that the
works might be extended, if necessary, q thou
sandfold, as to burr $4,000 tons, and the
result would be that the destruction would be
effected more cheaply, and thus either the cleo
trc current would be generated at less cost 10
the companies purchasing il or the profits to the
municipality would be increased.
There is no reason why New-York should not
be lighted with electricity generated at garbage
destroying furnaces, and the city thus have
cheaper light and be relieved from the yearly
cost Of Percy" Nagle. And so in all other
departments Whatever small city can do