The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1901-08-23
H, FRIEDLANDER & Bro,
Cor. 9th and e SITS. N. w.
AFFAIRS OF The DISTRICT.
A Sewage Disposal Field for the
New Rupert Home.
Views of the Plumbing Inspector and
Health OH;cer on the Subject
Standpipes on Business HOuses-
Regarding street Name Changes.

I
]. J. Appich and others, of the Building
Committee of the proposed Rupert Home,
have submitted to the Commissioners for
a prevail the plans and specifications for
| a sewage disposal field for the home on
the Good Hope Road, They request that
| after the plans are fully examined that
a permit be issued for the same.
The matter was referred to Charles B.
Ball, the Inspector of Plumbing, who has
reported that this project for field is
similar to two which have received the
approval of the Commissioners. the latest
of which was for the butterine factory.
Il have examined the location says
the inspector, lin which it is proposed to
construct the field, and find il suitable for
| the purpose, and a number of hundred
| feet distant from the nearest building.
1T would be my own preference in such
constructions to provide receiving
| chamber in which the sewage should be
stored for al least thirty-six hours, and
! then by automatic sphon discharged upon
| the field. However, as it has not been
| deemed necessary heretofore TO in
| sist upon such an arrangement, l see no
reason why this project should not re-
ceive approval.
THE case should be referred to the
Health Officer, as have been previous
! cases of the kind
! The papers in the case, were then re-
ferred to the Health Department, and DR..
| William c. Woodward, the Health Officer,
| has reported:
| THE within described sewage disposal
| field can, in my judgment, be constructed
| and maintained without nuisance or dam
ger to public health If i. be modified by
| constructing a receiving chamber pro-
vided with an automatic siphon, as sug-
| gested by the Inspector of Plumbing.
The advantage to be derived however,
| from the construction of receiving pit
of the size suggested by him would ar-
parently be in no way commensurate
| with the cost thereof, pit capable of
| containing the sewage of from four TO
| eight hours being ample for present pur-
| poses. t1-''i-.
| II respectfully call attention to the
| fact that the effiuent from this sewage
| disposal field is to be discharged on
| property not belonging TO the estab-
| lishrnent owning and operating the
! field itself II seems TO me desirable,
| therefore. that before issuing permit for
| the construction of this sewage disposal
| field, the consent of the owners OF the
| land which is to receive the efhuent be
| obtained and made matter of record
along with the within application.
| - recommend that when the within
Plan shall have been mod1hed by the
addition of a receiving pit, with auto
matte siphon as suggested, and after the
| filing of the consent of the owner OF the
| the discharge of such efiiuent thereon,
permission be granted for the construc-
| ton and maintenance of the system OF
sewage disposal then covered by this
application.
Ii is understood that the action of the
| Commissioners will be based upon the
substance of the two foregoing reports.
The Commissioners yesterday had under
consideration and passed upon an in
teresting question relative to the levy
| ing of water main assessments ON
corner lots in lexington. 1t appears
| that water main was laid in 1884
| to supply lot Il, block 10, centre of Eek
| ington subdivision, and that the property
was assessed for the same. This assess
| ment was Cancelled the following year I'M
der the decision in the Burgdorh case Re
| Gently another main was laid beside this
| lot In V Street and the property has now
| been assessed for the payment for the
| latter named main. The owner objects to
paying for main which does not supply
his premises with water and the Commits
| sioners are of the opinion that he should
| nay the latter assessment on the ground
| that the lot has been supplied with Poto-
| mac water since 1851, ana tildt no 'SScSS-
| ment for water main has been paid.
| About month ago Francis NJ. Cox, the
| owner of this property. addressed the
| Commissioners protesting against a sec
| ond assessment being levied upon the lot
| for a water main. Thu matter was re-
| ferred to the Assessor who submitted
| statement of the facts and advised the
| Commissioners that the latter assessment
| should stand. MIR. Cox was Informed by
| the Commissioners that the assessment
| was in accordance with law and correct
| Mr.. Cox has again written to the Com
| Inissioners maxim an additional state
| ment ana asking further consideration of
| the question. THE lot in question: says
| he was originally assessed in 1881 for
| water main laid in Fourth Street, from
| which it derives its supply of water. The
| assessment for this main was Cancelled in
| 1895 In accordance with decision of the
| Supreme Court of the District of Column
| bia In what Is known as the Burgdorf
| case.
1.-The act of July s. 1895 authorized the
| District Commissioners to r+assess the
| tax thus Cancelled, and provided in
| ton 2: That outside the city of Washing
ton the said reassessment shall be levied
| or assessed only On those lots or parcels
Of land into which Potomac water has