The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-03-29
5eS,ss1
299,440
Average, .

0.0O
 This gives a fraction over to 1.
 In this articlH however. we will use
 the figures of the board of Health.
 which we believe has been approved by MT. Scranton.
 "In the Health board report pub lished in the papers Aug. 9th. 1908. the | cost of operating an incinerator to de
 stroy an average of 200 tons per day
 is given at S33,700 per annum. This
 may be a fair estimate, but why have
 the city experiment.? Also why burn
 up a maxim amount of ashes to de- | stroy a, minimum amount of garbage? | an equal amount in the four summer
 months, but during the other the ashes | increase to as high as to 1 of gar bage.
 | Quired in the summer. If New Ha- i ven had no place to use it's ashes for filling or no way to get rid of its gar- | bage then this expensive method might be employed, but with waiting barges | to dump it into, it seems the most practical way and least troublesome | and expensive. As to sanitary condi- tions the garbage must be dumped in either case, one into the building and the other into the barge. The city's responsibility ends in the latter, but how about the former?
 "To sum up. to build an incinerator the Health board asks for $50 900, al- though they state that the plant at Stoke-upon-Trent. England, with one fourth the population of New Haven cost $70, 1875. This latter is an actual cost, the other an estimate How much more before they get through?
 "The yearly saving amounts to over a quarter of a. million dollars in ten years The above estimates are some what different from those given in a letter written by President Maher of Health board, to Mayor Martin Au- gust 4th, 1908. In this letter he gives the cost of operating an incinerator. at $s4 GOO per year which seems more like the proper amount for in this same letter he states: The complete report of the Modern MeIdrum de- structor at Stoke-upon-Trent giving all charge for destruction of refuse, including labor supervision, interest on capital. sinking fund, repairs and sup plies: shows a total cost of s1.o4 per short ton of refuse destroyed.
 At the American rate of wages it would be about $40 per ton destroy ed On the basis of 60,OOO tons at SI40 would make the amount sS4, 900 as he states in his letter. Which is it. s33,7OO or $S4,000 per year? A big diff ference.
 Alderman Miller's committee makes an estimate which is entirely out of reason. as he provides to take care of 6O to 75 tons per day, when the gar bage alone will amount to more than mat during many days of the summer. bage in one day last August, New Ha- ven will have nearly 100.
 "As shown by figures above, there are almost twice as much ashes and garbage combined in winter as in sum- mer.- This means extra. teams which could be used in summer making col lectioDs more frequent and giving the city better service thereby.
 Not the least to be considered is the | trouble saved the city in locating a plant, and future damage suits after 1 it is established. The hospital is not | located yet, so how about a garbage destructor? It may be claimed they do not smell, but it is doubtful if the | board of Health would like to have it | located next to their office. Then l there is the element of uncertainty | about the cost of the plant and the | cost of operating it. No element of | chance enters into the barge proposi- | tion- It costs so much per ton to | take it away and that is all.
 New York, Philadelphia, Boston, 1 Baltimore. Cleveland, Buffalo. Pitts | burg, Cincinnati. Detroit, Washington, Indianapolis. Toledo. Allegheny, Co., | lumbus, Paterson, Dayton. Reading, | Bridgeport, New Bedford, Duluth | Utica. Johnstown, McKeesport. York, Atlantic City and New Castle 26 cities l