HEARINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION IN RE REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY WATERS. (continued 3)

Prof. Weil. Of course, you understand that what I have said has been in the way of interrogation rather than criticism.

Mr. Tawney. Well, we are endeavoring to answer your interrogations to the best of our ability.

Mr. Mignault. We would like to hear any criticism that you think proper to make as to the methods suggested by the consulting engineer.

Prof. Weil. In a general way I have already stated what the objections are.

Mr. Magrath. The objection that you have stated is one relating to the location. Is there any objection with respect to the burden that this proposed plan would entail upon the community?

Prof. Weil. Yes.

Mr. Magrath. The burden is fixed here, an actual charge per capita.

Prof. Weil. What is it for Detroit?

Prof. Phelps. It is 54 cents.

Prof. Weil. Then, it is nearly twice as much for St. Clair as for Detroit. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Powell. That is the necessary result of doing things on a larger scale.

Mr. Jennings. On our plan there for interceptors I notice that they are running down Riverside Avenue. It might be a question for your engineer to consider, whether it would not be possible to place these interceptors one street farther back from the river. Riverside Avenue is a paved street. It is a concrete pavement, and perhaps the expense of digging that up and repaving it would be more than it would cost to take a street farther back from the river.

Prof. Phelps. That is absolutely immaterial to us, sir.

Mr. Jennings. They can be placed anywhere?

Prof. Phelps. Anywhere that you please.

Mr. Powell. Prof. Weil, I suppose you and the community in which you live recognize the necessity of doing something to prevent this evil?

Prof. Weil. I think you will find I stated at the outset that we recognize that very fully and are anxious to cooperate in its prevention.

Mr. Powell. You recognize that something should be done to prevent the raw sewage from going into the river?

Prof. Weil. Yes, sir.

Mr. Powell. All that you are aiming at is to have it done as inexpensively as possible?

Prof. Weil. Yes; and not arbitrarily.

Mr. Powell. There is no desire to take anybody by the throat; this is a friendly consultation.

Prof. Weil. I understand that, but we would like know what is going to be done.

Mr. Powell. To the general scheme proposed by Prof. Phelps you have no objection; your objections apply only to the details of working it out?

Prof. Weil. As to the general scheme for St. Clair?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Prof. Weil. Do you mean the use of the interceptors, and so forth?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Prof. Weil. That is so very general that I could hardly have any objection to it. There is nothing different in that from what has been done for years.

Mr. Powell. It is only the details of working out the scheme to which you object?

Prof. Weil. Yes.

Mr. Powell. And those objections you have spoken of?

Prof. Weil. Yes; I have tried to cover them.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, we will hear you now, as representing the Great Lakes Pure Water Association.

STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS KNOWLES, OF PITTSBURGH, PA., REPRESENTING THE GREAT LAKES PURE WATER ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Knowles. As I stated this morning, there is another representative of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, Mr. Theodore M. Leison, who will speak for that organization. He could not be here this afternoon, but will be present to-morrow morning. You may consider that he will be the official representative of and will speak for the association.

While I am on my feet, and speaking entirely personally, I would say that I was very much gratified to hear the remarks of Prof. Phelps that the suggestions in the report should be considered as such and not necessarily as determinative plans, because it seems to me that, above all, the initiative should be left to the communities to work out their own salvation as long as that may result accordingly in a general, well-defined policy; I think it is helpful to us as engineers to realize that as coming from your engineer, Prof. Phelps. It seems to me that this policy is a well-considered one, so that all of us who are interested in sanitation ought to work toward the fruition of such a plan. It is necessary that separate places shall have separate solutions dependent upon topographical conditions.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, you have had sufficient time and opportunity, have you not, to give some study to the report of our consulting engineers?

Mr. Knowles. I think I may have had sufficient time, but I do not know that I have given it sufficient study, because I have many other things to do.

Mr. Tawney. From the time you have given to the study of the report have you any criticism or suggestion to make as to the result, especially with respect to the standards of purification which have been recommended by our consulting engineers?

Mr. Knowles. As long as they can be considered generally and subject to consideration for each particular locality by a continuing body, no; but if they should be made once for all determinative, I would think that would be an error, because the art is changing so fast that such a position ought not to be taken by any body of men at any time.

Mr. Tawney. Let me understand you. You mean, do you, that there should be sufficient flexibility in the standard fixed to enable a continuing administrative body charged with the duty of supervising the execution of the recommendations to make such changes as are necessary to suit local conditions?

Mr. Knowles. And changes in the art as time goes on.

Mr. Tawney. Changes in the art of treatment; that is what you mean?

Mr. Knowles. Yes, sir; changes in the art both of treatment of sewage and the purification of the water.

Mr. Tawney. Then, from your studies of the proposition do I understand you to suggest that the most efficient and satisfactory results would be obtained by the creation of an international administrative body for the purpose of looking after the purification of water and treatment of sewage along these international boundary waters?

Mr. Knowles. I have not studied the machinery of legislation closely enough to express an opinion upon that final thing. I do believe that no effective progress can be made without some continuing body being on the job all the time. I presume it goes without saying that this being an international question it shall finally rest in some international body. I, however, couple that with the thought that the initiative should not only rest with the given municipality, but probably a still further initiative with the governing body representing that Province, that State, or that Government; the final question being left to the international body to determine the larger questions of policy. The way to get good work is to put responsibility for detail upon the person who carries it out.

Mr. Powell. That is good policy in all government, political or otherwise.

Mr. Knowles. That is right.

Mr. Powell. While we all recognize that sanitary science is in a condition of change or progress, yet we can not sit still and do nothing. We must live up to the light that we have for the time being. So that we could not lie by and do nothing simply because there is a possibility of other methods being invented or coming to light within a certain period of time in the future. We have to do what is best at the present moment under the present light. You understand that condition?

Mr. Knowles. If you ask that as a question, I would say, yes, that is true. It is neither necessary to stand still nor to fix a criterion that is good forever. The way in which those things are handled by the departments of health in the States, and I presume in Dr. McCullough’s department, is that a given project is acted upon at a given time with the light that the people then have, but frequently there are clauses which say that if at any time it appears that the works are not adequate, or something else is required, the right is reserved to the governing body to stipulate further requirements.

Mr. Powell. That is, you do not want the process of evolution to cease?

Mr. Knowles. No, sir. The important thing to consider is that this is not the only measure of public health which is before the people at this time. There are many other things upon which public money can be spent, and it is the measure of this thing with the other things to help public health that should be considered in any large questions of policy.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Knowles, are you prepared to give the commission any information regarding the treatment of sewage by aeration?

Mr. Knowles. No, sir.

Mr. Magrath. Do you think we are proceeding along the right lines in making these engineering suggestions as to these interceptor sewers? Do you think that those suggestions will be in line with any future development?

Mr. Knowles. Well, the relative advantages of long interceptors compared with small unit plants is all a question of finance coupled with some question of real estate development policy, but, of course, with any large body of water directly in front of a long community the place to which the sewage must go is that body of water. The most direct means is generally the most economical means, and the measure of cost of a number of plants compared with the cost of an interceptor is what is needed to find out whether the interceptor is advisable or not. No one can say what is most acceptable in either case.

Mr. Tawney. What is your position, Mr. Knowles?

Mr. Knowles. I am a consulting sanitary engineer in general practice.

Mr. Tawney. Located where?

Mr. Knowles. In Pittsburgh, Pa. That is my home now. I have practiced over the United States.

Mr. Tawney. Are you connected officially with the Great Lakes Pure Water Association?

Mr. Knowles. Yes, sir; I am a member of that association.

Mr. Tawney. From your knowledge of the reference submitted to the commission by the two Governments and your knowledge of the scope of the investigation, what have you to say with reference to whether or not thus far the investigation has proceeded practically and as speedily as would ordinarily be expected under the circumstances? I am asking you the same question that Mr. Magrath asked this morning of the chief sanitary engineer of the State of Michigan, merely for the purpose of getting on the record an expression of your views.

Mr. Knowles. I think good progress and good judgment up to date have been shown, provided the criteria be taken as not too absolute; and the statement made by Prof. Phelps this morning is very helpful along that line.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any knowledge as to the time that was consumed in the investigation of a similar subject in the Mississippi River on account of the alleged pollution of that river by the Chicago Drainage Canal?

Mr. Knowles. No; I do not know the exact time. It was some considerable time. I think it must be remembered that in any of these matters it not only takes time for an investigation, but it takes a good deal of time for necessary assimilation and education.

Mr. Tawney. Yes; and time thus spent is well spent.

Mr. Knowles. It is not lost.

Mr. Tawney. We will now hear what Mr. Sloman, a member of the bar of the city of Detroit, desires to say on this subject.

STATEMENT OF MR. ADOLPH SLOMAN, OF DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. Sloman. Prefacing what I have to say, I desire to state that I was born and brought up in the city of Detroit. I have practiced law during the past 37 years. I have had a summer home during the past 18 years at what is called Sans Souci on the St. Clair River about midway between Detroit and Port Huron.

Some little time before your commission was appointed, on an occasion when my eldest daughter was down in the city and there was apparently an epidemic of typhoid she contracted typhoid fever, and we came near losing her. It was that which caused me to interest myself very much in this question of the water supply and its pollution.

Our summer home has a frontage of about 1,400 feet on the river, on the south channel, where all the boats pass. Only as recently as two weeks ago last Saturday there came down the river a quantity of oil in the form of scum that covered the river from the center clear to the shore. An east wind that was prevailing at the time blew that stuff over to the shore, and the launches and rowboats stationed at the dock were covered with that oil clear to the gunwales. It was almost a day before we could get a drop of drinking water from the river. It was that situation that I called to the attention of the minister of fisheries, to which the letter that I have here is a reply. The oil supply supposedly came from the Imperial Oil Co. at Sarnia. The quantity was simply enormous. It came down in spots, covering an area of over 40 feet square. It looked like filth.

Mr. Powell. Was it black?

Mr. Sloman. No; it was a dark brown.

Mr. Gardner. Was it raw oil as it comes from the earth?

Mr. Sloman. Evidently so. Underneath that, of course, the marks of the oil were apparently in the usual form in which it is found floating on the water.

Mr. Tawney. Has that condition happened only once?

Mr. Sloman. No; it has happened before, but not to the extent that it did at the time I refer to. No one who has lived up there and has seen conditions and is at all familiar with fishing can help but realize that another happening of that kind will interfere seriously with fishing.

Mr. Magrath. You had better read that letter that you received from the minister of fisheries.

Mr. Sloman. This letter comes from the deputy minister of the naval service. When this condition presented itself I at once got in touch with the United States Engineer office in the expectation that some one on the American side who had the power would take some steps to prevent its recurrence. Upon calling up the Engineer office I found that Col. Patrick was about to start for the Mexican border, and he could not give it any attention. He was fearful that the matter might not receive proper attention from his office, and it was not strictly in his line. Inasmuch as the stuff had apparently come from the Canadian side, I got in touch with the minister of fisheries, because I understood that on a former occasion they had gone after this oil company. It is not an uncommon occurrence to find oil in large quantities coming down the river there. Over in Mitchells Bay large quantities of carp have died as the result of an accumulation of that stuff that has floated or drifted over there on account of the wind. In reply to my communication I received the following letter:

Ottawa, June 22, 1916.

Sir: I have your letter of the 19th instant with regard to the pollution of the Michigan side of the St. Clair River by heavy deposits of oil, apparently coming from a plant operating at Sarnia, Lambton County, Ontario.

Your representations will be referred to the department of game and fisheries, Toronto, which administers the fishery regulations for Ontario, and immediate attention will be requested in the matter. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. J. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of the Naval Service.

Adolph Sloman, Esq., Counselor at Law, Suite 330, Penobscot Building, Detroit, Mich.

In trying to ascertain what was the real prolific cause of the fouling of the water supply I tried to decide in my own mind in watching the boats pass by to what extent they were responsible for the contamination of the water supply. I wish you gentlemen could have the privilege of standing with me on my dock some night to see the condition of the water. You would raise your hands in holy horror and say, Is it possible that this is the stuff which the people are obliged to drink? The rays of light penetrate the water and show the impurities in it. There are no words that can express the foul condition of that water, and we get our drinking water from that source.

Mr. Tawney. What is the relation of the boat traffic on the river to this pollution?

Mr. Sloman. With regard to the sewage?

Mr. Tawney. Yes.

Mr. Sloman. I believe that at least a quarter if not a third of the foul matter that is deposited in the river comes from the vessels. And I want to say to you that I have never been able to understand how the rights of human life ought to be set to one side for the rights of property, what earthly justification there is for allowing these vessels to deposit their foul matter in the river when they could take care of it by incinerating plants. They may say it would put them to some inconvenience. What of it? I think we have a right to have health considered first. Not only that, but take the condition that existed 25 years ago. The water of the Detroit River was considered the finest in the world for drinking purposes. The city was comparatively small as considered to its population of to-day; the tonnage was small as compared with what it is to-day; but with the increase of this tonnage and the increase of population, together with the fact that vessels have been built in the past few years of heavy draft, it has been utterly impossible for nature to take care of what it would ordinarily take care of in the matter of pollution.

It is usually said that water purifies itself every 7 miles. These vessels coming along there churn that water up above the intake pipe and the northeast winds blow that stuff over. Those boats with big drafts churn up that stuff all the way up to the ship canal, and with the wind blowing from the northeast, it riles over the city supply intake.

Mr. Mignault. Where is your property?

Mr. Sloman. At Sans Souci, which is on Harrisons Island, about 3 miles southeast of Algonac, on the south channel of the St. Clair River.

Mr. Mignault. How far from Sarnia?

Mr. Sloman. It is about midway between Detroit and Sarnia, and Sarnia is directly opposite Port Huron.

Mr. Mignault. Then, it would be about halfway between Sarnia or Port Huron and Detroit?

Mr. Sloman. Approximately.

Mr. Mignault. Of course, the pollution which you mentioned comes from above.

Mr. Sloman. It comes from above. At Algonac the oil apparently does not go down the north channel, but goes down the south channel. When an east wind is blowing it can be plainly seen on the shore. For a week no woman could attempt to step on that shore without ruining her dress.

Mr. Mignault. Did I understand you to say that your property is on an island?

Mr. Sloman. It is on Harrisons Island; directly opposite is Squirrel Island, and directly opposite that is Warpool Island.

Mr. Mignault. Your property is on the American side?

Mr. Sloman. It is on the American side.

Mr. Powell. Did you make any inquiries as to how the Imperial Oil Co. allowed this stuff to escape?

Mr. Sloman. No; I did not get up there. It has not been my privilege to get up there since this occurrence, but I at once got in touch with the authorities that I thought would handle that situation.

Mr. Powell. It may have been due to carelessness.

Mr. Sloman. It looked as though they had let go what might be considered a tremendous quantity of oil. No ordinary quantity could have made a showing such as that did.

Mr. Mignault. How often has it happened?

Mr. Sloman. In different forms it has been going on for four or five years. It has come down two dozen times—not in that quantity, but the water would show traces of oil below the surface and on the surface.

Mr. Mignault. Do you mean that it has happened two dozen times in a year?

Mr. Sloman. No; during that period of the past four or five years. But it is not only that; when an east wind blows we get on our shore the garbage and foul matter that comes from the vessels. This year it is particularly hard on us because there never were so many vessels going up and down the river as there are to-day.

Mr. Powell. How long ago since this happened?

Mr. Sloman. Two weeks ago last Saturday.

Mr. Powell. Coming up the bay this morning, at this end of the Livingstone Channel, just about the Limekiln Reef, there was a lot of stuff on the surface that looked like raw sewage.

Mr. Sloman. Well, there probably was; but the Limekiln crosses below the city of Detroit, while this was above.

Just a thing or two more I would like to say in that connection. As I say, I was born and brought up here in the city of Detroit, and I will give way to no one in the matter of loyalty to the city of my birth, but Detroit is confronted with a problem that she must absolutely take care of, no matter what the cost is. It is merely a question of time when the water supply will be absolutely unfit for drinking purposes. We are drinking to-day chlorinated water. It was only a matter of a year or two ago when they cleaned out the reservoir of the waterworks, and I would hate to tell you what they found. There were two skeletons among the objects found there and a lot of very foul matter. The middle and wealthier classes are not drinking Detroit water; they are drinking well water, simply because if they use Detroit water they must drink this chlorinated water. The question is whether Detroit ought not to build in the future so as to conserve life rather than property or expense.

The city of Grand Rapids was confronted with a similar condition in 1913. Grand Rapids is a city of about 115,000 inhabitants. They undertook to discharge their sewage into the Grand River, and one of the towns below there filed a bill in the State court for an injunction to restrain the city from letting its sewage go into the river. I would like to call your attention to that case because it is full of facts; it is full of the testimony of the engineers.

Mr. Powell. The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded?

Mr. Sloman. Yes; the injunction was granted, and the city of Grand Rapids was given one year in which to take care of that sewage matter. When it comes to the question of what Detroit should do in the way of purifying its waters, I am not prepared to give any technical information—that is for the engineers—but I do wish to say to you that if you will examine this case you will find testimony of some of the ablest engineers in the State of Michigan as to what ought to be done. If I may be permitted, I would like to call attention to some features of that case.

Mr. Powell. Give the full citation of the case.

Mr. Sloman. The case is reported in One hundred and seventy-fifth Michigan, page 503. The title is Attorney General ex rel., Township of Wyoming v. City of Grand Rapids.

Mr. Powell. That suit was brought on behalf of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Sloman. It was brought on behalf of the village of Grandville, which felt the effects of the foul matter that was being deposited in the river. The court in that case said:

This is a proceeding by information in the nature of a bill in equity filed in the name of the attorney general upon the relation of the township of Wyoming, through its township board, its board of health, and its supervisor, and upon the relation of the village of Grandville in said township and certain riparian owners upon Grand River in said township against the city of Grand Rapids, its common council, its board of public works, and board of health, to declare and to abate and restrain the continuance of an alleged public nuisance. The nuisance is claimed to result from acts of the city of Grand Rapids in conveying through artificial means its sewage into the Grand River, which flows down the river and is cast upon the land below that city, and particularly upon those lands which are adjacent to and within the village of Grandville, and there created a public nuisance. It is also claimed that the emptying of sewage into the river so pollutes its waters as to constitute a nuisance in the waters themselves by reason of the odors therefrom and the contamination therefrom.

The city of Grand Rapids is located upon both sides of Grand River: its population in April, 1909, when the bill was filed, was upward of 110,000; its sewage is carried into the Grand River through sewers, which aggregate upward of 171 miles in length, without purification of any character. In addition to this the night soil from the outlying houses which have no sewer connection is collected in barrels and dumped into the Present Street sewer, and flows into the river. The township of Wyoming is located south of the city of Grand Rapids; the river, after passing through the city, flows southerly and westerly between the townships of Wyoming and Walker. On the south bank of the river, at a point where it turns abruptly to the west, and about 7 miles below the city of Grand Rapids, is located the village of Grandville, with about 750 inhabitants. Considerable area in Grandville is low; there is a ridge of high ground along the river bank, which is 5 or 6 feet higher than the low ground behind it.

It appears that the river overflows its banks once or twice a year; at these times of overflow a large area in Grandville is flooded, and the river becomes very much wider than it is ordinarily and the current increases rapidly. As the river goes down and after the water ceases to flow back into the river a pond of about 20 acres is left in the edge of the village, the escape of the water back into the river by flowage being prevented by the higher ground next to the river. The water left in this pond is from 4 to 6 feet deep, and gradually disappears through evaporation and seepage into the soil.

It is the claim of the complainants that the emptying of the large amount of sewage produced in Grand Rapids into the river contaminates its waters and fills them with impurities which are carried down the stream as it flows to, and into, or through the village; that, as the water goes down, the substances and impurities which are in it, due to the sewage, whether visible or invisible, are left upon the surface of the ground, and there decomposition creates such odors as to constitute a public nuisance in the village. The most of the houses in Grandville surround the flooded area, and there are four houses and eight privies within the area covered by water in ordinary flood. There are many more houses and privies covered by the highest water known in Grandville.

Now, you have identically the same situation here that they had. You have the towns below us here of Wyandotte, Trenton, and others that abut on the Detroit River. They occupy the same position with regard to the city of Detroit as did this town of Grandville with regard to the city of Grand Rapids, and, inasmuch as the city of Detroit sooner or later is going to be confronted with the question of whether or not they must take care of the sewage as between those towns and it, just so the question might as well be disposed of by Federal legislation.

Mr. Powell. In the absence of any special statutes on the part of your State, your common laws are precisely the same as the Canadian common law of Ontario, and the principle is very clear. I do not think there is any necessity of citing any authority on it. Every lower party is entitled to have the water flow to him in its crystal purity.

Mr. Sloman. There is no denying that proposition. This case is only interesting, gentlemen, with reference to the fact that it involves the inquiry as to what could or might be done to overcome the difficulty. In that respect it applies here very strongly. That is why I read portions of this authority at this time:

The bill of complaint, among other things, states that the system of sewers in the city of Grand Rapids does not cover the entire city, there being about one-quarter of the inhabitants of said city who do not discharge their refuse, of the character ordinarily discharged into and carried away by sewers, into the sewers of the city, but who discharge and deposit their filthy and unhealthy refuse into vaults and cesspools; that in the past such refuse, night soil, and unhealthy substances have been, and were at the time of filing the bill, collected by scavengers for said city and carried into the country, outside of said city, where the same was buried in deep beds, without creating any nuisance and without injury to the health of the surrounding neighbors; that there was, at the time of the filing of the bill, under contemplation by the said city of Grand Rapids, and its said authorities had recommended and intended and threatened to put into operation, a plan whereby the said refuse and night soil, then collected by its scavengers, would be carried to and emptied into the said Prescott Street sewer in said city; that the authorities had voted and determined to dispose this refuse and night soil, and they were about to commence the emptying of said sewage and night soil into the said sewer and were at the time taking steps, or about to take steps, through the expenditure of public money, for the emptying of said refuse and night soil into the said sewer.

The bill states that the night soil so collected amounted at that time to from 150 to 180 barrels a day, and if emptied into the said sewer would be carried into the Grand River and would greatly add to the pollution and contamination of its waters, and that the same would create a public nuisance in the rendering of the waters of said river injurious to users thereof; and by the overflows of said river and through deposits along the banks thereof of deleterious, unhealthful, and noxious substances and through the creation of noisome and unhealthful odors arising from the waters of said river so contaminated an additional public nuisance would be created; that the township board of health of the township of Wyoming had taken action in the matter, in accordance with the statute, and had published this action, in which it protested against the emptying of sewage and night soil into said sewer, as contemplated by the city, and had declared the same to be a nuisance and a source of filth and cause of sickness in said township, and injurious to the health of the people thereof. * * *

The bill further claims that the use of the waters of said Grand River by the said city in the manner which was then contemplated would be improper, unwarranted, and unlawful, and would constitute a daily menace to the lives, health, and comfort of the persons residing along said river and in the township of Wyoming and in the village of Grandville and would fill the air with noisome and noxious odors and pollute the air in the neighborhood and render it unfit to breathe; and that the said city could satisfactorily and economically dispose of its refuse matter, night soil, and sewage in any other manner or through different methods than were then contemplated, without injury to the health or lives of persons and without creating a public nuisance.

The bill prays that a permanent injunction be granted against the city of Grand Rapids and its said boards, officers, and agencies, restraining and preventing it, or them, from continuing to discharge the sewage which it then discharged into Grand River and requiring it to abate the nuisance which it then maintained in the pollution of the waters of said river. It also prayed that an injunction issue restraining said city and its said officers and agencies from carrying into effect their threatened and contemplated plan of emptying into said sewer the refuse matter and night soil then being collected by the scavengers of said city for the purpose of conveying the same into the Grand River, and that they be restrained and prohibited from taking any action or in any manner ordering the performance of any act on the part of any of its officers or boards having the tendency to carry into effect the said threatened action, which would result in said nuisance.

The court in this case enters very largely into a discussion of the expert testimony that was given with regard to the relative situation of the town, the amount of filth that was deposited in these waters, the extent of the pollution, the size of the city, and the means and ways whereby this pollution might be overcome. It gives the testimony of the experts, and one of them I have particularly in mind was a witness named George S. Pierson.

The witness, George S. Pierson, called by the complainant, testified that he was a civil engineer and had made a specialty of sanitary engineering for 25 or 30 years; that his work in a large measure required the supervision of plants for water purification and installation of septic tanks; that he had supervised sewage purification plants at Hermosa, Cal.; El Paso, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; Fond du Lac, Wis.; Jackson, Durand, Ithaca, Bay View, Charlevoix, and Lake Cora, Mich., and quite a number of smaller installations; that he had visited most of the plants in operation in Massachusetts, including those in Worcester, Amherst, Andover, Gardner, Framingham, Natick, Brockton, Lawrence, and others; that those plants were in successful operation when he visited them; that he had experience in estimating the cost of erection and maintenance of such plants. The witness described modern methods of sewage disposal, including septic tanks, and that the septic tank is almost universally used in this country in the first and even in the final stage of the process; that this accomplishes sufficient purification of the sewage so that it can be emptied into a stream without damage or creating a nuisance; that the septic-tank process is in successful operation in cities the size of Grand Rapids; that the recent tendency had been to relieve streams from pollution by purifying the sewage; that a sewage purification plant of a city the size of Grand Rapids is feasible; that the cost of operation of a septic tank is nominal, only an occasional cleaning, at periods varying from three months to six years; that the water consumption of a city is an indication of the amount of its sewage, because practically the entire water consumption finds its way into the sewers; this may be increased by rains carrying with them the street washings; that in providing a septic tank to ascertain its size we ascertain the daily total flow.

The witness further testified that he had made a general estimate which would be sufficiently large to cover the cost of a sewage-disposal plant for Grand Rapids, and he could positively say the cost would not exceed his estimate; the approximate cost would be $1 per capita; for a city the size of Grand Rapids it would be about $100,000; this is based upon separate septic tanks without the cost of connecting the sewers; that the cost would not vary much whether one or more tanks were used; that if a separate tank were installed at each sewer outlet the cost would be slightly more, probably not more than 25 or 50 per cent; that there is a slight odor from a septic tank, not materially different from the odor of any sewer discharge; if the tank discharges below the water level the odor is masked; the septic tank alone reduces the amount of organic matter in the sewage and the number of disease germs and brings it into such condition that upon discharge it is rapidly purified; that the odor would not last long after the discharge; it would be very much minimized from the sewage being put into the water and the duration of the odor would be less, and it would disappear within a very few hours; that in his judgment the sewage of Grand Rapids in Grand River would not purify itself before it reached Grandville; that unless the stream has a very rapid flow there is immediate sedimentation when sewage is discharged into a watercourse; that it continues until a good part of the solids are lodged on the bottom of the stream; that if there is a considerable sedimentation between Grand Rapids and Grandville the effect of high water would be to dislodge it and carry it on; that the pollution of the stream at that time would be much increased from what it would be if the current did not take up this discharge; that the increased pollution of the water caused by this would be apt to leave deposits at Grandville that would increase the smells.

On cross-examination the witness testified that his statement as regards the sediment on the bottom of the river was not based on actual tests in Grand Rapids; that it depended to a considerable extent on the rapidity of the flow; that material settling to the bottom of the stream would not cease to be contaminating for quite a long time and would never become pure with additional material from day to day; that he was not familiar with the river between Grand Rapids and Grandville; that sewage odor from a stream within clearly defined banks would not be particularly noticeable for a great distance, it might for 5 miles, but would be reduced; that he had made no test between Grand Rapids and Grandville to see what settled to the bottom of the river; that his statement was general from what he supposed, and that he did not know the velocity of the stream between the two points; that while there is no great amount of purification in a sluggish stream in a distance of 6 or 7 miles, the faster a stream flows the farther the impurities are carried in a given time; that it might be said it was the general rule in Michigan for cities having sewer systems to carry the sewage into streams; that Grand River at Jackson is smaller than at Grand Rapids, and that Jackson has the largest municipal sewage-reduction plant that he knows of in this State; that the sewage there is purified by filtration; that the largest plant he ever established is at Auburn, N. Y. (50,000 to 75,000 inhabitants); that Worcester, Mass., with a population of 125,000 to 150,000, has such a tank; that the contaminating influences of the sewage of the city the size of Grand Rapids would not be as great if the sewage were not carried out into the river by artificial means, as there would be purification of the organic matter by the soil; and if it were not for the sewers there would be very little contaminating influence upon the waters of the river.

And they then proceed to discuss the judgment of other experts, who are referred to in the opinion. The opinion is somewhat at length, and I do not care to take up the time of the commission by reading it, but will be very glad to leave the book with you during your visit, or you can take it along with you and return it to me.

Mr. Mignault. What was the order?

Mr. Sloman. Requiring them to proceed to establish a septic tank, and at a later time the court gave the city a year in which to do it. That same situation presents itself with regard to Detroit. Every one of these towns and cities abutting on the river are in identically the same position as the city was when it filed the bill.

Mr. Powell. Why did the owners not file a bill before?

Mr. Sloman. I think they were guilty of doing the very same thing as the city of Detroit was. If you gentlemen had a large farm and a lake upon it, and anybody filled it with excreta, you would not drink the water, but we are drinking from a pond in which millions, I might say, deposit their filth and excreta. I took this matter up, when my daughter took ill, first with the city board of health. Mr. Keefer was the health officer, and he attributed the typhoid to the milk supply rather than the water, but was willing to cooperate in any measure that would bring about a change in the conditions that existed. I then took it up with the State board of health, and finally with Washington, and shortly afterwards it was found that there was an arrangement between Great Britain and the United States for the appointment of an International Joint Commission, and finally your body was appointed. I got in touch with Chairman Tawney, giving him some data in regard to this matter, and I had hoped to be present at the former meeting of the commission, but was unavoidably called from the city, which made it impossible for me to appear before you. Upon the land we take care of our sewage through cesspools, which consist of practically a large dry-goods box, made of 2-inch boards, rather than of the thin material of which dry-goods boxes are made, inverted, with the opening off, so that the opening is right under the soil and the sewer pipes are connected with it. The soil is of a sandy, gravelly character, which carries off the impurities.

Mr. Tawney. How deep are your cesspools?

Mr. Sloman. We can not go down below 4 feet before we strike the water, but there are proprietors above me who run their sewers into the river.

Mr. Mignault. All these sewers are private sewers?

Mr. Sloman. Yes.

With a view of getting the latest thought on the subject, I got in communication with the health board at Lansing, and desire to submit Bulletin No. 2 of the public health board of this State, for the sewage disposal of single houses and small institutions, in which they deal with the question of disposing of the sewage of the schools where they have not sewer facilities. They also give a diagram of a septic tank, by which it is claimed the solid matters are taken up with the earth, while the water that comes out of the septic tank is pure water. If it were possible to build septic tanks for Detroit, whereby the excreta might be disposed of in the soil and the pure water brought to the river, the danger would be reduced to the minimum, but unless Detroit takes some active and effective measure along that line we will be confronted in a short time, especially with the tremendous increase in our population and with the great increase in the industries, with an increased death rate. It is merely a question of time when the death rate will be appalling. I say that with a due sense of the responsibility I am assuming and an appreciation of the facts. I have watched this thing very carefully and studiously. One moment more on the question of cost. The question of cost ought not to be taken into consideration at all. You can not measure the loss of lives by cost, and the city of Detroit can not afford to destroy the unique position it occupies among the States of the Union by being backward in the matter of taking care of its sewage and by losing such a water supply as it had years ago, when it was the proud boast of the city of Detroit, which to-day it is not. To-day it is a stench in the nostrils of every community where they take the water from the river passing by their doors. I sincerely hope the Federal Government will take the matter in hand in such a way that it will not be optional with the cities to determine whether or not they will spend the money, but that measures will be passed providing means for dealing with the waters on the Great Lakes, and that the engineers will deal with the question in the best light; but foremost of all, you must stop the boats from depositing excreta in the water, and if you do not, no matter what you do, you can not take care of this pollution. It is simply awful. Just think of the traffic running up and down the river, and all that foul stuff and oil and grease and dirty water deposited in front of your doors. We have the boats passing in front of our doors every day, and when you stop to think of it, it is an awful matter and Congress should not wait a moment to take action on it. If you do not the upshot will be you will kill every fish in the river; you can not help do it. If we have a continuation of what has occurred during the past two or three weeks, from my knowledge and experience as a fisherman who has been going up along the river for the last 30 years, you will kill every fish in the river, because the foulness gets to the bottom and permeates that entire body of water, and nature, struggling as hard as she will, can not possibly take care of it.

I just wish, as a lay citizen, only having the interests of my city at heart, and feeling that the matter of life and health is of greater concern than profit, to urge that you will in your report, as far as it lies in your power, bring to the attention of Congress the really awful condition that exists along our shores, and ask that some measures be taken to remedy something which, if it is not remedied soon, will result in a tremendous loss to the city, which you will be sorry for in later days.

I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Tawney. We will proceed now with the statements of those who are here to speak for the lake traffic associations, and before doing so we will hear Prof. Phelps on the subject of pollution by means of lake traffic.

Prof. Phelps. The progress report of the commission has sufficiently placed on record the statement of the extent and distribution by shipping interests. It will not be necessary for me to make any further statement than to bring out two points of distinction between this peculiar type of pollution and that with which we have been dealing in the case of the cities. The first of these is due to the movable character of this sort of pollution, whereby it may and does pass within close proximity to the waterworks intake of the city. The second of these is due to the fact that the steamboat traffic is confined in lines, the result of which practice is the pollution of the steamboat’s own water supply by steamboats which have preceded it. The importance of this matter, which was emphasized in the progress report, led us in the United States Public Health Service to undertake a solution, a possible means of remedying the situation which would satisfactorily dispose of these things without undue expense or undue inconvenience to the city interests. These investigations have been proceeding now for nearly two years, and I am going to ask Mr. Leslie C. Frank, the sanitary engineer of the United States Public Health Service, to describe to you the character of the investigation and the type of apparatus which he has designed to meet the situation, together with some remarks upon the application of the apparatus at the present time.

Mr. Tawney. State what investigations the Government has made and the results.

STATEMENT OF LESLIE C. FRANK, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., SANITARY ENGINEER, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

Mr. Frank. As Prof. Phelps has told you, the Public Health Service, realizing the probable future necessity of treating the sewage from vessels in some way or another, has endeavored to find a practicable solution. So that for the past two years we have been studying various methods, and we have been experimenting with what seemed to be the best method.

The method of traffic-sewage control is to provide storage tanks for the sewage so equipped that the sewage is both automatically disinfected and automatically discharged by means of steam or other heating element when it has reached a certain predetermined level in the tank. This method has been described in Reprint No. 247 of the Public Health Service reports. Briefly, the device consists of a tank, as shown in the illustration, with a sewage influent pipe penetrating nearly to the bottom; a discharge pipe having its influent end near the bottom of the tank, and rising up through the tank to a point above it; a float and valve with a lost-motion connection; and a steam influent pipe. The operation of the tank is simple. When the sewage has reached a certain predetermined level the float automatically turns on the steam, which escapes into the sewage through a number of small holes. All of the heat of the steam, of course, is given up to the sewage, which rapidly approaches the boiling point. As soon as the boiling point is reached, but not before, pressure is developed in the tank and the sewage is forced up and out through the discharge pipe. When, owing to this discharge, the sewage level in the tank has dropped to a predetermined minimum the float, through its lost-motion connection, turns off the steam and the tank is ready for the next cycle of operation.

There are a number of distinct advantages of this method:

(a) It depends upon heat for its disinfection efficiency, and heat is generally acknowledged, as above noted, to be very thorough in its action.

(b) Its action is entirely automatic. This eliminates the uncertainties of manual operation by a large number of employees.

(c) If fresh sewage enters the device while it is being discharged, the discharge immediately ceases.

There is no danger, therefore, of fresh sewage being carried out untreated. This advantageous feature is due to the fact that as soon as any fresh sewage enters the device its contents are chilled to a temperature at which pressure is impossible. The new mixture must again be brought to the boiling point before further discharge will take place.

(d) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked over drinking-water areas.

(e) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked while waiting in stations. This latter has, of course, no public-health significance, but it does concern very nearly the comfort of the passengers. In lieu of locking the toilet doors while standing in stations, the porter has merely to turn off a steam valve penetrating the car floor external to the toilet. The tank can be designed with a sufficient reserve capacity to care for any reasonable period of waiting. The objection will be raised immediately, of course, that the porter may forget to turn on the valve when the train leaves the station. This is true, but forgetfulness of this sort will rapidly create its own remedy. For, at the station stop immediately subsequent to the complete filling of the tank and its consequent dribbling, the fact of the porter’s forgetfulness would be made painfully evident by toilet discharges upon the station platform. It should be remembered in this connection that the porter can not help himself in such an emergency by locking the toilet doors.

The above device is now being experimented with upon a stationary basis in order to secure the maximum simplification of details and to secure data upon steam consumption, and bacterial efficiency. As soon as these studies are completed experimental devices will be placed upon vessels and railway coaches and tested in actual service. It is believed that the cost of operation will be extremely low. Rough preliminary office estimates indicate that the cost of disinfection with the above device should not be over two-tenths of a cent per cubic foot of sewage disinfected. This preliminary estimate is based upon the assumption that 1 pound of coal in the average modern locomotive will evaporate 6 pounds of water, and that locomotive coal costs $1.50 per ton delivered into the locomotive. This certainly should be more than sufficient allowance for radiation.

Based on the above estimate, sewage disinfection for a railway coach which used 10 cubic feet per day for toilet flushing will cost about 2 cents per day. The cost for steamers will probably be somewhat higher owing to the greater amount of water used per toilet flush.

An estimate of 5 or 10 cents per closet per day would seem reasonable. The steamers could, of course, reduce this considerably by substituting railway toilets for their present equipment.

That is, briefly, a description of the manner in which the tank works.

Mr. Powell. What temperature is the water?

Mr. Frank. We have been experimenting with the tank since January, and in none of our tests has the temperature at which discharge began been lower than 190° F., and that has only been when I have put steam in at such a high rate that it rose through the water so rapidly to the surface as not to condense as in the usual adjustment. In practically all of the experiments where I have so adjusted the steam valve—mind you, this has an automatic adjustment, too—as to cause the time of heating to be about 15 or 20 minutes, the temperature has always been between 200 and 212, practically boiling, always above the killing temperature for pathogenic organisms. I should say it was, roughly, about——

Mr. Powell. One hundred and seven?

Mr. Frank. No; about 160° F., which is equivalent to 60° C. The device may be regulated so that the discharge is never under 200. I think that the effect of the temperature can be illustrated by the results of our tests. We have never in any case been able to recover B. coli from the effluent, except once, in a great many tests. I have forgotten how many there were. In this one case I put the steam at such a high pressure that the discharge took place in only two or three minutes. Now, it is possible, in the manner of installing the device upon a vessel, to make it absolutely impossible for that to take place. I say that because I have been operating with 100 pounds steam pressure in Washington and reducing it down to about 5; and it is always possible on some vessels to make the line carry anything you want by a proper reducing valve. And if this line can be brought to somewhere about 10 to 15 pounds per square inch it is physically impossible for the discharge to take place in anything less than 10 or 15 minutes.

As regards what has been done toward installing the device on vessels, this experiment has been almost entirely due to the courtesy of Col. William Livingstone, president of the Lake Carriers’ Association. As you will remember, some time ago he offered to provide for the commission one or more vessels for experimentation. He has now made good that promise, and last week I was in Cleveland, and initiated the installation of the apparatus with which I have been experimenting in Washington since January upon the D. G. Kerr, just recently off the ways, and now completed, I believe, from what I heard in Cleveland. The installation of the device will be completed about to-morrow, and the first trip of the vessel is scheduled to begin Wednesday morning. I expect to make that trip on her. In regard to the future experimental work with the device, I do not think it ought to be too quick. I think we ought to take a fair amount of time to satisfy ourselves as to the manner in which the device works. I do not think one or two trips are enough to tell whether it will work or not. We have been experimenting with the device upon a stationary basis at a pumping station. That means no motion of the device; and it is certainly desirable to determine how it will act on a rolling vessel, and that will be the object of the present experiments during the coming season.

Mr. Mignault. Do you foresee that the rolling of the vessel will make any difference?

Mr. Frank. At present I can not see any definite trouble that is likely to result. With the rolling of the vessel I foresee that when the tank is half full the surface of the water in the tank may be caused to sway at an angle depending upon the rolling of the vessel.

Mr. Mignault. What is the size of the tank?

Mr. Frank. This tank with which I have been experimenting, which is designed for a group of toilets, is 24 inches in diameter by 30 inches long, and I have instructed them to place it longitudinally with the ship, so that the least wave action will take place from rolling. The ship on which this has been placed, for example, is 500 or 600 feet long and does not receive much effect from pitching. It is too long for that on the Great Lakes, but it does experience rolling, so that I have exposed the short portion of the tank to the rolling. The only thing that I can see might happen is this, that before the tank fills to the point where, normally, the steam is turned on automatically, the wave action will turn on the steam so that steam will enter the device. Also, if the tank is in the act of discharging, and the vessel rolls, and, say, if it is half discharged, then if one side of the tank on which the float is situated should be temporarily depressed, it would shut off the steam before the sewage had quite discharged. But I can not see any harm in it. It simply, momentarily, during the storm, reduces the capacity of the tank and makes the steam turn on oftener and reduces the capacity of the tank. That is the only effect I can see. I am also anticipating a possible knocking of the float on the inside of the tank by the insertion of stoppage lugs fitted by buffer springs. If the rolling were serious the buffer might be knocked against the top of the tank and be water-logged, and I am endeavoring to stop that by the insertion of buffer lugs.

Mr. Tawney. What is the capacity of your tank in gallons?

Mr. Frank. About 70 gallons.

Mr. Tawney. Would that suffice for a fairly large vessel?

Mr. Frank. That would suffice only for about half a dozen toilets, and if a vessel had a group of half a dozen toilets in the rear and half a dozen forward they would require to have two tanks. It is not necessary to delimit the side of the tanks to say how large the tanks should be. I think it would be much wiser to let that problem be solved for each particular vessel. The older vessels have a great many toilets, and would require more tanks. The newer vessels, which have fewer toilets, would have correspondingly fewer tanks.

Mr. Tawney. What is the cost of the outfit?

Mr. Frank. It is difficult to say, but I should say it would not be expensive. The experimental tank which we have built in Washington, which is designed for six toilets, cost $600, but remember that is experimental, and one of the engineers whom I had to help me put three-sixteenths steel. That is more like building a warship, and it does not require to be so heavy. In practice it would not come to that.

Mr. Mignault. Could you install it in vessels already built?

Mr. Frank. It depends on the character of the vessel. I think it is comparatively easy. The D. G. Kerr has been built already and had the soil pipe already inserted. The master mechanic, with whom I was talking yesterday about the installation of the device, stated that he thought it would take, roughly, 24 hours to install that tank.

Mr. Mignault. In what part of the vessel is it placed?

Mr. Frank. This particular experimental tank is being placed aft. Of course the tanks in practice would be placed wherever the soil pipes happened to be built.

Mr. Tawney. Is this a freight vessel?

Mr. Frank. Yes. The cost of the operation, I think, will be almost negligible. We had this experimental device installed in the sewage pumping station in Washington, where we had a steam pressure of about 100 pounds per square inch and boilers of about 100 horsepower. It was impossible at any time to observe any effect whatever on those boilers when this device was receiving steam at its maximum flow, and I simply mentioned that to indicate that there would be no observable, even temporary, effect upon the steam supply for the engines in the vessels. There is no such great consumption of steam. I can explain to you steamboat people when I say that a half or three-quarter inch pipe will carry all the steam you need.

As regards the cost of operation, I have not the figures with me just now, but I computed, theoretically allowing 100 per cent additional cost for radiation, and I got 13 per cent for everything, including the amount by which the steam had already condensed in the pipe lines. I think the cost of operation goes away down to point zero something. If you figure it out upon the theoretical heat units that are known absolutely to be in the steam, there is no other conclusion but that the cost of operation of the device is negligible, and that the only thing which really need concern you is the cost of installation of the device. However, as regards operation, I think it would be better to wait for confirmation after the device is tried.

Mr. Tawney. Is the only contamination of the water by steamboats that which is discharged from closets?

Mr. Frank. I think it can safely be assumed that the only part of steamboat discharge which has a pathogenic significance is that coming from the closets and urinals. I do not think any other particular discharge need concern us.

Mr. Tawney. The meats, or anything of that kind, can not become affected, being thrown into the water? Would that not have some effect?

Mr. Frank. I do not know, but I think that the frequency of occurrence of infected meats upon vessels would be so low that any infection of the waters due thereto would be negligible and would be dissipated quickly.

Mr. Powell. You could take care of that as a separate problem; give it a dose of steam.

Mr. Frank. I think some kitchen rules could be formulated that would take care of that.

Mr. Powell. What temperature Fahrenheit would you say?

Mr. Frank. You could so regulate the device that it would be physically impossible——

Mr. Powell. But what degree of heat?

Mr. Frank. Between 200 and 212. The device can be regulated so that it will never discharge under 200, and is practically always 210. At centigrade the pathogenic temperature is 60.

Mr. Tawney. Don’t you think the complete sanitary requirements should call for some sterilization of refuse matter of the kitchen? If you were prescribing sanitary rules to be observed by the lake carrying trade, would it not be wise to make some provision for sterilization of refuse matter from the kitchen in the form of infected meats, or anything of that kind?

Mr. Frank. I do not think I would be prepared, without a good deal further thought, to say so. I have not given it any thought in the past.

Mr. Tawney. I was trying to get at whether your system would be complete in itself for the purpose of preventing contamination of these waters by reason of steamboat navigation.

Mr. Frank. I believe it could be safely said that, inasmuch as probably away over 99 per cent of all infected pollution which is discharged from the vessel is discharged through the toilets and urinals, emphasis might reasonably be laid only on those for the present, until it is definitely shown that real infection can result from the meats or kitchen waste. As I say, I have not thought of the problem in connection with the kitchen, and I really do not know whether you could, by discharging this waste, produce much affection or any affection.

Mr. Powell. It would not be a difficult matter to sterilize them with an iron tank with a cover to prevent the escape of steam and a cock to turn on the steam. It is easy enough.

Mr. Frank. Yes. If the meat or any of the feed were in large pieces, all that would be necessary would be to chop it up into relatively fine pieces.

Mr. Powell. It would not cost more than $25 or $30.

Mr. Frank. I would not place it quite so cheap.

Prof. Phelps. It could all be burned in the furnace.

Mr. Powell. There is very little new under the sun. Very nearly this same appliance has been in use on the Muskoka Lakes in their steamboats.

Mr. Frank. Then I will be interested to know how it works.

Mr. Mignault. You are not in a position to estimate the cost.

Mr. Frank. I would prefer to wait until these experiments furnish me with actual figures on board ship.

Mr. Tawney. It is comparatively small.

Mr. Frank. I think it could be safely said to be negligible, as far as steam consumption is concerned.

Mr. Sloman. Have you made any inquiry as to whether or not the garbage could be disposed of by an incinerating plant?

Mr. Frank. No; I have not.

Mr. Sloman. Or whether the cost of an incinerating plant would exceed the cost of the plant you have in mind?

Mr. Frank. I think Prof. Phelps’s suggestion to simply throw the kitchen refuse which is thought to be infected into the furnace is the most simple and obvious that has been suggested.

Mr. Sloman. Your plant does not take care of anything but the excreta from the closets?

Mr. Frank. It does not.

Mr. Sloman. So that the vegetable matter and all that would have to be dealt with. After you have sterilized it you would throw it into the water?

Mr. Frank. Yes.

Mr. Sloman. After you have sterilized it and cast it into the water and it goes to the shore, would it not become a menace again by coming back into the water?

Mr. Frank. No; because the pathogenic organisms can not grow.

Mr. Sloman. Is it not a fact that in erecting ordinary dwellings they have an incinerating plant, by which they take care of the garbage by burning it?

Mr. Frank. It may be done in country homes, but it is not done on vessels.

Dr. McCullough. I am much interested in the description of the device given by this gentleman, and I may say that on the Muskoka Lakes, where about 30,000 people go every year, we carry out in principle what he proposes. We have not the automatic device that he has, but what we have answers the purpose very well. The sewage all goes into a large tank, and live steam is turned into that for 20 minutes. The requirement is that the effluent shall not be poured into any of the harbors; it must be turned into the middle of the lake. All the steamboats are under one company, and they are very willing to carry out this device or arrangement because it is a good advertisement for them. They are catering entirely to passenger and freight and bringing people to this summer resort, so that our task in getting them to establish the arrangement is an easy one.

Now, we are beginning to establish similar arrangements on the boats plying around Georgian Bay. With regard to the garbage which is thrown from the boats, I do not think we have very much complaint about the Muskoka Lakes, because it is eaten up by the gulls and birds found in large numbers on the waters. I am very much interested in the description of this device, and will be glad to know it is a satisfactory one, because if it turns out to be so, it will probably be established on our boats when any new ones come in to be equipped.

Mr. Mignault. Regarding the tank installed on the Muskoka Lakes, is the effluent rendered harmless?

Dr. McCullough. I think undoubtedly, because the steam is turned on for 20 minutes, and I think that would settle everything.

Mr. Powell. What is the cost of the plant?

Dr. McCullough. It is comparatively small.

Mr. Dallyn. I think about $100 would be the cost.

Mr. Tawney. I have here a letter which the chairman asked me to present. It reads as follows:

Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee, June 20, 1916.

Hon. O. Gardner, Chairman, International Joint Commission, Federal Building, Buffalo, N. Y.

My Dear Sir: Your letter of June the 19 addressed to Hon. Daniel W. Hoan, mayor, city of Milwaukee, has been referred to me for reply.

With the permission of the Sewerage Commission of the city of Milwaukee I should be glad to attend your meeting, to be held at Detroit on Tuesday, June 27, to assist you in any way I can in the discussion for adoption of the most feasible and efficient system for the disposal of sewage pollution of the cities which affect the boundary waters.

I am sending this communication to your address at the Federal Building, Buffalo, also the Federal Building at Detroit, and Southern Building at Washington, D. C.

Upon my arrival at Detroit on Tuesday morning I will call at the Federal Building about 10 o’clock.

Very truly, yours,

T. Chalkley Hatton, Chief Engineer.

P. S.—My engagements are such that I must leave Detroit for Pittsburgh the night of June 27.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Livingstone, is it your desire to present to the commission anything on this matter of remedies for the pollution of these waters occasioned by steamboat traffic?

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, OF DETROIT, MICH., PRESIDENT LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Livingstone. I do not think I have anything to present different from what I stated to the commission before. I stated that so far as our Lake Carriers’ Association was concerned we would gladly cooperate with you in carrying out the objects by every means in our power, and at that time, in the course of the long discussion that ensued, I stated that I would be glad to put a boat or two, or more boats, as the case might be, at your disposal, to test any plan which the health board wanted to try out. Mr. Frank went over the ground. It is useless for me to repeat that. He came to me and I arranged to put a boat at his disposal. He has the apparatus installed, and he can have the use of her for testing as long as he pleases. Our thought about the matter summed up is this: We are willing to cooperate with you in any way in our power, but we have this feeling about it decidedly, that, whatever apparatus is adopted we feel that it ought to be thoroughly tested and carried beyond the experimental stage, so to speak, and that the experts should be satisfied that the plants installed will accomplish the purpose for which they are installed, because otherwise, if we were to adopt a mechanical device to accomplish this purpose and to put it on board our boats costing a great many thousand dollars and then found after we had installed them that they would not work properly and had to tear them out, the result would be a loss of time and money, and no possible good would result. We have some 16 steamers, and naturally the cost would be great. We feel now that it is just in the experimental stage. We do not feel that the time has arrived at which the health bureau are prepared to say, “If you install this device it will be satisfactory and accomplish the result”; but as soon as they are prepared to say, “We have tested this out; we have given it a thorough test; and we are satisfied in our minds that it will accomplish the purpose set forth,” then we will say, “Go ahead.”

May I add one thing? I want it to be clearly understood that I am not asking that our boats be exempt from any part of their duty to be performed to the general public, but it seems to me the matter has been overstated, to some extent. I am not putting it in by way of defense or expiation. I may say that we have in our employ approximately 17,000 people. If you take all the men employed on all the boats on the Great Lakes—call it 25,000, if you please—we employ the majority of them, and it must be remembered that they are not depositing their sewage or excretion into the water at any one point, and the idea that they can pollute and contaminate the waters to the same extent that this great city of 700,000 inhabitants can, with the sewers flowing into the river, is simply impossible.

Mr. Tawney. It is not only the sewage deposited by the employees of the vessels you speak of, but the steamboat population of the Great Lakes in 1913 was 50,000,000 souls.

Mr. Livingstone. I know that; we carried nearly 14,000,000 out of Detroit. I am not making any defense. I am not asking that they be treated differently from any other citizens of the United States. We do not ask for one blessed thing in the way of exemption. We stand up and try to do our full share as citizens of the country. I have lived in Detroit all my life, nearly, and have a large family, and am just as much interested in Detroit as any man living here can possibly be, and just as anxious we should get pure water to drink as any man living. I am not putting it upon the ground of cost either. It is not a question of dollars and cents. I want that understood. The point we want to be satisfied on is that it will work efficiently.

I have been connected entirely with freight boats. The average crew is about 25. The passenger boats carry a larger complement. Unless I misunderstood him, Mr. Sloman said that the water board sent me a letter, I think, nearly, if not quite, two years ago and asked that on account of the intake pipe near Detroit, which is up at the head of Belle Isle on the American side, we should make some arrangement that for several miles above that we would have our closets closed until we had passed that intake pipe. We complied with it, and I am not sure whether all the passenger lines complied with it. I know I personally asked them all, and I am reasonably sure the request was complied with. Nothing was deposited anywhere near the intake pipe. I went into this matter fully and exhaustively at the last meeting of the commission, and we stand now just where we did then. Anything you gentlemen decide, after giving it careful and exhaustive study, we stand ready to abide by, but we think it has not yet been tested out sufficiently, and I think Prof. Phelps will agree with me that they have not yet got to the point where they will say it will do the work.

Mr. Magrath. Mr. Sloman made quite a point about the garbage from steamers as being an injury to property. There must be a tremendous amount of garbage where there is such a heavy passenger traffic each season.

Mr. Livingstone. That is true. Where do you live, Mr. Sloman?

Mr. Sloman. Up at Sans Souci.

Mr. Livingstone. On Harrisons Island?

Mr. Sloman. Yes.

Mr. Livingstone. I will say that the orders are peremptory that no garbage shall be thrown into the river, but, of course, it is impossible to control all our vessels.

Mr. Sloman. What is done with it?

Mr. Livingstone. Sometimes it is thrown into the Lakes, but I do not claim to make any point on that, because it is not handled as well as it should be handled, but we do the best we can with the facilities we have. However, I want to emphasize one thing—that the orders are peremptory that in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers no garbage shall be thrown, and you know that I know whereof I speak. The man that is reported for doing that will get the short shrift. Of course it is clearly understood that we have careless employees the same as anybody else. Sometimes on a dark night, if the cook thinks it is too much trouble to put the garbage into a receptacle which we provide for it, he throws it over the rail. I presume that sometimes happens, but I am speaking of the general orders. If I have not filed the sanitary rules which we have published, I will be glad to file them. These rules are given to all the members of the crews.

Mr. Sloman. Have you ever ascertained the rules in Europe on the vessels? You have traveled on them?

Mr. Livingstone. I know nothing, except being a passenger on the ocean. I know the methods of taking care of the garbage for the cities generally.

Mr. Sloman. Would you think burning garbage by an incinerating plant on the vessel, and keeping the excreta from the closet in a sealed can and distributing on the land would cost more than the apparatus your engineers are figuring on?

Mr. Livingstone. I can not answer that question. I have to refer these matters to those men who are experts.

Mr. Mignault. Would it be possible to incinerate the garbage?

Mr. Livingstone. Oh, yes; I think it would. I am not prepared to say just how. You can do anything, but the question is as to how practical it will be. It may be so difficult to carry out as to make it impossible. There is nothing you can not do if you try.

Mr. Powell. You can throw it into the furnace. That is incinerator enough.

Mr. Mignault. That would hardly be a method.

Mr. Livingstone. I am not here to suggest a plan. I am here to tell you we will adopt any feasible plan you suggest. We simply say the experiments have not gone far enough.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. King, have you anything to offer as the representative of the Dominion Marine Association?

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS KING, K. C., OF KINGSTON, REPRESENTING THE DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION.

Mr. King. Just a word. I will ask the commission to pardon me if I should repeat a little of what the President of the Lake Carriers’ Association has said, as I was not able to catch all that he said—in fact I must confess that I failed to hear a great part of his remarks, owing to the noise outside. But I began to pay strict attention when this gentleman [Mr. Sloman] preferred that very vehement indictment against the vessels passing through the waters in question. I am not going to say very much on that point, but I ask the commission to weigh the accuracy of his statements in some measure by the accuracy of his knowledge of the position of the owners of these vessels. I do not think I have to repeat to the commission, but I will say it again for this gentleman’s benefit, and the commission will pardon me. What we said at the previous session of the commission at Detroit—and what I am sure Mr. Livingstone has already said, although I could not hear him—was that we were in an attitude of cheerful willingness to place ourselves in the hands of the commission, and I speak on behalf of all the tonnage on the Canadian side between Port Arthur, the head of the Lakes, and Montreal. We place ourselves in the hands of the commission, trusting the commission will only bring into force, or recommend that the respective Governments pass legislation that will be fair and reasonable. We want to do what is right. We are as much interested as anybody in preventing the pollution of the waters, and I urge—and I wish to emphasize it very strongly—that nothing should be done without the fullest and most complete test. I think the commission is at one with that suggestion and will act upon it.

With regard to what has been done by Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, I trust that nothing will be done until you have had the fullest and most complete test of the proposals. I submit the test should be had not only on one trip but throughout the season, that it should include all weather and should include all seasons, and it should deal with the question of interference by frost, that the test should be carried out not only on the large freighters but on passenger boats, on which the conditions may vary, and that it should be carried out on boats of different sizes and engaged in different trades. It would be a matter of multiplying the test by three or four or five in order to cover the various conditions; but I do ask that this delay should take place, not for the purpose of postponing unduly any action that ought to be taken by vessel owners, but because the conditions are so different from those in regard to municipalities. In a municipality a tremendous amount of money is going to be spent before one knows absolutely what the effect is to be, and you are practically committed to that scheme. In the case of a boat you have an opportunity to decide upon the best scheme, having regard to the practicability, the cost and effectiveness, and I trust the commission will be governed to some extent by the consideration of cost, if it is to be granted.

Mr. Tawney. Would you consider it a hardship if the steamboat companies were required to place an apparatus on one of their boats at their own expense, with the understanding that if satisfactory they should complete the equipment on all their vessels; otherwise it would go no further?

Mr. King. I do not quite understand the suggestion.

Mr. Tawney. Would the companies consider it a hardship if they were required to install one of these machines at their own expense for experimental purposes, that they should pay for it at their own expense——

Mr. King. And if it was bad not to install it on the others?

Mr. Tawney. Let the commissioners decide whether they should go on or not?

Mr. King. The vessel owners are willing to do whatever is right, and possibly this machine may not be the best. We do not know what may be invested in the next year or two. In view of the infinitesimal proportion of the sewage which can be credited to the boats, immediate haste is not necessary, and if it is going to take 5 or 10 years to settle the question with regard to the municipalities, it would be better to spend the money for the purpose of testing rather than committing ourselves to one appliance which may not answer the purpose. I am not urging delay for the sake of delay.

Mr. Tawney. I gather from your statement that the steamboat companies would not be willing to install this apparatus on all of their boats simply upon the result of one test.

Mr. King. No.

Mr. Tawney. That being the case, in order to get something which would be satisfactory to the steamboat companies, we would have to install this or some other apparatus on two or three boats, or a sufficient number of them to satisfy the steamboat companies that they were feasible and practicable, at the expense of the two Governments, which this commission has not the power to do. The question was whether or not, to carry out your idea, if we could possibly do so, the steamboat companies were not willing to install a few of these machines on these boats at their own expense, for the purpose of testing their feasibility and practicability.

Mr. King. I am not in a position to give an answer on that point on behalf of the companies.

Mr. Tawney. We are not in a position to commit the two Governments.

Mr. King. I do think both associations are willing to do whatever you would consider reasonable in that way, and I think it might be possible here and there to effect an installation, in order to get a sure test of the appliances. I do not say that should be done, but I think the vessel owners are willing to do it. I think the first cost should be borne by the public till the inspection is done.

Mr. Tawney. I am glad to get your idea.

Mr. King. Our attitude is one of absolute fairness in the matter. May I say one more thing in regard to the point I was urging, perhaps unduly? That is the lack of necessity for haste in the case of a vessel. You spoke of the steamboat population of the boats. May I point out that that population is a population as individuals for periods averaging from an hour to a day. They are not engaged in the pollution of the waters for 365 days in the year. That consideration is somewhat overlooked. One more remark: It was suggested by Prof. Phelps that steamboats ought to be dealt with at present, in spite of the municipalities’ pollution, because of the fact that they pass the intake pipes for the waterworks systems. May I suggest that while the tests are going on, it would be a simple matter to devise rules whereby lavatory doors are locked just as they are locked on trains, at times when the contamination might take place? They could be closed when they are passing in close proximity to the intakes. A move in that line might possibly meet what was in Mr. Phelps’s mind.

Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that there is danger also on account of vessels taking their water for drinking purposes in polluted areas?

Mr. King. I do not think that is a danger which the commission should deal with. I think we can carry it out by orders that the water should not be taken except in certain restricted areas.

Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that considerable typhoid fever has been caused by that means in the past?

Mr. King. I can not admit that. I know of one case where a suit was entered at Rochester, and tried, but no decision yet. I know of no other cases.

Mr. Tawney. I know of several cases in southern Minnesota attributed to that.

Mr. King. At the same time, I must admit that contamination does exist.

Mr. Mignault. There is a great probability of contamination.

Mr. Tawney. In the matter of taking water ballast in polluted areas and discharging that ballast in less polluted areas, as they arrive near the ports—what have you to say to that? Would it be a hardship if they were required not to take on water ballast in polluted areas, or else not to discharge it in the less polluted areas?

Mr. King. I do not think it would be a hardship, except in cases where the exigencies of navigation required them to fill their tanks before they got out of a certain area. There are cases where boats must have their tanks filled before they get out of the landlocked harbor. A boat coming from Kingston must have her tanks filled before she gets into Lake Ontario.

Mr. Tawney. Could there not be some regulation in regard to the discharge of that ballast in the vicinity of intakes?

Mr. King. I think that could be sufficiently covered with the one provision. They have to keep her sufficiently trimmed in stress of weather.

Mr. Sloman. You spoke a moment ago about the cost of trying out the question and solving the problem—that it should not be thrown upon the vessel owners. Mr. Livingstone had made an offer—at least he has done something toward experimentation at considerable cost——

Mr. King. Excuse me; it is at no cost to Mr. Livingstone or the Lake Carriers’ Association. I understand it is borne by others.

Mr. Sloman. Is that so?

Mr. Tawney. Yes.

Mr. Sloman. Would it be any cost to your vessels to try out the incinerating of your garbage by putting it in your furnace?

Mr. King. I do not think so.

Mr. Sloman. Would it involve a large cost to have a septic tank in your holds, running your closets to that tank, sterilizing the contents and bringing it to port, and carrying it away to the land somewhere? Would that involve a large cost?

Mr. King. I think it would, but I do not know. I have no direct knowledge of that.

Mr. Sloman. What do you think as to whether or not that would be a practical way of solving the problem?

Mr. King. I would not set my judgment up against that of Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, who have gone more deeply into the subject than I have.

Mr. Frank. I think that may be answered by saying that in order to store all of the sewage for a voyage until a port is reached the tank would have to be many times as large as this small stream tank which I have described, and the cost would be almost, although not quite, proportionate to the volume. In addition, the expense of disposal after the land was reached would have to be met. I think it may be stated without any doubt whatever that any device holding the sewage throughout a whole voyage would obviously cost much more than a device for holding it for about two hours.

Mr. Powell. Mr. King, you are willing to do anything that we may prescribe, but you ask us not to recommend that you be required to spend money on schemes that in their experimental stage may prove abortive?

Mr. King. Quite true.

Mr. Tawney. I understand that the representatives of the city of Detroit will not be ready to proceed until the session to-morrow morning. Is there anyone else here who desires to be heard?

STATEMENT OF MR. H. L. BLOMSHIELD, OF TRENTON, MICH.

Mr. Blomshield. I would like to speak on behalf of the village of Trenton. I am sorry that I am here to represent a village that has shown such half-hearted interest in the recommendations of your consulting sanitary engineer, Prof. Phelps. The attitude taken by the village authorities is no doubt due to the fact that local conditions have called for much quicker action on the part of the State board of health in recommending certain remedial measures for their local benefit.

It has already been stated that there are about 12 sewer outlets above the intake, and it has been urged upon the village authorities to construct a 12-inch intercepting trunk sewer to divert this sewage below the intake.

It has appeared to the majority of the residents that the tail end of the district has been tackled first. I can say that I believe they will be in hearty accord with any remedial measures your commission may adopt for the entire district.

From a standpoint of economy and future supervision, I believe a metropolitan district could best serve the Michigan side. I derived this thought from a lecture on the “Metropolitan District of Boston,” by Mr. Frederick Fay before the District Engineering Society several months ago.

I have read several press reports on this subject as viewed by Mr. Hubbell, our district consulting sanitary engineer. As outlined, I believe the district would extend from the Macomb to the Monroe County lines. It appeals to me more forcibly in that each community will be served alike and pay pro rata for benefits derived.

In going over the past history of improvements recommended for Trenton, I will say that about seven years ago an extensive combined sewerage system was planned at an estimated cost of approximately $50,000, which the people voted down. They have never had the opportunity to vote on a sanitary system, which I believe would cost about $18,000.

The finances of the village are in such shape that this price would go beyond the 5 per cent mark of bonded indebtedness. I might give the figures showing the present condition of the finances. In the meantime, before I give that I would like to ask a question. If recommendations are carried out in the several districts, does the commission give any method of raising the funds necessary to carry on such work?

Mr. Tawney. That is a matter that the commission has not yet considered at all, and I do not know whether it is within the scope of our work.

Mr. Blomshield. If the several districts had the funds with which to do it, I believe that some of these measures would have been taken up long ago. The assessed valuation of our village in 1915 was $555,200, bonded as follows: Highway-improvement bonds, $6,500; electric-light plant, $7,500; other bonds, $6,125; total, $20,125; of which $3,500 has been paid off, leaving a balance to be paid of $16,625. One per cent, which is the allowable limit for any improvements in any one year for any special kind of improvements, would make $5,552; or 5 per cent, which is the total limit of bonded indebtedness, would make $27,760, of which $16,625 has already been bonded, leaving a balance of $11,135, which you see is very much less than would pay for a sanitary sewerage system which the village surely needs.