HEARINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION IN RE REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY WATERS. (continued 4)

I have acted as village engineer for Trenton during the past year, and without funds to promote any measures of sanitary work or water purification we are very much handicapped. If the commission in recommending any remedial measures could also embody any method of raising funds to carry on the work, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Powell. Why do you recommend the metropolitan district—on account of the saving?

Mr. Blomshield. On account of the saving to the smaller districts per capita.

Mr. Powell. You would not have the overhead charges to meet?

Mr. Blomshield. That is it; and that is something that the smaller communities could not stand.

Mr. Mignault. What is the borrowing power of Trenton to-day?

Mr. Blomshield. Five per cent; but they have $11,000 yet to borrow.

Mr. Mignault. Is there no provision to meet a case like that where certain improvements are ordered by the State board of health?

Mr. Blomshield. I believe 5 per cent is the point set by the State law for villages.

Mr. Tawney. It is set by your constitution, is it not?

Mr. Blomshield. Yes.

Mr. Mignault. In a case like that, where it is a matter of public necessity, have you not the power to levy a special assessment?

Mr. Blomshield. Nothing we know about yet. We have asked several authorities on that and we have not been enlightened on that subject.

Mr. Powell. As a matter of fact, what is your head of taxation, the village?

Mr. Blomshield. The village. The village takes in a very small area. It should be enlarged. That is one method that would be furthered.

Mr. Powell. Have you a county tax besides that?

Mr. Blomshield. Yes.

Mr. Powell. And a State tax?

Mr. Blomshield. And a State tax. Our taxes now are $17.50 per thousand, or $1.75 per hundred. That is the total tax for the village.

Mr. Powell. That is all combined?

Mr. Blomshield. That is all combined.

Mr. Powell. Well, you are happy boys.

Mr. Mignault. I understand your chief objection is lack of funds with which to carry out the improvements?

Mr. Blomshield. That is it.

Mr. Mignault. If that were removed, there would be no difficulty?

Mr. Blomshield. There would be no difficulty. As I say, if some system were laid out for the entire district the village of Trenton would be heartily in accord with such a system. Due to the local conditions which have prompted immediate action, they feel that they are being called out to start the thing.

Mr. Mignault. There is no intention to single them out.

Mr. Blomshield. I realize that.

Mr. Mignault. Our desire would be to treat them all alike.

Mr. Malone. Do you not think that if the Federal Government were to impose a penalty for not putting in a filtration plant that they would find ways and means of getting the necessary money to put it in?

Mr. Blomshield. I guess they would.

Mr. Tawney. Is there any other person here that desires to be heard this afternoon? As there is not, the commission will take a recess until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 4.15 o’clock p. m., the commission took a recess until 10 o’clock a. m. Tuesday, June 27, 1916.)

International Joint Commission, Detroit, Mich., June 27, 1916.

The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. Gardner. Gentlemen, the hearing this morning is for the purpose of listening to the representatives of the city of Detroit, and, as I understand that we will have to vacate this room at 4 o’clock this afternoon, it will be necessary for us to get busy. We will first hear from Mr. Fenkell.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. FENKELL, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Fenkell, will you please state what the city of Detroit has done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission in the matter of investigating the remedies for existing pollution? Before you go into the technical matters, kindly give a sort of summary or history of the part your city has taken and what they are doing.

Mr. Fenkell. Your commission met in Detroit about a year and a half ago, and immediately after that meeting I asked the common council for funds to begin work on an investigation as to conditions existing in the Detroit River. Only $15,000 has been provided. Shortly after that Mr. Clarence W. Hubbell, of Detroit, was engaged to make an investigation and report. A little later he occupied joint offices with Prof. Phelps.

That investigation was carried on until Mr. Hubbell’s report was submitted, about four weeks ago. It was put into the hands of the printer immediately and yesterday we received the first copies. I was able to deliver only three copies to you yesterday. I hope soon to have more from the printer. That report was submitted to the council shortly after it was received from Mr. Hubbell. The summary was printed in the council’s proceedings, a copy of which, I believe, was mailed to your commission.

Because of the haste in getting the report to the printer the typewritten report was not read generally. In fact, I think I was the only one that was able to look the report over before it went to the printer. None of the Detroit officials is familiar with Mr. Hubbell’s report except such portions as appeared in the council’s proceedings.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Hubbell and the sanitary engineer of the commission, then, were working together for the last year, were they?

Mr. Fenkell. I think so. Just how they divided the work and how they carried out the details I am unable to state.

Mr. Tawney. They were jointly studying the same problem at the same time.

Mr. Fenkell. They were.

Mr. Tawney. Now, what have you to say, Mr. Fenkell, in regard to the plans recommended by the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and how do these plans compare with the plans or remedies proposed by Mr. Hubbell, your sanitary engineer?

Mr. Fenkell. I am unable to state exactly. I have read Mr. Hubbell’s report through twice, and I have read Prof. Phelps’s report through, but I have been unable to make any extended study of the matter. So far I hardly think anyone has, except it be Mr. Hubbell.

Mr. Tawney. Has your municipal government here considered the question of the standards for sewage treatment and water purification recommended by the sanitary engineers of the commission?

Mr. Fenkell. So far as I know, it has not received any extended study, except by Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell’s report was transmitted to the common council, and it was submitted to the proper committee, but the committee have been unable to take any action in the matter, or study it, because of our inability to furnish copies of the report.

Mr. Tawney. Has the city at this time in contemplation anything looking toward sewage treatment, independent of any international question involved in the pollution of the Detroit River?

Mr. Fenkell. No more than is covered by Mr. Hubbell’s report.

Mr. Tawney. You have no specific plan in preparation, is what I mean.

Mr. Fenkell. No, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Are you treating your sewage here at all?

Mr. Fenkell. In no way whatever.

Mr. Tawney. You are discharging raw sewage into the Detroit River?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. That is the outlet for all your sewerage system?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. All of your sewers discharge into the Detroit River?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes, sir. Some do not discharge directly into the river, but they reach the Detroit River eventually.

Mr. Mignault. Ultimately all of the sewage goes into the Detroit River untreated?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Where do you get your water from?

Mr. Fenkell. It is taken from a point about 700 feet above Belle Isle, in the American Channel.

Mr. Tawney. Have you a filtration plant there?

Mr. Fenkell. Detroit has no filtration plant.

Mr. Tawney. Do you chlorinate the water?

Mr. Fenkell. The process in use is chlorination. Mr. Leisen, the general superintendent for the water commission, is present and can explain that to you in detail.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Magrath calls my attention to the fact that we went into that matter when we were here a year and a half ago.

Mr. Fenkell. I think, if I may be permitted to make the suggestion, that there have been some changes in the method of treating the water since then.

Mr. Tawney. Well, that is important. Now, Mr. Fenkell, before we hear Mr. Hubbell, is there anything else in relation to the subject that you desire to bring to the attention of the commission at this time?

Mr. Fenkell. There may have been explained to the commission the ordinary way in which the city would proceed to get the funds and go ahead with work of this kind. My understanding is that it would first be necessary for the council to direct that the matter be voted on by the people. It would then go up at a regular election, and in order for the work to be authorized or the bonds to be issued it would have to receive 60 per cent of the votes cast. The work would be carried out by and through the department of public works working with the common council. I can give you still further details regarding that, if you wish, as well as copies of the law relating thereto.

Mr. Tawney. What is the present bonded debt of the city of Detroit?

Mr. Fenkell. I will secure that data and give it to you later.

Mr. Tawney. You have a limited amount of bonded indebtedness to which the city can obligate itself, have you not?

Mr. Fenkell. It is limited. I will give you that data later.

Mr. Tawney. That limit is 5 per cent of the assessed value of the property, is it not?

Mr. Fenkell. I am unable to state.

Mr. Gardner. Any such limitation as that is a constitutional provision of the State, is it not?

Mr. Fenkell. I am unable to state the amount. Detroit now has home rule, and just what the limitation is when the people vote on a question of that kind I am unable to state. Would the chairman like to have me secure that data?

Mr. Gardner. We would like to have it.

Mr. Fenkell. I would suggest that if you have any other questions of that kind you give me a list of them, and I will secure the desired information for you, or you can call on the city comptroller and secure the information from him.

Mr. Tawney. We desire simply to ascertain what the position of the city would be with reference to carrying out any plan looking to the prevention of this pollution which now exists. That would be the only way in which it would be material for us to know whether the city was situated so that it could carry out any reasonable recommendations that might be made.

Mr. Magrath. You are filing with us a copy of the report of Mr. Hubbell, are you not?

Mr. Fenkell. So far I have furnished 3 copies. I have received only 12 printed copies and have been able to give reports to only three of the departments of the city that I thought would be interested. I shall be pleased to furnish the commission additional copies as soon as we receive them. We hope to receive them to-day or to-morrow.

Mr. Mignault. I understand you to say that no action has yet been taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report.

Mr. Fenkell. No action whatever. Upon its receipt it was transmitted to the council, and within 48 hours it was in the hands of the printer.

Mr. Mignault. It was referred to the committee, I suppose, for consideration and printed as all public documents are printed. Is that correct?

Mr. Fenkell. The report was referred to the committee on sewers. Only my letter transmitting the report and the summary of Mr. Hubbell’s report were printed in the council’s proceedings because of the necessity for cuts, maps, and so forth.

Mr. Mignault. Is it contemplated to take any action on Mr. Hubbell’s report?

Mr. Fenkell. That is something that I am unable to say. The matter is now before the sewer committee of the common council, and in the natural course of events it would be considered by that committee and a report thereon submitted to the common council. The matter could then be acted on by the common council, or any action could be taken that the council saw fit.

Mr. Tawney. How many members constitute the council?

Mr. Fenkell. There are 42 members.

Mr. Mignault. I understand you also to say that before any final action would be taken on Mr. Hubbell’s report the matter would be submitted to the taxpayers.

Mr. Fenkell. In order to issue bonds.

Mr. Mignault. Simply to issue bonds?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes.

Mr. Mignault. Otherwise, it would not be submitted to the taxpayers?

Mr. Fenkell. Probably not unless it required a change in the city’s charter. A change in the charter requires a vote of 50 per cent or more.

Mr. Mignault. And to issue bonds you require 60 per cent?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes; 60 per cent. The vote on the Belle Isle Bridge bonds a year ago failed because it received only 58 per cent.

Mr. Mignault. That was the case of a contemplated bond issue?

Mr. Fenkell. Yes.

Mr. Magrath. Mr. Fenkell, I see that in your letter to Mr. Hubbell, dated November 25, 1914, you decided to submit certain problems for his consideration, the second one being, “To what extent does the city of Detroit sewage pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?” Mr. Hubbell’s reply to that certainly has the right ring to it. It is stated in paragraph No. 7 of his report, which reads as follows:

In regard to the second part of the problem as to what expense would be justified for sewage treatment, it is difficult to formulate an answer in terms of money alone. However, it is believed that, aside from the international features of the problem, the combined benefits which would accrue from a more cleanly water front, purer water at the bathing beaches and summer playgrounds, reduction in typhoid and other water-borne diseases, due to the use of sewage-laden water along the river front; betterment of raw-water supplies for the municipalities below the city, and the protection of Detroit’s water from gross sewage pollution at times when the Detroit River flows backward amply justify the expenditure required for sewage-treatment works as above outlined. In round figures, the cost would be about $6,000,000, and in my judgment the expenditure of this sum would be justifiable.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this commission should put itself on record with Mr. Fenkell to the effect that we have been in a delicate position and have had a delicate piece of work to attend to, and the city of Detroit has played up magnificently in connection with this investigation. I think it is only fair to make that admission to these gentlemen. So far as I am concerned as a member of this commission, I appreciate the good work that the city of Detroit has done, and I am quite confident that the city of Detroit will do its duty in the matter. I think, Mr. Fenkell, that we are indebted to you and to your mayor and the members of your city council for the way in which you have always met us here in connection with this problem.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I think that expresses the views of the commission generally. There have been certainly very high appreciation and cooperation in the city of Detroit, and we have every reason to believe that the city will join in any recommendation we may make to the two Governments for the purpose of solving this problem.

Mr. Fenkell. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been our endeavor to work along the lines laid down by the commission, and I know it is the wish of the mayor to do what he can to further your efforts and to work in cooperation with the cities and towns on the Canadian side of the river. He feels that the American cities and the Canadian cities are so closely knit together that the welfare of one must work for the welfare of the other. I know that he wants to do everything he can to further anything that will be beneficial to the cities on both sides of the river.

I want to thank the members of this commission, both officially and personally, for your kindness in the matter, and to assure you that we shall welcome any suggestion that you may have to offer, and we will continue to work along lines that may seem to you and to your commission to be proper and right.

If there is any further information that I can give you, I shall be pleased to do so. The mayor would have been here this morning had it been possible, and he may be here later. Should there be any information that you would like me to secure, I would be glad to obtain it from the comptroller, the corporation counsel, or any of the other city officials.

Mr. Tawney. I think the information that the commission would like to have, Mr. Fenkell, is the present bonded indebtedness of the city, and, if there is a limitation upon the power of the city to incur obligations of that kind, what that limitation is and how near you have reached it. If you will kindly have prepared a statement along that line, we will incorporate it in the record as a part of your statement of this morning. If you have nothing further to say, we will now hear Mr. Hubbell.

(The information called for with respect to the assessed valuation of property and the bonded indebtedness of the city of Detroit appears in the statement of Mr. George Engel, the city’s comptroller.)

STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE W. HUBBELL, CONSULTING SANITARY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Hubbell, I think you had better state for the record what work, if any, you have done in connection with the consulting engineer of the commission and what duty you were required to perform in connection with this problem. First, let me ask you if you reside here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. Tawney. You are a consulting sanitary engineer, practicing here in the city of Detroit?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. How long have you been engaged in the actual practice of your profession?

Mr. Hubbell. I graduated from the University of Michigan in 1893 and have been engaged in engineering work ever since. About a year and a half ago Mr. Fenkell, the commissioner of public works for the city of Detroit referred to me three problems to be reported upon.

The first problem was that I review the data and conclusions of the international joint commission for the purpose of enlarging on any phase of the matter that might be necessary in order to determine what preventive or remedial measures are required with reference to Canadian waters.

The second problem was, to what extent does the sewage of the city of Detroit pollute American waters so as to render them unfit as a source of raw water for filtration purposes?

The third problem submitted was, by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage, and what expense would be justifiable for that purpose?

Mr. Tawney. That was in November, 1914, was it not?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Since that time have you been engaged in working out these problems for the city of Detroit?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. During that time was the sanitary consulting engineer of the commission engaged in the study of the same problems here in the city?

Mr. Hubbell. During a portion of that time he was.

Mr. Tawney. And you worked in conjunction with him?

Mr. Hubbell. Through the cooperation of Prof. Phelps and Mr. McRae, who was in charge of the Detroit station, we engaged joint offices for the study of what to me was the third problem submitted. The cooperation was very close in working out the details connected with the third problem submitted to me.

Mr. Mignault. That is as to remedial measures?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir; by what means, if any, should the city of Detroit undertake to purify the sewage.

Mr. Tawney. Since the report of the commission’s consulting sanitary engineer has been made have you had an opportunity to examine and study it?

Mr. Hubbell. I have examined it; I have not studied it closely in all its details.

Mr. Tawney. You have made a final report to the city council of Detroit as a result of your investigation and study?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir; a copy of which report I have here.

Mr. Tawney. So far as the remedies for the pollution of the Detroit River as it extends beyond the boundary are concerned, do you know to what extent your report corresponds with the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission?

Mr. Hubbell. In working out the problem jointly we came to a practical agreement in the matter.

Mr. Tawney. You are familiar with the alternative propositions which the consulting sanitary engineer has submitted to the commission, are you?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir; entirely so.

Mr. Mignault. There are six alternative measures referred to. Our consulting engineer has expressed a preference for two of those measures. Did you agree practically with his choice?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes; we were practically agreed as to the methods that were most desirable and most fitted for the conditions that exist at Detroit.

Mr. Tawney. You also agree with the consulting engineer of the commission with respect to the Detroit metropolitan drainage district; that is, taking in the suburban villages around here, as I understand it?

Mr. Hubbell. I think that such a plan, if it could be consummated, would be desirable.

Mr. Tawney. Two main reasons that are given for the consolidation of this area into one drainage district are, first, preventing disputes between the various communities, and, second, effecting economies and producing more satisfactory conditions generally by means of comprehensive planning. Your studies were made along the line of a metropolitan district such as is described here in this report?

Mr. Hubbell. They do not depend on that entirely for their carrying out. The success of the scheme for purifying or treating the sewage should not depend solely upon the establishment of a metropolitan district.

Mr. Powell. It could be worked out as an independent system?

Mr. Hubbell. It could be done so, although it would be an advantage to have it worked out as a metropolitan district. I might say, in connection with that, probably an easier and more feasible way of working that out would be by annexation by Detroit of territory that immediately needs development, and that would not require the machinery or legislation that the other scheme would.

Mr. Mignault. Are there many outlying districts which would have to be annexed to the city of Detroit?

Mr. Hubbell. No; there are not many; if a working basis could be arranged between the existing municipalities as has already been done through the courts in the case of Highland Park.

Mr. Tawney. In your report to the city council, Mr. Hubbell, do you recommend the same standards of purification recommended by the consulting engineers of the commission, both as to sewage and water, or do you treat the standards at all?

Mr. Hubbell. I have gone into some detail in regard to the 500 B. coli standard, and I believe it to be conservative and reasonable as borne out by data and facts.

Mr. Tawney. Did you go into the matter of standard of purification of sewage or treatment of sewage, to what extent it should be purified?

Mr. Hubbell. In a general way only. Accepting the 500 B. coli standard, the indications are that approximately 90 to 95 per cent purification would be needed bacterially to our sewage to meet that standard. That, however, is a question for the future to determine. It is, in my opinion, a little doubtful as to just what percentage of bacterial removal would be required in order to produce that result, but from my studies I concluded that from 90 to 95 per cent would be required.

Mr. Mignault. And could be realized?

Mr. Hubbell. Yes; and could be realized; there is no question about that.

Mr. Powell. I gathered the impression from your report, by a hasty glance at it, that while you did not quarrel with the standard of 500 B. coli per 100 cubic centimeters you inclined rather to a more severe standard.

Mr. Hubbard. Well, that question is involved with the one of seasonal variation. I made quite extensive studies to determine the seasonal variations in the Detroit River independent of the data that was shown in the International Joint Commission’s first report. I found that for normal conditions in the Detroit River the number of B. coli present was, perhaps, two and a fourth times the average in the summer time, and about one-quarter of the average in the cold months, following approximately the temperature curve.

Mr. Tawney. To what condition do you attribute that increase in the summer? In your judgment, has navigation anything to do with it?

Mr. Hubbell. In my judgment, the navigation has very little to do with it, because the curve falls before navigation stops.

Mr. Powell. What is the crisis in the curve—in what month?

Mr. Hubbell. June, July, August, and September are the high months. The highest point of the curve which I determined for the entire river was in September, but for the waterworks’ intake it was in August.

Mr. Mignault. Is it possible to explain why pollution is higher in the summer months than in the winter months?

Mr. Hubbell. I have made no attempt to explain that. I merely report the fact that it is so on the Detroit River.

Mr. Mignault. I gather that that is a fact which can not be questioned, but is not so easily explained.

Mr. Hubbell. I concur in that expression; yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. If I understand you correctly, then, Mr. Hubbell, your recommendations to the city on this subject are practically in accord with the recommendations of the consulting engineer of the commission as to the remedies for the existing pollution?

Mr. Hubbell. We reached the same conclusion as to the method to be adopted, if any is adopted.

Mr. Tawney. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have Mr. Hubbell’s report made a part of the hearings for the purpose of using such portions of it in the proceedings as the commission may hereafter desire.

(The report of Mr. Hubbell was received as a part of his statement before the commission on the question under consideration.)

Mr. Tawney. Is there anything further, Mr. Hubbell, that you desire to present to the commission on this question?

Mr. Hubbell. I have expressed myself fully in my report, and there is nothing further, unless there are some questions that you wish to ask me.

Mr. Gardner. I think your report is an admirable one and does you great credit.

Mr. Tawney. Will the comptroller of the city of Detroit kindly state for the record the assessed value of the property of the city and the present bonded indebtedness?

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE ENGEL, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. Engel. I had rather have about 15 minutes for the purpose of preparing such a statement and submit it to you in writing. Our gross debt at this time is about $20,000,000 in round figures; the net debt about $12,000,000. Our limitation is 4 per cent, and the assessed valuation something over $700,000,000. So you see we have a leeway, of something over $16,000,000. Our net debt is very small, probably smaller than that of any city of its size in the United States. I will have a statement prepared for you.

Mr. Tawney. We will incorporate your statement in the record.

Mr. Powell. Do you mean the assessed value of real estate or the combined real and personal valuation?

Mr. Engel. Combined real and personal.

Mr. Tawney. And the limitation applies to the combined valuation?

Mr. Engel. Yes, sir; and that is 4 per cent.

Mr. Powell. Have you any rule that you observe in respect to valuation?

Mr. Engel. We are supposed to assess at cash value, full value, 100 per cent.

Mr. Powell. The market value?

Mr. Engel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gardner. What is your rate?

Mr. Engel. About $18.50 per thousand for next year.

(Mr. Engel later submitted to the commission a statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit, which is copied into the record in full, as follows:)

Statement of the bonded debt of the city of Detroit.

Assessed valuation, 1916 $731,991,960.00

Limitation of debt:

Four per cent of assessed valuation $29,279,678.40

Less water bonds authorized 2,000,000.00

27,279,678.40

Outstanding bonds:

Public sewer $5,604,000.00

Public improvement 535,000.00

Public lighting 1,406,000.00

Public school 8,767,000.00

Public building 1,493,000.00

Boulevard improvement 700,000.00

Park improvement 650,000.00

Park and boulevard 497,000.00

Museum of art 50,000.00

Hospital 100,000.00

Library 750,000.00

Grade 150,000.00

Annexed district 484,756.63

Water bonds 1,947,000.00

23,133,756.63

Exempt from limitation:

School 8,767,000.00

Library 750,000.00

Annexed district 44,000.00

Water 1,947,000.00

11,508,000.00

11,625,756.63

June 1, 1916, sinking fund:

Cash 184,461.95

Securities 4,736,608.57

Annexed district 24,287.00

4,945,357.52

School and library apportionment 1,046,485.09

3,898,872.43

Net debt under limitation 7,726,884.20

19,552,794.20

STATEMENT OF T. CHALKLEY HATTON, OF MILWAUKEE.

Mr. Tawney. You are here on the invitation of the commission, and the invitation was extended to you because of your experience in the matter of sewage treatment in the city of Milwaukee and also because of the efficiency with which we are advised your plant is being operated. Give such information to the commission as you are prepared to give us concerning the method you have in use there, and also as to its efficiency and operation. We will be very glad to have you give us any opinion, based on your knowledge and experience, that you care to.

Mr. Hatton. It may be that I can best describe this process and the results we are getting from it by giving you the situation in Milwaukee, which is somewhat, as I take it, comparable with some of the situations here. We discharge the crude sewage from the city of Milwaukee into three rivers, from whence it flows into Lake Michigan, and 3½ miles away from the harbor entrance we take our water supply, in a depth of 50 feet. At the present time the water supply is being partially or entirely sterilized by the use of liquid chlorine. There is at the present time about an average of sixty millions of sewage per day being discharged into Lake Michigan.

Mr. Tawney. Sixty million gallons?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; and during this time the lake for an area of about 25 square miles has become polluted, B. coli being retained in that entire surface of the lake; and at all times we find the presence of B. coli at the intake of our water supply, but the treatment of liquid chlorine has, with one exception, enabled us to sterilize the water with about twenty-eight hundredths to thirty hundredths part of liquid chlorine. Last February we got a little larger quantity of B. coli than usual because of four or five days of southeastern storm, and in spite of the fact that we put all the liquid chlorine in and more than the water would absorb, we got a typhoid-fever epidemic in three or four weeks of about two hundred and some odd cases. Now, that is the situation in Milwaukee, and for the purposes——

Mr. Powell. Before you pass on, you say 25 square miles has become polluted?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Powell. How far into the lake would the pollution extend?

Mr. Hatton. About 5 miles; 3 miles on either side of the harbor and 5 miles from the shore. The city is located on Milwaukee Bay, which is a long crescent, about 10 miles from point to point.

Mr. Powell. How far from the outlet of the sewer to the intake?

Mr. Hatton. Three miles and a half; and in addition to that, there is a breakwater, which is supposed to partially prevent the water from flowing from the harbor toward the intake.

Mr. Powell. You pursued your investigations beyond the 5 or 6 miles?

Mr. Hatton. Yes. Prof. Whipple was employed to do that, and he did it very thoroughly for many more miles than 25 square miles.

Mr. Powell. Did he discover traces of it farther than that?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; even farther than that; traces of it 6 miles away to the north of the intake, but faint traces. It was a question with us, when the matter of sewage disposal came before us, of not only treating the sewage so that the water could be properly treated by filtration or chlorination subsequently, but it was also a question of getting rid of the sludge from any sewage-disposal treatment which we might put in, because there was no waste ground in the vicinity of Milwaukee upon which sludge could be disposed of, and the consensus of opinion of the citizens of Milwaukee was that the sludge should not be deposited in the lake, no matter how far out. The feeling was very strong. I might say, in introducing that matter, that in 1910 a board of consulting engineers advised that disposition of the sludge, and that feeling had been growing in the minds of the citizens for three or four years before I went there, until it had assumed the attitude that it would not be public policy to discharge the sludge into the lake, no matter how far out, partially due to the large amount of shipping which is and was expected to come into the harbors of Milwaukee, and also from the fact that ships did take their water supply from that lake before entering the city; so that it was a matter of taking care of our sludge——

Mr. Powell. Before you pass to that, how does the current compare with the current in the other Lakes? There is less current in Michigan Lake?

Mr. Hatton. Yes. The currents are influenced particularly by the winds.

Mr. Powell. There is very little setting of the water out toward the strait?

Mr. Hatton. Very little. The general idea has been advanced, by those who have studied the matter, that the water passes south on the west side of the lake and to the north on the east side of the lake, requiring approximately 10 years to make the entire circuit.

Mr. Powell. Is there any continuous flow out of the lake, or does it flow in, on account of evaporation?

Mr. Hatton. I think there is a flow out of the lake. I think the record was taken some 12 or 14 years by the United States engineer at that time, and he printed quite an elaborate report.

Mr. Tawney. Through the straits?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; but just what that report contains I am not familiar enough with it to say.

Mr. Powell. The flow is always out?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Magrath. I have an idea that the water works inward sometimes?

Mr. Hatton. Well, it comes down, as I say, on the west side, passes round Chicago, and comes up on the east side, and passes out in the straits; at least, that is my opinion.

Mr. Magrath. I may be wrong, but I had an idea that the current moved inward sometimes, and sometimes outward.

Mr. Hatton. Well, possibly so. This is the general tendency of it, but I think it does sometimes pass out and in, according to the direction of the winds.

Mr. Powell. The Chicago Drainage Canal is not equal, I suppose, to the inflows from the surrounding country. It does not balance it?

Mr. Hatton. Well, I think not. It is claimed here very recently that the waters taken from the Chicago Drainage Canal have lowered the waters in the connecting streams some 5 or 6 inches. How true that is I am not prepared to say. Now, before deciding upon the method of sewage disposal for Milwaukee we built rather an elaborate experimental station, in which we tried to put all those modern methods of sewage disposal now prevalent in this country and abroad, and I think we had 23 different processes going on there at one time—one of the largest experimental stations carried on in this country for sewage disposal purposes.

Mr. Mignault. When was it established?

Mr. Hatton. In the middle of 1914. We have been operating it just about two years. We tried out in that experimental station the Imhoff tank, so-called settling tank, sprinkling filters, colloidal tanks, electrolytic processes, chemical precipitation, chlorination, and finally, what we called the activated sludge process, which we have been trying out now for a year this month.

Mr. Magrath. Where did that process originate?

Mr. Hatton. Well, that is a question. Mr. H. W. Clarke, of the Lawrence experimental station of Massachusetts, claims he discovered it. Dr. Gilbert J. Fowler, of Manchester, England, now of India, has assumed the discovery of it and developed it in a laboratory way perhaps further than anybody else up to the time we took care of it in Milwaukee. He started his experiments in 1914, or late in 1913, and we started our experiments in 1914, late in 1914. But it has been developed in Milwaukee to a greater extent than anywhere else, either in Europe or United States. We started with a laboratory investigation. From thence we went to tanks, holding or treating 70,000 gallons a day each, and from thence we have gone to tanks treating 1,600,000 gallons a day, which are now being operated and have been operated since last January. The process, stated briefly, consists of, first, coarse screening the sewage, running it through coarse screens, then into tanks of any depth to suit the conditions and the situation, say from 10 to 20 feet.

Mr. Powell. That is the residue after the first screening?

Mr. Hatton. That is the raw sewage after it has been coarse screened. Then the raw sewage is run into these tanks, which have in the bottom some method of diffusing air which is discharged into the bottom of the tank at low pressure, just sufficient pressure to keep the liquor agitated; while in there this liquor passes through this tank, taking a certain time in accordance with the standard of purification required, from two hours to four hours, during which time it is being agitated and aerated by the air. From these tanks it passes into a sedimentation tank. All of these tanks are practically one tank divided by a wall separating the aerating tanks from the sedimentation tank. After settling in the sedimentation tank from 45 minutes to an hour, or an hour and a half, according to the character of the effluent you require, it then passes out into the point of final discharge. The sludge which settles out of the liquor into the sedimentation tank is then pumped back and discharged into the raw sewage as it enters, or while passing into the beginning of the aerating tank. The surplus sludge which settles in the sedimentation tanks is treated otherwise, which I will describe later. The process is one of aeration and nitrification practically. The sewage does absorb a great deal of oxygen from the air which is forced into it through these diffusing methods. The sludge, however, which we return and keep intimately mixed with the sewage at all times is perhaps the chief medium of purification, because that sludge is filled with microorganisms and nitrifying organisms, which really do the purification work, and that is the reason that it is called activated sludge, because it is so filled with the nitrifying organisms, and the more active the sludge is the more rapid and higher degrees of purification you secure. It is a natural process entirely, simply intensified by artificial means. To show you the activity of that sludge, we got the raw sewage, perhaps a million bacteria per cubic centimeter, in the first aerating tank, within half an hour; the sludge contains anywhere from fifteen to twenty million bacteria per cubic centimeter. In this sludge we give the bacteria the natural environments for their work. We give them food, lodging, and air, and that is just exactly what aerobic bacteria need, and the desire is to have intensified the aerobic bacteria, which we have at all times when the plant is being properly operated. Now, that is a brief description of it.

Mr. Powell. That is the only purpose of aeration?

Mr. Hatton. No; there is another purpose of aeration, and that is the intimate mixture of the sludge with the liquor. That can be done mechanically with a little bit of air put in; but to do it mechanically would increase undoubtedly the cost and the operating expenses. In order to clarify the liquor it is not only necessary to nitrify it, but it is necessary, as we call it, to scrub it, and we remove the colloidal matter by means largely of scrubbing. To describe that in a layman’s way, not in a chemical way, the colloidal matter in sewage rests in the interstices between the globules of water, like water rests in the interstices of the sand at the seashore. Now, if you disturb that sand on the seashore, the water runs out and the sand becomes free of it. If you scrub the globules of water together violently, the colloidal matter is detached from the water and the water becomes clear. That is as near a layman’s description as I can give you, and we have tried the experiment out in our experimental station, to see whether there is any odor in that sewage, and we have thought that there is to a certain extent, not altogether. Now, the question as to how to dispose of this sludge is one of the greatest problems in sewage disposal in the world; and I think if any of you went over to Toronto, which I had the pleasure of visiting three weeks ago, you would see the difficulty that Toronto is up against in getting rid of its sludge, as are all other cities in the United States, whether it be Detroit or Buffalo, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, or New York—well, I will not say New York and Philadelphia, because they are out at the ocean, and they have a chance to get rid of it, but inland cities will have this difficulty.

Mr. Powell. They are taking it up in New York.

Mr. Hatton. Yes; they may be able to discharge the sludge in the sea, but inland cities on the Great Lakes or rivers are going to be up against the proposition as to how to get rid of the sludge. Then any method of sewage disposal which will enable the cities to get rid of the sludge, whether it be at a profit, or whether it be to break even, or whether it be at a loss, and yet to get rid of it to the advantage of the agricultural element of this country and indirectly to ourselves, will be that system of sewage disposal which will undoubtedly meet the conditions of the large cities. That is the proposition which is primarily confronting us in Milwaukee, as I started out to say, and in all of this investigation there has been no doubt evinced in the last three months by the leading consulting sanitary engineers in the United States who have visited our plant that the purification of the sewage has been solved within reasonable cost, but there has been a great deal of doubt in their minds that the disposition of the sludge has been solved, and I have told them that within 90 days——

Mr. Magrath. Did you say that there was a feeling that the problem had not been solved?

Mr. Hatton. They felt that the question of the disposal of the sludge had not been solved, although we had solved the question of the disposal of the sewage.

Mr. Powell. They all recognized that the purification of the sewage could be accomplished?

Mr. Hatton. They all recognized that the purification of the sewage could be accomplished in that method at a reasonable cost. But now we have solved practically the question as to the disposal of the sludge. It is true we have not reached those definite figures of cost which are necessary to convince the average municipal officer, but we are proceeding very rapidly, and we have our own figures which we feel are perfectly safe. In March for 10 days we dewatered this sludge by compressing. Now, for two weeks we have dewatered the sludge, and are drying the sludge, and reducing it into the form of a fertilizer of low grade, which is marketable anywhere in Chicago, and marketable along the eastern coast, through the chemical company—I forget the name of the chemical company there, but it is the largest fertilizing company in that district. They have offered us a yearly contract for all the sludge of the character that we have submitted to them that we could produce, based on the market value of the ammoniacal nitrogen contained in the sludge, the potash, and the available phosphoric acid. We have been testing this sludge day by day for two weeks, and we have averaged from that sludge 5 per cent of ammoniacal nitrogen—about sixty-seven one-hundredths per cent is available of phosphoric acid, and nine-tenths of 1 per cent of potash. Altogether that sludge is worth in the market, based on those ingredients alone, $15 a ton. There is no doubt about reducing it to a fertilizer basis. We have the apparatus and are doing it.

Mr. Tawney. Have you ever undertaken to extract anything else from this sludge, such as oils?

Mr. Hatton. We have, through the firm of Susenberger & Sons, of Chicago—no, it was a branch of Susenberger & Sons, of Chicago, which carries on the fertilizing end of the Susenberger & Sons’ business. They extracted the fats from the sludge, and turned the residue into fertilizer. But we do not have more than 2 or 3 per cent fats in our sewage, and that percentage of fats is not harmful to fertilizer, and it does not pay to take it away from the sludge. Unless you get at least 10 or 12 per cent of fat in your sludge, it does not pay to remove it, as I am told by those who are in the business of manufacturing fertilizers.

Mr. Tawney. Do you know that there is in operation in England now a plant where they are extracting from the sludge gasoline and lubricating oils and pitch?

Mr. Hatton. Well, yes; I have read of it in a casual way.

Mr. Tawney. And nitrates, and carbolic acid; is that right, Mr. Phelps?

Prof. Phelps. Yes.

Mr. Hatton. I never go away without my box, and I want to show you some samples which I have here.

Mr. Powell. You sell this stuff for $20 a ton?

Mr. Hatton. No; $15.

Mr. Powell. What does it cost to put it in a salable condition after it is taken out?

Mr. Hatton. Six dollars a ton.

Mr. Powell. You have a profit of $9 a ton?

Mr. Hatton. Approximately $9 a ton. You understand the ammoniacal nitrogen varies, of course, and that cost is based upon the ammoniacal nitrogen, and our average is 5 per cent so far. In wintertime I imagine it will grow less. In July, August, and September it will grow more. It is true we have a very strong sewage, containing, for the last month, for instance, 369 parts of suspended matter. That is a good deal stronger than the average municipal sewage. It is industrial sewage, largely. Now, I do not want you to think these samples I am showing you are picked out samples. These are samples which a good many gentlemen present will tell you they have seen in our plant that they have visited day by day. This was taken yesterday at noon and delivered to me in the afternoon. This is a bottle of the raw sewage, after passing through the half-inch screen. I am now showing you a bottle of the sewage taken from the aerating tanks, containing about 25 per cent of activated sludge, the nitrifying media which purifies the sewage, and I am now showing you the effluent passing away from the sedimentation tank 4 hours and 45 minutes after it passed into the influent tank. So far as we can determine, there is a trace of suspended matter in that sewage. Of course we could not determine whether it was stable or not, because that takes time. It was taken out yesterday, but my chief chemist, who brought the samples to me, told me there was no doubt about the stability of that liquor.

Mr. Mignault. Have you analyzed it to determine whether there subsists a certain amount of B. coli?

Mr. Hatton. No; this was taken yesterday; but we do get some B. coli; we do not get complete sterilization. We attempt to get 95 per cent reduction of bacteria in our effluent. We have not had occasion yet, except when our plant was broken down, or the lake was so high that it backed into our plant, to reduce our standard. We could always get 95 per cent, and we more often got 98 or 99 per cent. I do not know whether I should show you this box I have here very closely, because it does not smell very well.

Mr. Tawney. You do not deodorize your sludge?

Mr. Hatton. No. I am showing you now a sample of the pressed sludge.

Mr. Tawney. The reason I ask that is that I saw a sample of pressed sludge recently, treated by the process I mention in operation in England, where there was absolutely no odor to it at all.

Mr. Hatton. There is no odor in this sludge until it has been out in the air 24 hours. Then it begins to get very odorous. That is the pressed sludge ready for the dryer. When that came out there was no odor except an earthy odor. I am showing you now a sample of the dried sludge ready for the fertilizer.

Mr. Tawney. That is in ground form?

Mr. Hatton. No; that is not ground. That is just as it comes out of the dryer. Some of it would have to be ground no doubt; we are expecting to grind it.

Mr. Mignault. The dried sludge has no smell?

Mr. Hatton. The dried sludge has no smell. There it is; it has been on my desk for a good long while. We obtain about half a ton of this dried sludge per 1,000,000 gallons of sewage treatment. It means that we would get about $7.50 per 1,000,000 gallons out of our sludge, and spend from $3 to $4 getting it out of the sewage, making a profit of from $3 to $4.

Mr. Powell. The process of sedimentation in that bottle has just taken three minutes and a half.

Mr. Hatton. That is where we were deceived in designing our sedimentation tanks. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of finely suspended matter, and it is that finely suspended matter which takes the time to settle. But I want to draw your attention to the absence of colloidal matter, and I want to say also that, outside of broad land irrigation, or slow sand filtration, I think I am justified in saying there is not any other method of sewage disposal process which will so effectually take the colloidal matter out of sewage, and make the sewage at least satisfactory, ethically, to all the cities and municipalities. I am quite sure if you can discharge an effluent of that kind in any of the rivers and waters between Canada and the United States that no citizen of Canada or no citizen of America can possibly object. He goes largely by what he sees, not by the ingredients which some chemist tells him are in the water.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any of the by-products you extract from the sludge?

Mr. Hatton. We do not attempt to extract any by-products. We propose to sell the sludge as a fertilizer in the shape I have shown to you in this box. I might say that there is no other process of sewage disposal at present in common use in America favorable to this locality comparable with this process, except Imhoff tank and sprinkling filters, followed by final sedimentation.

Mr. Tawney. What is this process called?

Mr. Hatton. Activated sludge. We tried out the Imhoff tank process with chlorination in this same sewage, and found the cost a little bit less than the cost of this process, without finally disposing of the sludge. We also tried out Imhoff tank, followed by sprinkling filters, and found the cost much more than this process. We also found, in our climate of Milwaukee, that, instead of averaging two and a half million gallons, or getting two and a half million gallons per acre per day through sprinkling filters in wintertime, there were three months that we could not get more than a million and a half. We also found that up to the present date we have not been able to dry sludge in the open air coming from the Imhoff tank from the first of last November up to the present day, and in making our estimates, we do not believe we could get three months in the whole year in this climate—I am speaking of Milwaukee—when we could dry sludge effectually from the Imhoff tank or any other sedimentation process. We have too much rain in June to dry sludge, and the only way we could possibly dry Imhoff tank sludge was by covering with glass, heating the place, as suggested by a gentleman in Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. Mignault. How long does the drying process last?

Mr. Hatton. Well, that is all according to the weather. If the weather is very nice and warm, and we have the sun, and not too damp, it will dry out in about two weeks; it will dry into a spadable condition in five to six days in good dry weather, but if there is a little bit of rain comes along overnight, or if it is alongside a lake, and there is considerable moisture or damp, it may take two or three days longer.

Mr. Powell. How do you dry the sludge?

Mr. Hatton. In a drier, an industrial drier, just the same as they use in the packing houses in Chicago and many of the breweries and many other places throughout the United States in industrial works.

Mr. Mignault. Does it require much space?

Mr. Hatton. No; the amount of land which we have laid out to treat a hundred million gallons a day, which is the quantity we will have to treat, is 20 acres; that is, including our pumping stations, our ministration houses, sludge-disposal houses, and everything concerned. In fact, to be distinct, this system can treat from ten to twelve million gallons of sewage per acre per day.

Mr. Tawney. What does it cost?

Mr. Hatton. The cost of the treatment?

Mr. Tawney. The installation?

Mr. Hatton. About the same as the Imhoff tank. I say that because we worked out the Imhoff tank layout, and also our activated sludge layout, upon the same ground, and it broke even as to cost.

Mr. Mignault. When you say you make a profit on the sludge, in the disposal of it, what cost do you consider?

Mr. Hatton. I did not catch that.

Mr. Mignault. When you say you make a profit out of the disposal of the sludge, what cost do you consider? The cost of the drying——

Mr. Hatton. The cost of the drying, the cost of the dewatering, the cost of the freight and the overhead charges of the machinery necessary to dewater and to dry, and the attendance cost—all those have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Powell. You take the raw sewage that comes from the tank?

Mr. Hatton. We take the raw sewage as it comes from the sedimentation tank containing 97 per cent of water and deal with that.

Mr. Powell. That all enters into cost?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Prof. Phelps. That is $6?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Prof. Phelps. Would you tell us the cost of the aeration in preparing the sludge?

Mr. Powell. That would be taken into account as against some other system.

Mr. Hatton. I think I have that. I will read to you from a copy of the Second Annual Report of the Sewage Commission of the City of Milwaukee of 1915:

The cost of the activated sludge, continuous flow, with a removal of 95.5 per cent bacteria—

I say that because the cost of the operation and the plant depends entirely upon the character of effluents you want to secure. A lower grade of effluents lowers the first cost and operating cost, so this is based on a removal of 95.5 per cent, which is our standard——

The disposal of sludge in cost per million gallons, $3. The interest and depreciation on the cost of the plant, based at 7½ per cent, $2.81. Cost of operation, exclusive of sludge, $2, making a total cost of $7.81 per million gallons treated.

From this $7.81 must be taken the value of the recoverable sludge, which, as I stated to you, so far in our investigations has been $3 per million gallons, or making a total net cost of $4.81 per million gallons, which includes overhead charges.

Mr. Tawney. What was the cost of your Milwaukee plant?

Mr. Hatton. Well, we have a 1,600,000-gallon plant now. The aggregate cost of our total plant is estimated to be about two and a half million dollars—will be that much.

Mr. Tawney. And that will take care of——

Mr. Hatton. A hundred million gallons.

Mr. Powell. What is your population?

Mr. Hatton. The present population, 450,000; we are building a plant to provide for a population of 800,000.

Mr. Mignault. What is the per capita cost?

Mr. Hatton. I have not worked it out.

Mr. Powell. Does the cost decrease relatively in larger plants?

Mr. Hatton. Quite so; yes, sir.

Mr. Powell. It is not adding simply a unit?

Mr. Hatton. No. Of course, the cost of this plant largely depends upon the cost of the air. The larger the air plant the less the cost of air. We figure our cost of air based upon a cost of electricity of seventy-seven one-hundredths per cent per kilowatt hour, which is the rate fixed by the Wisconsin Railway Commission for that sort of power; so that that rate is actually fixed.

Mr. Powell. Is that power quite an item in the cost?

Mr. Hatton. Quite an item; the biggest item in the cost; the cost of power for compressing the air—that and the overhead charges, such as the interest on the money invested.

Mr. Mignault. Are you aware whether power is more expensive in Milwaukee than in Detroit?

Mr. Hatton. I am not; I do not know what the cost of power is in Detroit.

Mr. Powell. About what is the cost of horsepower? What is the cost to you people?

Mr. Hatton. I say it costs us seventy-seven one-hundredths of a cent per kilowatt hour, and horsepower is about three-quarters of a kilowatt in round numbers—six-tenths of a cent, I should say.

Mr. Mignault. Is there any nuisance resulting from the drying process?

Mr. Hatton. No. The gases must be washed, and then after passing through the washer are taken into the plant itself—into the liquor, and the liquor is a deodorizer; so there is no odor arises from the cooking of the sludge, as we call it.

Mr. Mignault. That is the drying of the sludge?

Mr. Hatton. Well, that is what we call cooking.

Mr. Powell. This is not the same principle of the two tanks where the material is taken into one tank and has a certain bacterial operation, and then passes into another tank, and then finally into beds?

Mr. Hatton. No.

Mr. Powell. You know the system to which I refer; they had it in England in one place, and then started it in Canada, and it was not a success?

Mr. Hatton. That is, they passed from aerating beds——

Mr. Powell. No; they passed first into an inclosed chamber, where the bacteria destroyed it.

Mr. Hatton. I should imagine, from what you say, that must be the process by which both the aerobic and the anaerobic bacteria are the destroyers.

Mr. Powell. Exactly.

Mr. Hatton. We do not want any anaerobic bacteria in our process, because it produces septic action, which is inimical to our process, because it absorbs the oxygen and interferes with the efficiency of the process.

Mr. Powell. Can you take the sludge from the Imhoff tank and use it, or treat it the same as you are treating the sludge there in Milwaukee now?

Mr. Hatton. We can; but the trouble is that the sludge from the Imhoff tank, as we have found it in Milwaukee, only contains about from 1 to 1½ per cent of ammoniacal nitrogen at most, and that does not pay for its recovery. I want to say another thing about this which is of interest. There is no odor about the operation of the plant at all. You can stand over one of the tanks as it is being aerated and have no odor come to you, or no odor throughout the entire plant, unless you let the sludge stay undried.

Mr. Tawney. To what do you attribute the lower percentage in the sludge taken from the Imhoff tanks?

Mr. Hatton. The fermentation process removes the ammonias from the sludge. Well, practically all the reduction of the sludge in the Imhoff tank proposition is the fermentation process, and of course that removes a large portion of fertilizer values in the sludge.

Mr. Magrath. Are there any weak features in this process that you look forward to correcting?

Mr. Hatton. There are some problems which we are investigating, with a view of getting a more economical use of the air, and thus a lower cost of operation, and that problem concerns the diffusion of the air in the tanks. We are trying out three methods of diffusion. We are not prepared to say yet which is the most economical. I am giving you the figures based upon that which we have used, and our whole efforts now are being directed to reducing the amount of air used. That is the principal point which we are investigating at the present time.

Mr. Tawney. How does the operating cost of your system compare with the operating cost of the Imhoff tanks?

Mr. Powell. The operating cost of the Imhoff tank is considerably less than the operating cost of our tanks. They have no air to pay for, and very little plant attendance to pay for.

Mr. Magrath. As I understand you, the cost to the municipality under your system is less than the cost under the other system?

Mr. Hatton. The cost of the Imhoff tank, you mean?

Mr. Magrath. Yes.

Mr. Hatton. That is true of installations of any magnitude.

Mr. Tawney. Installation, but not operation?

Mr. Hatton. On both—that is, taking into consideration the value of the sludge recovered.

Mr. Magrath. Your system costs the municipality less than the other system?

Mr. Hatton. Providing they sell the sludge. I want to make it plain to you gentlemen that I am not giving you this information as it may pertain to Detroit or Buffalo or any other city, but as it concerns Milwaukee, because I am not in a position to speak of it here, not knowing your situation.

Mr. Tawney. You state that you recently had your plant examined by a number of the leading consulting sanitary engineers of the country, and that while they all agreed that your system was successful, so far as purification of sewage was concerned, they expressed doubt as to the disposing of the sludge. On what do they base their skepticism or doubt with reference to the sludge disposal?

Mr. Hatton. Past experience.

Mr. Tawney. Your past experience?

Mr. Hatton. No; past experience of the sanitary engineers who have expressed that doubt. As I started to say, or I think I did say at the beginning of my remarks, that disposition of the sludge was the greatest problem, both in Europe and America, and this was so easy, apparently, to dispose of, that they were from Missouri and had to be shown.

Mr. Tawney. After seeing the way in which you disposed of sludge in Milwaukee plant, did that satisfy them or remove their doubts as to the efficiency of your method?

Mr. Hatton. They have not seen it yet.

Mr. Tawney. I thought you said they personally visited it.

Mr. Hatton. They have personally visited it. We put it in operation, but our press broke down. We have only put this portion of it in operation in the last two weeks, and it is only now we have begun to dry it; we did not have a dryer before.

Mr. Mignault. Do you use the rotary dryer?

Mr. Hatton. The rotary direct dryer.

Mr. Magrath. I interrupted you when you were about to say that in 90 days you would demonstrate something, and you stopped.

Mr. Hatton. I told these engineers that in 90 days I would demonstrate the possibilities of disposing of the sludge, but I have already demonstrated it before the end of the 90 days. I think I said that at Syracuse some time ago in an address I delivered.

Mr. Magrath. In an address made, I think, in 1915 you expressed some doubt as to the efficacy of your method in winter months?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; I did; and in order to try out this system in Milwaukee during the winter months was the purpose of building this 1,600,000-gallon plant which we are now operating; that was the primary object of building that plant, which cost us $65,000, and we got it in operation the first week in January and we have operated it since continuously with temperatures as low as 20° below zero, with a clear effluent during the cold winter months coming out of the plant as that effluent which you see there in that bottle. We had no freezing and no trouble with ice. We had, of course, much lower nitrates in our effluent than we had in the summer months; in fact, we had very little nitrates, but we kept up the stability about 104 to 110 hours’ average; some of them went up higher. We go on the basis of 5 days’ stability test instead of 10 days. The American Public Health Association suggest that five days is all we need.

You ask me about the relative cost of the Imhoff tank installation and operating as compared with the activated sludge. Our investigations in Milwaukee show that the cost of the Imhoff tank, without sterilization, is $6.20 per million gallons—that includes all overhead charges—as against $7.81 for the activated sludge. The cost of the Imhoff tank——

Mr. Tawney. Is that an estimated or actual cost?

Mr. Hatton. That is the cost from the operation of our plant.

Mr. Tawney. Actual operation?

Mr. Hatton. Actual operation.

Mr. Tawney. Is it not an estimated cost?

Mr. Hatton. No. The cost of the Imhoff tank with sterilization, reducing the bacteria 85 per cent, was $9.51 per million gallons, as against $7.81 for the activated sludge. Mark you, the bacterial removal in the activated sludge was 95.5 per cent for that cost, whereas the bacterial removal in the Imhoff with chlorination was 85 per cent; and we attempted—and the report is in here—to sterilize our Imhoff tank effluent to that point comparable with the activated sludge, and found that the cost of the process was about $14.50 per million gallons.

Prof. Phelps. How much chlorine does that represent?

Mr. Hatton. Eight and five-tenths parts, which costs $5 per million gallons, based on 7 cents per pound; that is 3 cents per pound less than we were paying for it; and we believed—in fact, we were assured—that if we bought it by carload lots we could get it for 7 cents per pound at that time.

Mr. Powell. Now, circumstanced or conditioned as Milwaukee is, how does the cost of disposing of your sewage, as at present carried on, compare with what it would be if you dumped it in its raw state into the lake, that is taking the raw sewage when it comes from the end of the sewage pipe? Is Milwaukee the gainer or the loser by disposing of the sewage as you suggest?

Mr. Hatton. Well, undoubtedly the gainer.

Mr. Powell. That is, by treating the sewage as you treat it, and disposing of the product, the fertilizer, Milwaukee is the gainer, as against dumping it in its raw condition into the lake?

Mr. Hatton. Decidedly.

Mr. Powell. That is something consequential.

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. Financially, it is disposing of the sewage at a profit, as I understand?

Mr. Hatton. Oh, no; I do not want you to think that. We do not get enough profit out of our sludge to pay for the treatment of the sewage.

Mr. Tawney. That is the inference I drew from your answer.

Mr. Mignault. What you say is that it pays to dispose of the sludge after the treatment process?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; there is a profit in it, but not sufficient to pay for the whole cost.

Mr. Mignault. When the sludge has been treated you calculate the cost of drying it and disposing of it, and you make a profit out of it?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Powell. Take a million gallons of sewage at the point of delivery here in Detroit, and assume Detroit to be circumstanced or conditioned just the same as Milwaukee is from a sewage standpoint, what would it cost to bring that sewage up to the point at which you take it for the purpose of manufacturing into fertilizer?

Mr. Hatton. It costs $7.81 per million gallons, and we get therefrom practically $3. I am taking the lowest estimate now, making a cost of $4.81 for the treatment of sewage. I think that answers the question.

Mr. Tawney. For 1,000,000 gallons?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; per million gallons.

Mr. Powell. Where does the $3 come in?

Mr. Hatton. It is the profit from the sludge.

Mr. Tawney. Deducting the cost of treating it?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Powell. The actual cost is $4.81.

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Powell. Following up the question Mr. Magrath asked you, to anticipate any necessary outlays you made for improvements, without regard to this, taking the machinery as it is to-day, is there anything that you think would come in to disturb these features and upset them in the present conditions?

Mr. Hatton. As to the process?

Mr. Powell. Yes.

Mr. Hatton. Nothing that has been discovered so far.

Mr. Powell. You do not anticipate anything?

Mr. Hatton. Nothing at all; if I did, sir, I would hardly be warranted in recommending to my board the expenditure of two and a half millions for this process. That is the best way to answer that. We have adopted this process, and are going ahead to build it as soon as we get our land, which has to be condemned partially.

Mr. Magrath. Before you leave the subject, many municipalities, as you know, dump crude sewage into flowing water, and consequently they have not arranged their collecting sewers at any particular point. In the application of this system of yours is it necessary that there should be a collection of the sewage at some particular point, or could it be applied quickly to those existing municipalities?

Mr. Hatton. That is one of the features about the process. While it is always desirable to get one point to dispose of your sewage, where the cost is considerable for intercepting sewers to get at that one point it is better to divide up those numbers of points, providing you can do so without nuisance and at less cost than the intercepting sewers, and with this process it can be built and operated in the heart of the city without any nuisance arising. I think that answers the question, does it not?

Mr. Mignault. Is there any difference in that respect between your treatment and the Imhoff tank treatment?

Mr. Hatton. I think not. There is no odor that is objectionable about an Imhoff tank.

Mr. Mignault. I mean as to the necessity of intercepting sewers?

Mr. Hatton. I think not.

Mr. Mignault. In either case, the question of intercepting sewers is a question to be considered, according to the layout of the ground?

Mr. Hatton. No; not altogether that; according to the layout of the ground and according to the process which you propose. If, for instance, you should go beyond the Imhoff tank process and put in sprinkling filters or nitrifying beds, then you would have to get outside of the city, in order to prevent the nuisance arising from those beds.

Mr. Mignault. Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. Is there any advantage in your system as to the multiplying of the treatment works, in order to avoid the construction of intercepting sewers?

Mr. Hatton. Between the two works?

Mr. Mignault. Yes.

Mr. Hatton. No; I think not.

Mr. Powell. Your process is not affected by atmospheric conditions at all?

Mr. Hatton. No; except that——

Mr. Powell. Except extreme cold?

Mr. Hatton. Yes. We have to use more air in the cold weather than we do in the warm weather, in order to get the same quality of effluent, approximately this winter 12 per cent more air.

Mr. Powell. It means practically 12 per cent additional cost?

Mr. Hatton. Of the air alone; but this cost I have quoted is the actual cost of summer and winter conditions.

Mr. Fenkell. May I ask a question? To what extent would it be necessary to allow untreated water to escape because of rainstorm?

Mr. Hatton. We are anticipating at the present time, or will anticipate in this plant, 150 gallons of rain water per capita; that is all the rain water that will be carried to the plant, and that rain water will be treated the same as the dry-weather flow. The balance of the rain water will go into the river.

Mr. Powell. That is per diem?

Mr. Hatton. Per capita; 150 gallons per capita per day.

Mr. Dow. May I ask the witness whether I am correct in my summing up of the advantage of his method over the Imhoff tank method, in that it tends to reduce the net cost by producing a readily marketable fertilizer; that is the essential advantage. Am I correct in so understanding?

Mr. Hatton. Not altogether, sir. As far as your statement goes, it is correct, but to get a removal of 95 per cent of bacteria from the raw sewage, it costs considerably more to do it by the Imhoff tank and sterilization than it does by this process. I just quoted the figures.

Mr. Dow. Then initially, the advantage is that, with equal operating costs a higher removal of bacteria is possible by this process?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Dow. And in addition thereto, there is a certain commercial advantage, in that the product is readily marketable?

Mr. Hatton. Yes.

Mr. Dow. Much more readily marketed than the Imhoff product?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; that is true.

Mr. Dow. As regards the latter phase of the situation, am I correct also in my supposition that the present prices for fertilizers are abnormal, having regard to the prices prior to the war, say 1914?

Mr. Hatton. No; the price of two and a half per unit is the price that existed prior to the war; the price of ammoniacal nitrogen to-day is considerably higher than that.

Mr. Dow. The figures given are based upon what might be considered normal markets, and not upon the present very abnormal prices?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; for instance, phosphoric acid is worth to-day 10 times as much as the quotations I have used in making my valuations.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any questions, Prof. Phelps?

Prof. Phelps. No.

Mr. Dallyn. Just one point that Mr. Mignault brought out. Comparing the results of your process with the Imhoff tank, Mr. Mignault rather concluded that the Imhoff tank could be used in the same location as your plant. Is it not true that the effluents from the two types of treatment compare as the two samples on the table, activated sludge effluent being clear, and that from the Imhoff tank turbid and discolored, similar to raw sewage?

Mr. Hatton. That is true. I answered that with the idea of nuisance to the adjacent neighbor.

Mr. Dallyn. What is your actual saving, as you actually contemplate placing interceptors, collecting the sewage, in the adoption of your method?

Mr. Hatton. We are saving about $2,000,000 in carrying out the subaqueous tunnel a mile and a half out to sea, as the original board of engineers suggested.

Mr. Powell. I understood you to give that as the esthetic feature?

Mr. Hatton. Yes; not only esthetic feature, but the purification feature; in other words, the local engineer has indicated that he would not permit, with his sanction, any sewage disposal plant which would deposit that much suspended matter in the harbor.

Mr. Mignault. The question I put to you was to ascertain, in case they decided to establish other treatment plants in order to avoid constructing sewers, whether your system had any advantage over the Imhoff-tank system?

Mr. Hatton. As I answered your question before, I was looking upon it with a view to nuisance to the neighborhood. As to nuisance which might arise from the discoloration of the water, I should say the Imhoff tank would be far more deleterious in that respect than our process; but as to nuisances arising in the waters due to decomposition, assuming that the sterilization of the Imhoff tank liquor is complete, then the two plants would be practically equal, as to nuisances arising outside of the discoloration of the water.

Prof. Phelps. In regard to the matter which Mr. Mignault has brought out, I think it should be stated that, as far as the city of Detroit is concerned, and also as far as Buffalo is concerned, the question of interceptors, or of local plant, was not determined by the character of the treatment, but was determined solely by the physical conditions—that is, it was impossible for us to locate the local plants and thus save the interceptors, by reason of the levels of the sewers and the inaccessibility of available land. We did consider local treatment, and if it had been feasible it would have represented considerable saving. The determination is not conditioned by the character of the treatment.

Mr. Tawney. Have you anything further to say?

Mr. Hatton. No.

Mr. Tawney. On behalf of the commission, I desire to extend to you our sincere thanks for your appearing before us, coming from Milwaukee for that purpose, and giving us the very interesting and clear statement you have concerning the operation of your plant in Milwaukee and the process of it.

Mr. Powell. We can all assent to that.

Mr. Gardner. Without any question.

Mr. Mignault. You refer to the published report of the city of Milwaukee. Is that available?

Mr. Hatton. I would be glad to give it to the commission. I am sorry to say it is the last one.

Mr. Tawney. That is the only one you have?

Mr. Hatton. Except our own office copy.

Mr. Mignault. And the process is described?

Mr. Hatton. Quite well; and the results.

Mr. Magrath. I suppose it is impossible to get copies of this any place?

Mr. Hatton. Well, there are some of them in public laboratories throughout the country and among engineers; but we had a pretty lively demand for them and we only had 500 copies issued, and they are all gone. That is a copy I picked up on my desk yesterday.

Mr. Rich. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement here regarding lake currents which would elucidate what Mr. Hatton was not quite familiar with.

Mr. Goddard, assistant engineer at Grand Rapids of the United States engineer office, read a paper before the Engineers’ Club, of Grand Rapids in April, 1916, which included his own experience, as well as a compilation of the results of the studies of others and covering a number of years. His conclusions were that the currents in the Lakes are produced primarily by the winds and secondarily by variation in barometric pressure.

Wind currents follow the direction of the wind.

Pressure currents flow from high to low pressure areas.

The flow through the Straits of Mackinac in either way, according as the above conditions prevail.

STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE A. LEISEN, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WATERWORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Mr. Tawney. Mr. Leisen, you are the president of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, are you not?

Mr. Leisen. No, sir.

Mr. Tawney. Are you connected with that association?

Mr. Leisen. I have a letter from the secretary asking me to represent the association at this meeting.

Mr. Tawney. Have you examined this report of the consulting engineer of the commission?

Mr. Leisen. I regret to say that I did not see that report until yesterday at noon, and I think you can realize that I have not. While I had endeavored to read over a part of it I have not been able to digest it.

Mr. Tawney. What are the functions of your organization?

Mr. Leisen. The functions are largely the questions from the sanitary point of view of preserving the purity of the waters of the Great Lakes.

Mr. Tawney. It is a voluntary organization?

Mr. Leisen. It is a voluntary organization without any official standing. It is simply an auxiliary to the health departments in an unofficial way, I should say.

Mr. Tawney. Where are the headquarters located?

Mr. Leisen. Practically they have no headquarters.

Mr. Powell. Who are the officers?

Mr. Leisen. Mr. Paul Hansom, of the Illinois State Board of Health, is the secretary; and Dr. Charles J. Hastings is president.

Mr. Powell. Has your organization followed the work of the International Joint Commission in this investigation?

Mr. Leisen. My familiarity with the organization is almost nil. As I say, I had a conversation with Mr. Hansom in New York relative to the matter a few weeks ago, and he asked me if I was still a member of the association. As a matter of fact, that did not come to a definite point until I got his letter asking me to represent them here. Officially, I am not in a position to say very much about the association or what they have done. It is a newly organized body.

Mr. Powell. When was it organized?

Mr. Leisen. Some time during the past years.

Mr. Powell. What are its purposes?

Mr. Leisen. I think the preservation of the purity of the waters of the Great Lakes.

Mr. Tawney. And also the connecting rivers, I suppose?

Mr. Leisen. Well, yes.

Mr. Tawney. Have you any statement which you desire to make to the commission in respect to the pollution of these waters?

Mr. Leisen. As you understand, I am the general superintendent for the board of water commissioners here in Detroit, and as such have charge of the water supply. So, naturally, my interest from that point of view would be toward——

Mr. Tawney. You appeared before the commission two years ago, when we were here, did you not?

Mr. Leisen. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tawney. And at that time you gave us full and detailed information concerning the water purification?

Mr. Leisen. I believe the points were generally covered then.

Mr. Tawney. Have you the same process now that you had at that time?

Mr. Leisen. With this difference: At that, time we were treating the water with hypochloride of lime as a disinfectant. We have since changed to liquid chlorine treatment.

Mr. Tawney. What has been the result?

Mr. Leisen. There has been no radical difference in the result. The results obtained from the use of hypochloride of lime have been almost identical with those obtained from the use of liquid chlorine; possibly some elimination of the taste in the water. I do not believe the complaints of taste of chlorine have been of any moment at all since the liquid-chlorine process was adopted. To that extent I consider it an improvement and it is a little more cleanly. It is a nicer process, more methodical, and more mechanical in its methods.

Mr. Tawney. You have only one intake?

Mr. Leisen. Yes.

Mr. Tawney. What is its capacity?

Mr. Leisen. It is 10 feet in diameter and a little over 300 feet long. Its capacity, of course, would vary with the head permissible on the shore end.

Mr. Tawney. How many gallons are you consuming per day?

Mr. Leisen. We are consuming at the present time about 130,000,000 to 160,000,000 gallons per day.

Mr. Tawney. That is, a day of 24 hours?

Mr. Leisen. Yes. Our highest hourly capacity for any one period was at the rate of about 190,000,000 gallons per day of 24 hours.

Mr. Tawney. The hour consumption was at that rate?

Mr. Leisen. That was the peak load, yes; for one hour during the past year.

Mr. Tawney. Have you studied this problem in connection with the matter of sewage disposal at all, or do you deal entirely with the water end of it?

Mr. Leisen. I have no official connection with the sewage disposal proposition; but my interests are simply those of an engineer in the problem, and as a citizen.

Mr. Tawney. Have you had any cases of typhoid fever in the city of Detroit in the last year or two?

Mr. Leisen. Yes; there have been cases, not abnormal. The typhoid-fever death rate has been reasonably constant for the last few years and comparatively low.

Mr. Tawney. Have you gentlemen any questions to ask? If not, that is all, Mr. Leisen. Are there any other gentlemen here representing the city of Detroit who wish to be heard on this subject? I see that the mayor of the city has just come in, in time to witness the closing of these hearings. He may have something to say. If he has we shall be glad to hear from him.

Mr. Marx. I do not know really what you have done this morning.

Mr. Tawney. Well, gentlemen, it seems that this closes the hearing. In concluding the hearing I have been requested, on behalf of the commission, to extend to the mayor of the city of Detroit and the council of the city our sincere thanks for the courtesy which has been extended to us in giving us the use of this council chamber. I can assure the mayor and the council that the commission sincerely appreciates, not only the courtesy that has been extended to us, but also the hearty cooperation which we have received from the officials of the city since the beginning of the investigation, and we sincerely hope that when our final recommendations are made to the two Governments they will receive the approval and support of the city of Detroit and of the neighboring cities as well. Thanking you gentlemen for your appearance and courtesy, I will state that the hearings are now closed.

Mr. Marx. I want to assure you of our continued cooperation.

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o’clock p. m., the hearings were closed.)

International Joint Commission, Ogdensburg, N. Y., Friday, August 25, 1916.

The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m.

Mr. Gardner presided.

Mr. Gardner. Gentlemen, you will kindly come to order. In August, 1912, the Governments of Canada and the United States jointly referred to the International Joint Commission for investigation and report, under the terms of Article IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909, certain questions relating to the pollution of boundary waters. Briefly stated, these questions are: What are the extent, causes, and localities of such pollution? How may such pollution best be remedied?

It is safe to say that of all the questions with which the commission has had to deal this is by far the most important. Nothing can be more vital than the conservation of health, and that is precisely the object of this investigation. The population directly tributary to the boundary waters between Canada and the United States amounts to over 7,000,000, and it is estimated that over 15,000,000 are carried annually in steamboats on these waters. The pollution of boundary waters is a direct menace to every one of these millions of citizens of the two countries. Its prevention will be of incalculable benefit.

In investigating the first question the commission was fortunate enough to secure the services of Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, of the United States Public Health Service, and now commissioner of health of Massachusetts. Associated with him were Dr. J. W. S. McCullough, Prof. John A. Amyot, and Mr. F. A. Dallyn, of the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario. Under the direction of these officers bacteriological surveys were carried out throughout the boundary waters, from the St. John River in the east to the Lake of the Woods in the west. They also had the cordial cooperation of the Public Health Services of both the Federal Governments and of the States and Provinces on these boundary waters. The results of this investigation were embodied in a progress report submitted to the two Governments in 1914, to which was appended a very complete report by the sanitary experts of the commission, outlining the extent of pollution in the different localities and the causes to which it was attributed.

Having disposed of the first question, the commission took up the second, as to remedies. As a first step, a conference was arranged in New York with six eminent sanitary engineers, George W. Fuller, Earle B. Phelps, and George C. Whipple, of the United States, and F. A. Dallyn, W. S. Lea, and Theo. J. Lafrenière, of Canada, whose testimony furnishes an invaluable record on the engineering side of the question. As a result of this conference certain broad fundamental principles were established, upon which any remedial action must be based. The services of Prof. Phelps were secured as consulting sanitary engineer to the commission, and under his direction a series of careful studies were made, with particular reference to the interception and treatment of riparian sewage on the Detroit and Niagara Rivers, the chief areas of pollution. Public hearings were held in the cities and towns along these waters in 1914, and again in the present year, to afford every opportunity to the municipal and other authorities interested to put their views before the commission.

In March, 1916, the consulting sanitary engineer submitted to the commission his report upon remedial measures. Before closing the hearings the commission deemed it desirable to give those interested in health matters on the St. Lawrence an opportunity to come forward and present their views. With that object in view it was decided to hold a meeting in Ogdensburg to-day. Afterwards the commission will proceed to prepare for submission to the two Governments its final report, both as to the extent and causes of pollution and as to the remedies best designed to safeguard the health of the Canadian and American communities along the boundary.

Not only are we here to confer with those interested in health matters, to find remedies for the removal of the causes of pollution, but to ascertain to what extent and by what methods, system, or lack of system are the boundary waters in this community being polluted in contravention of the terms of the treaty made between the British Empire and the United States, which provides that “These waters shall not be polluted on either side of the line to the injury of health or property on the other,” and also to serve notice that the time is drawing near when no raw sewage will be allowed to flow into these waters, and all communities in the near future will be required to treat their sewage by some process of purification before being allowed to use the waters of the boundary as an avenue for its discharge. The commission therefore desires to hear from representatives of the cities and towns bordering on the St. Lawrence River as to what is being done at this time and what plans, if any, are being considered for the future to remove the causes of pollution in these boundary waters.

By direction of the chairman, Secretary Burpee then read the notice of the meeting to be held at Ogdensburg, which was sent to interested municipalities and officials in the United States and Canada, together with copies of the report of the consulting sanitary engineer of the commission, and also the list of the municipalities to whom the notice and report were sent.

The notice and list are as follows:

NOTICE.

July 7, 1916.

Dear Sir: I am sending you a copy of the report of the consulting sanitary engineer upon remedial measures in connection with the pollution of boundary waters investigation. The commission intends to hold a hearing at Ogdensburg, N. Y., probably toward the end of August. I will advise you of the exact date as soon as it has been decided. Meanwhile the accompanying report is sent to you so that your engineers and other officers may be in a position to give the commission the benefit of their views at the hearing. If you require any additional copies of the report, please let me know.

Yours, very, truly,

—— ——, Secretary.

Municipalities to whom notice was sent:

Cape Vincent, N. Y.; Clayton, N. Y.; Thousand Island Park, N. Y.; Alexandria Bay, N. Y.; Morristown, N. Y.; Ogdensburg, N. Y.; Waddington, N. Y.; Kingston, Ontario; Gananoque, Ontario; Brockville, Ontario; Prescott, Ontario; Cardinac, Ontario; Morrisburg, Ontario; Cornwall, Ontario.

The chairman, specifically mentioning each municipality in the above list, called for the names of persons appearing in their behalf, as well as the names of any others who desired to enter an appearance, and the following appearances were announced: