* |×**$ *. §§2, 3,3% ºſº;）$*** *|--|-*** ... -_-* ****§ 4 ºſºſ.’ž №w！… * · · * * · **…-*x,ſă， s-fae... , **4 （ ~ º）; * , ，·șłº|--~$x·*** --º--º--º--«;ș ºvý šº *---- -. ***- - *→|-*$3）, * · * **... ！！ ！！«|--; , ** * * *$.-- ¿-* {§§§§§��ſººſ） și§§§§§§,?';-·***„*ģș ¿?șřģĶķĻ33șºs¿?~‘’’№ț¢&žșšķ§§§§§§§@₪- -|- |-*** ··$2¿, ！ ,，... ****. À ... * , , ， ） ;*șý§ §§§g ºg§3-→ ►* ¿. №-+ '?！? ¿?,--8� *** ... §**¿?- ?.…; ;* ºgs·- ！！!！, ¡§§§§§•-。。。、、、。§§§;&## ·~• ** *-3. - º*ę-|-→¿№ºººº** -->* ** *? §§§*4¿.*¿¿.*№{· *ș3%（$$2.* …:）}***¿. č.→§º : * ''x,y^§§§’:*… §.șºſº*Šºž …<33,3 ºgșģ）"，333. , ¿??¿Cº* |-aș3;}&§§ ?.§§*¿¿.* *¿¿.*ş Ș șR· · · §§§ 3º > , （**）·£$ $ $，?`ſ įš į *£· Ķ • § 3. **: y ** * * º *， *！ ».? xi§¶•,，，,，,，，%;* ſºs§3\,:-|-|-·§ 9→ *}*&#-ºğ§§§§§• •^'șť -‘Ā &|---. ， ** ** 3. ºž， ** * · · ·→* ?*ş ºſ§.•y ſ * &&Ź.§”�§.*** *%|× §4. . $§.ź§.（ž%%.**** ?， «¿.*};¿ $,?（ ）??; ģ:ý „…º.ſ.ſººſ **...; §§§§§§！ Jº, ſººſ *（$，§§· * *** • **ş* *** } ſº: & \，\!****»ș ſr::: **S*ą§§9. **- *、、'', ! , º „Ä，¿? * ¿??¿ 军--* 、*$$$****-·--**）* →ºžsº ſº :; ： ,► ºg ***$ $ ¢ £. šiºſ ： *;è ?（ 3; • ſ） ºº ^•*…*..*&（?:?）-*: < §§§§§ș ș4. 、、 （***·*.*&l）; * * * *, ** * * · * *， ¿（...）.ae*·**…* .*¿.*- *§§§§ŽĒģšš???š,%&&~º: .¿¿¿.¿¿.* **,*;¿< ***, sșº$， $;&? ¿·£;*, **, &§§§）. Iſſº*''（.*¿.**）， * · · ·, č{ſ- º！? §§§%%, a ș***<**\，.，:， ... *§§§§§**** 3 : , ?á. ********3.??? xș± T. ， " ºs §§**';* … …} &… （¿） ***·§ §**?） *;,&ſ”， ș.·#»،«*ſae §§§§§§§* * &&§§§§§§%¿??¿¿.*）$',§§ ¿¿¿ $-· · *§*）（.*?）（$, №g*（?）; };$）,'$'）;-zaeº， *ſaet;§§§→|-ºg“;$$$$*$（''）;§§§§%}}}}›‹ºſ， ſº-;&ſ, §. *~, ş ！ ----*.*-， ,%% #（ſ）;¿¿.*\ſ*}}... * * #cº* Ëș§.****-× : s&”, º§§§）.×, 3;&,żyº?）.§§$ ș，*:$%$§$%%;:（$$$$$*$） -}.*-• ºGſ.× × ×*** 3. º., &&.*; -|-¿¿ {· ·，≤）（$3" （º º）^;;$ §）,**,*{*};f&52° *** |*?） * .# *.*& § * ** « » *** \, &ș $. ** Yºº sº. º, 3 ; :ºx: § 3. §...??? :） ~xºgae ſººſ §ž.šºſ¿.* #28. ***（№?§§*š å · ~~¿?¿¿.*¿.*?· *?）,+;§§§*， ，,，，。、、。。 $. （3）， X.|-→$ „'， , ， ， ,，，%,， * 3;“ſºſyp, ſ, „Š→zae -ſz?”，*ºsas*~^ș;Ž;• „№ž，fºrț¢º ;{|-§§ și și%）-*№gº.ſ.§žėſ$（'#'）;{$$$$ ... ， ***-* „* *~~~~） •-** 3. : ?* ，-*- ×3;&！|-*4-reſº,• Jerſ, f*， *）:ſºğº.º.º.“-º. - *: *）.șº:??? §§§?）\，,º, º-`3 "!? ſae* » +?x,;，x，z;-ſº; † （Gº！”）！^${}）（ *）（?：\ſ*$/, '&' :, ,ſº šºs;}*', ſaeſ. ¿¿ ****ț¢*** **|-*****.” （）、”，. $ſ %ſ'，§§§§） &&--، ، ، ، （ſººs &&3，3,3,4}) } ***（\? • §..*$%* ſae:§§%&&¿-*** … º$,?，!，:,§-\º§&&$*§§+$$$¿??¿ $¢----* |--- -。'&&f: * , ^ ;§：№ſºſ， a-,§§≡;:24� ſº `·.， ºx}）（\\ſ*$**Ě„（s） ***șĚ:| .… * ** *$%$§x*****¿.*¿¿.*;|- -}&};-§ § ‘;&º, Ž.）,、。、、。（?:\ſ*）?（.*）'）; ¿??¿?Ķºņºſ;gºş，§§§§§§ºg ºgså*（）,º'r gael? „Iºae *...* .*.*.*.* &’, %* ...！-ſ - 'x' * & *»* * · *?，*** ！！！ *Š » * .*, § * * * -??? ）ºff;. §?ºx, * -ſ; și*» ',*a-..）， še:§§→-s ſ ký， ſ ºxy.gººgºſº,? ¿ 24. ***}*kš, * 8%,}§§§§; *?,-*…*.*. \！ſº??¿ºí *** 3. º.& * & * ¿¿.*§§§§§§§）. *****§;Cº ſº;"șė-- -.y?;&#&.* * ?, ¿ $ … -# º 4 } .«& & -&~ ;* ^ ^Șº），*^*^ > （$ae,！* * *（.*¿¿.*; §§.,;&#ffffff;• § €.、。* 2.►-§§§§§ º: *** ?---- -~• .|-*--- -·§. ^ * *$. » }{|- • ……… :-* ---|---* . : ºg, *x*^° ： * *-*...*-- -|-|- -*..*ſ-ż，*（.*）$"）;$3: $ -• ș\ x *- |--*:）*$）;*（~: %.* * * · * .*¿¿.§§§§- --* * * .- - ;）*, *.*±* * *§ （8）-- -- §§§™Ęžºš... 駧§-- * Ķſº，、► «xx%|--și și¿（...）-|- ?§§§§§§§§s º¿ž--- § 3. ***::$- *-- - - -►*…*...*... & ? •- §§§§§§§§§§* ¿¿.*?） ****（3.） && ！º -sººl • •→{}） :*（35°）.• • №. §§§§§§§§§§§§§×*¿.***$'）?）*）x„*~§§ 83×3， ×， …， ¿ 𧧧§§§x，$£§ §§§§*?）&&x（$！ ſae'..?！！！???，3..）$*.;:№ģ* **）*rz^*,·）; */‘‘‘‘‘‘‘№ſ „…ſººſ; * *$]*; ș, ș№ſ§§§×¿?,š，žģ§§§）, ſºț¢& №ģægt, ae， §§§©®°¶g%s ſººſ:&-��|-|-§§2ººººº！!！?%-ºsº. §§§§§§ż§§§§§§§§§§-*--¿¿ ?,- <。 、： ， ' ， # # .-}}};{{{*},*: *）（.*）$§ğžºj 、、。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、:} ≤≤;$$$-§. šť ,*****¿?, , ，¿* №če （）, ºuşºşiº .ae%%C3 （&& &§§§§§§§§¿?§§§§§§*-·----**** Y, , , ，**ș，（,'$£§§* &º £ （$£§§ §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§*******ğı （5）&~（*） *（?），· · ·$2&§ §§§§§§§§¿?“;$; &#$$$$};*） *$'）,ººkſ? ’, yº）-ſėſ §§§）“→§ 3ºº. №gº.ſ.ºłę， º�* x） vºr, sº，*, ** * * * * *$%&&},w &- §§§§∞∞∞§§-§§§§§** 3， … * & *šķº-£）', , ， , ºſº, º →į, º|- ± − × × * ș? $3..3,2 *: • …“ 3 * * * * **ś. Sºº * ■*** ... * * §§§§ §§§§§ x 8. ·8-4 &&<<,· § 3）ºraș • '^（.* ?* ，¿;&§§ſaeĶ|- |-,， ….$????!， ¡ ¿��¿? ！! ！！’’’ §§Ř~|- --.*¿.*;&"）;-¿??¿?,|-**\（.） 。* §§|-·|--• ***§ “A）, º.º.-. ? *** x ）} >* * ）;*, ***-→$（/^&$/, "$*, *） &&*2y» } *** .*¿¿4” ș& &|-**łº:...）.|-|-|-șs-ae .*¿¿.-?）→|-3.783****） ; i.-•••••**« *ș* *（ 3（3）;|-”…-- -sį jº 3 ***|× … ***·%， . ”-*, ****3） * * * * §§§|--* Ó; A--* ..*§ :}... …*"*..., **^${};«.·;º） ！！ %± * « %% •• • • ºº ， * ;- ~|-|--È:…}{S} \ «.r. ¿§§|- -.* ----¿žģ ** ſºrſ， * × * A. • * 3. *, *.*.*. * $. łºś. Asº ！’ ¿¿.*?4 § *）?）.*º :??！ �-*: （.*¿.*¿¿ $-·;*§§ ►e-· *-È ſ.， & \ ^^*** ;|- ·-»***. ¿¿.-%,！,! ;* ***-º. §§§|-�š;&` ） {~- - •* * *• ; **aerº; a^* - *:'' && ! •*.*）（.*?）（ №***- →- %º\\&{},\;\;\;}|-}，- * ſ^s + ſ） ; ：：: * *** 。 .# 3 X. K ž， * * *&&{;?- ;&# * | 3，..}}}}ſn§$} §§§§&&&& ** *** ſ.ſ.ºw.ș ķ- --* *·sX|-„…º.º. ）· §|-*** }}°√° {{ }... ¿%>（.***.**. «*; §§ț¢ćçč].*;?¿??¿¿.*?）$', '%$&#%$%&?* }¿??¿?， ¿?. ¿-ź**«?|ׄºffſ，&#~）;$.. ¿ §§§§§§） $ ºffeſ ſºſyº, №.3: ***- -&-ż****Y-’ √3， √, §. *;, * •**\，,，。 ... *§:#;-） ? 'sºſ'，ºff ; ** * ** ·-|-, ！+ $%: Y*ș.ae §§X&&&&&\^）*?%）, ță （ºț¢;-|-*;"...;-3;，\;\ſ*.*‘, ，'$*?）, §§2}&{|- �* \）*: ' ,*, ****. 5. ** **·|- -•* •----·-·→----- |-* ģ* ….*..* - ?§§*）:。}}',yº-§-ſ§§§§§§）.-|- ------* *$]* *>.§§§*“;„ .K.,ſº »*** …） •$*...}};&ț¢ £ €--“A” šķ., 2°， . . .::ff （ $（'#'）:.*;，}:$3&º% §§§× ק..?:&&&&§§§§§. §2);šįººrš）,5. šķ. , ºș"） ºº x）\ſ*:（.*（??; （* ?? ș&#Ž（J’’’,’’3&{;&šķ（$§$%$§§-$）） *（&ºł.X--§ ...（, , , ， ' så ſtº º * （ºf ’:§ … '） *： ***§§§§§§ §§§§«） ~ ! …}}șÝ*、、、、、, §§§§§|----:, $ $ $ $ $ $ .….… ***3,4 , （X.|- « §.’%%;ſ &#ff“ × ** . „ “º” y-*į.º.º.º.º. 4 · : « º **--|-… ? »...•$ . *žģ§§****** §|- ·-*$'）**>（.*?）$'}}šs · § ¶ ¡ ¿ r & 3.3 3 ºr 3 3. *** ģ §§ • *.* > * £. $º x ºt * ,,..?** * f ¿ w º º ș,º *{ 3. ** t : ; 3,3. 3.3% # * <$ 9. * ‘ „+3，-）- -º $$$,’|-}~~Lº? }$37，3°， čºsººſ L;: - „“ſºs¿?· * * &.*¿.*¿¿.*?）\ſ*（.*^ ſ.§§§×3×3×3;&#ffff;&#$%&& $>¿?-şºş%::::：::::ºz* & ** （ 3 »× };*） ***¿!, « »ºs ſºs:· * * · * * * ?.ã *Źºr„șº‘…ºf,”*|-*a + : $3.'，# ！*, **, …?# * ± •·* '&º- «、、、。(?：%;*.* §*'№ſſº•... º.）; „%}' 3 »* .*---¿ $¢, $ $'）; \！.*;;+.*-*w. • ???*、、、、、、 。 、��* &}�… &*|- §§§§§§§§§§§$（'#'）; $§§§§|×·**,…}}ż§.）¿??¿ ș*¿?*、。?;\！！! ;*） * ×）***$%&& șx ſº^§§º k;•\，• r*）:~）, fi ° * · **}， ， ， ,\s*:）*•?）*** --~»*, ** * *, ºs4.3. ***., ' * ***%#**%）,«º º, -{№, ſ'º'， ſ）?$. №<！--:*?* ... ~4…”， §§§§§§$（'#$%&'（）*ſ）;? （^3）*_':|-|--*（）?' + '）（:）* ºoº..ººº,，,· *** Ã）.-* & ***¿?§§** -ae,* §§§§§§§§§-|- ~ſº} ）（ *）（.** '^&*)','gºjë, ſeº: , ‘º :: ••* ，|- %|--- |× * 1: “¿***¿.*（?” v.）， „№, º aeg-șš - . , &¡ ¿ $¢ £ © ® : ��*）, §§§§§§§--…”…”）.“ （， ，''，''）; $（'<ºš'º, ''， ..] （...}} §§§§§§--“¿,*;，& （ſººſ: º.º.）? X,*s*）（$ 3.3%; ¿?, ºſ‘， ‘‘; } ș3 · ·:.y。}- -|-× × × × × ~|-*、、,-.**… * *$* **-} \},**...*. ¿§§.*..*·|-×, -*， ** ,|---ș¿§"， waer****ș! 3§§|--！ ?- -·ş.º ya* șà??}}\;sx}s. ºſ į*** & †*# … ,,}，};*; * ·~ §§ '$， șº· -; · ¿Y）;（~~~~ （,，，，， &~ »¿¿.* §. §§-·** º. š. （*.*）…·|-*“;&.*|- *º „ae, §.*ſ*，...，&·.…**）, §§***-~€.*...? s, šķae.* √∞ √°.|-Aș ſººſ ??！?！? ¿??:--- * * * *-};Aſſ *****,***¿¿.***;”, ſeſº · · ·%，,，，,，:#; §§§+șJºs »，gºş **|- §§ 53.±* •* * *3,-（~\* … ? §§§.）;:.\***$'}，: : •*„pº sº v-·-|--… ^^?. ºſº， ae. ~ ° §*ſ.|- -* 43 , :,： %）·|--?！?!?！ （ ,---… Źës && ºſ-- ~-！lºyº,№ț¢&* ſºț¢.ș•§§***}. & -3---|- ~$（'.*?）$3,…）; ſºº §§- *-►Tºš，·-:。。、、。 «.-3. （...）. ***Č.“|--*: №ºrçºk... º.º..ººº，…..***. ~--****** ¿№s;- |-*... ׄš.*--ſae，…š.*§;" *> *. :）~）;&*Riº „Šyšº- -*§）,！*®ğ.**、。·*#***'，*;*¿??? ****, º zx--3+-+<！－-;•------3· ·. •?）（$*$）;£&,Jº, **, **。ºxº， §.: ， r,…*:ºšºſ, º gº, ¿-? º? ?%ſ*$$$ &®, º ºx}}&r}*«? »º|--¿??¿.***31 ſºa ， ， , , ...*.*?\ſ*,*\ſ*）?$.）（x', º. º T$, $3）.“）, jºſ, Čºv șçº**） .·*¿?，• & \; & * X ** Lºº ’，¿?«… *,：.,.,:; ſººſ¿¿.***- s ººr*#*[[:$$$%;&º, * ?，,，,,，。§žºſ, ž.š.,,, § ¶ ¡ ¿، ،、、、、、、、、 *|-**** .*¿ † ‡ ← → § \º *** . :: .ſº ' yººº… * * ，*« < , § 38）:æį. §§§ ,'$. · * * *ſ*...» ſº º, №8 $ $,?&*）:|--* -*~~ * .** * * * *>ș- |-（***) （*）" №. ！! và Jº º. º.--|- -*** ~; §¶√∞}， {→ ſſ, º|-|-*;|-¿¿.*? ; $.$$$·* yºº * .→ -? ！! %.-· -};\ſ? ;&#&º|-|--* …- .---*- -*** *ſå ...， ºſiſ; ） »|-- : sysț ș*.|- -*- * ， ¿•）-*** 4-，22 ° * * * * * ķ*|-.*¿.*_ſº2 : ¿ † * *** ºſ,ț¢?--* …» -§§§）., ！ ！ ?--.* （}） ***± •¿·|-** º *:• • • • . §§; Škº ".$$+ $*... ?>{{;* * * ,§§-→ 'w w-; ;:ae * * *3，7·。（-$）;±±√∞ *° 33;×,|-§§:Ķ * , ;* ’, ！”  **...', ...~ * * * 3. 3. * #. f ！??>$';-șRºș ș№te< §: §§§ º g; *: º º: x * * * * & * yr: &<%ſ': *} <��·ț¢ £X®^.*?: &<>*> ***&^%$§ ' '）;-$3&*.*** §§§§§§§ %Ģģºſș№sº,-*（（?！~）;**¿.*）'， , '！º、、。--- } ）;3. ***º ſº ’, ſº «*-**, …? $; *.*¿¿.*?）, s-ší, „X-ș ș* *^^ : *ş&* ſ姧§） ºğå，* *--?***** Arſèſ}*** *$,?. &&}}%...“）%* （9） *** * *. &.*-%），ķ*.¿¿.*&- »§§§，ºš<<） , ** , �, *-º.-*: *,*）， §. 7,|-。 、”， tºº.→! ſºº.3,«）, ſºſ: º gºś（2.）ș.ae ...，,，* * * * * * . ：:|-*.xx •-×*ț¢»***¿¿.*¿?， 23£§！&&--→%）， ºº， ）， ：$- →~-§§-&（?:¿.*¿¿.*¿、-wº » № * * _ ！·-----* º *|-* & *-* *ș~•• ~***;&* .º №sºſ，*** ***,*ae¿??¿?& & \，:.,，，，,，，，,，，，，% * *, f*， g* ?,--*** ;- ** ... ». ****： «！- 7 ..…！--（...） *$'），§§*|-§ ..*…*..*Źºſº«;|-~~ſº;,¢;Ģ*&-ºĶ#:·&&~&& %%&{};* *ſ*.|-';&（?：%;%. Å º“，|-&&çka， º，§§****…» .}$$*: ?***%J &ae?” §§§§§（...）? ¿-``，,，,。**¿¿.*$';;ſ|- ș,}}; {}; } }.ţ¿¿.*¿¿.*¿¿.*?）,�。*、、。 º ,§§§§§§§§§§§ § 3; X，+?*^$ $;'：·šķ*s** •****...**::: ***-ș* ,· § **…！ № .*¿.* * * · * * *（.*）$''. ;&#$, *s •|--·& *:（.*）$? ºsº* ·*·&& && ***|ק|-**- « «-º-º--* = T •-§§§§§3¿###„șº?！?！?！?:-- |-`№, º• × × × &àží za 's ·|-|-* !_！ 8·§§yººłae.**}，*\ſ*<！#%&！， :）;|-→--* * * · * §§|-|-§§§§·-ž%）. }&* *.*». «№, º º& ！$3.#.+?（， **...*w （? '&šķºſ* &-- * *******:s：：ș*）$', '&' +„ “, ” ;）*，,，，,: % **\s*$'）;№. º. * &%, *, ， ， , º¿.*$%;*§§-*§§§§§§:.¿?|- --:3’’， ，，，%ſ，%ſ,（, „. “，。***** ¿ğgſ¿¿§§§§§§§§§§¿ *****¿¿.*！”¿№ 4，ż?»¿?·$ º{\ºğš3 g.）， „“ （tj.）， š$，?，！?;&*）（$*$:$º.**š ſºſ: „...;）;...? ;） ??;******...* §§§§§¿š.§§§§§§žģīķ|-*（?:#（.*?）$%$§§§§§3×） **_.',→|-?; ? – ?，?）.* # :.*$. ¿.***$$$*...********…---ș，3%” （§ ff*, *）;} }; * ?， ?）.*' ?. ?, ? ¿?→ ---- §§§§&&«»¿|-¿¿?Ģ §§§§）;\;\;\;&№, ºº§§§§§;&§*$$$$$$£§ *（?:.*$.« ſººſ，*ț¢:;&~ §.&&, &&. &-ș§*）（.*）$ $3&&&&|×！}）;y?， ¿ *$ $&#%$§§§|-%š žºſ， ºº,）4« * *，--F; }***）:„* º * *- ;&#$（ '#$\，\!š, * *$）;?..’ſ §§§！،• × …A----¿§§· -|-|-»ºr; *&&&\\--***、、。- º ºſ§§�¿-|- raei.- ș* ¿ �** ??,！?;: $ſ; *: º §§§§ *ş §§§ &: .ae- §§ ?ył & * |× * º & &,” ... : : * ~ * ** * ãº. ? „T grºſſºy; † ?.ș&#:. （??? #ffff;$ég$$$$$$$$ &&&&&&&&&*、、、、、、）**&&， && ！º º º！«№ --★ → √∞ √æ√∞ #<-º: ***: ， ， ！！！ ！！ ººr 3 ， ， ， ！-∞ →a， →rºy»， « +， *•*******…！！！ ####################∞} ¿? • • •ſ•r•v•w• 2 • * * * * *** * ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ·）·~♥~T~~~~！） ….…”，ſaense ： - - - e111. • * - - J z -: - 2 : -- ~ . …” -- ~~ 2"," ~ . . . . . . . b. */ ... • - .# - -> 2 * * , - • * * : - ** - - ... " - • - 3 * …” - - * - 3 *, - 1Il t * x * - * * s w ~~~ º, 4. 4 AGO. RICT OF CHIC s 1911 J *> .* Y. ** . . v. < * : 1 r y … " * } * } r .* al - w 3 : S br EARSE i -w O P * ‘’, , , …” .* - -º-º- g : ~ * isp nd DoN wer C D a * ISSUED BY T · ·-， -~ -*- |- w.* -+ -» → {•·•: ; ·^ •» }}·:: - |---- … * ... *------*S. » *·-*… - ··|-•… | 4 ;|-W§ → ·>-* * ; |-;* ·+r«- » * w w *. Z - * s w w -y A- * o W * - . - * . * | • *: 3. * * > > * ~ t • { * ~ * t • - - , t S z - - • t * - - *T 3-, *** , , *. * ~ - * * r • . ... < * * * , . 3. - - a * { ./ - - • , , } * --~ g w : - * , tº - -, * , , , ... " ". w 3 * .* W -' * + " - x - 4. . . . . 562 r * ~ * …” | - v. > <- & 3. x * x SAN : * -, * * &-zX Y. > * , 3 x ~ * ~4. } * , , c. * * © *. 3. ^*. 4. -, ~ * ~ * THE s" r , - . - * a . . ; * , - * , r * - , , * A $ …” r * ', ~. - - W - i. t’ s ! * Th * * * · * ; º, ， ， ， ºººº，）;}， , ! ••… && （ wº , ！ -, !}}§§§Ķº ſae ::::::::：::::：： ∞ º ſº ：*（~~~~ 5*（••• － § * & ***ºg №， º ***= *****.p**çº， ſ ºſ ± º ， ¿? §§§§ ſae; §§§ī£5:55; №ſſºſ: ºſae ſae ¿? № 9 ***, ¿ º vººr sº v ， ， ， ， ， ！ ∞∞， ∞， ∞, -∞， -∞，∞）: Faerſ- * w： ， ， ， ， ， ， *#*****） №: ：::：:-：-，-，-，-，- ºsºtºº：：:：::：:：：:：:: §§§#############Ěſ: •■ ■ # tºº [º * tº *** twº ºf 5 * , ~, - >< << ... --.” " × --> - » rº, & grº > -º a 3 *.3 - ** *, *º 4°- sº - # * .” Reprinted from the - - - w +, Journal of the t ſ wÉSTERN SOCIETY OF ENGINEE - September, 1911. *_ w tº- § . **" *. ºv * T - -- . - - , - ...' * > - - - - - t º i. **** - i : - ; s | JDUrnal Of th& Western SOGigllſ Of EngingørS vol. xvi. SEPTEMBER, 1911 No. 7 THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM OF CHICAGO C. D. III LL., M. W. S. E. Present cal January 30, 1911. A matter of the greatest importance to the public welfare is the maintenance of Sewers and drains and the proper disposal of the sewage of the community. Too often this is neglected for the reason that it is not brought to the attention of the public. A pile of filth on the surface of the streets calls for prompt action, while a greater amount lodged in a sewer where it is causing much more harm is unnoticed. However, if this matter is neg- lected too long the evils become so pronounced and unpleasant that the community is stirred to action. The seriousness of this problem was becoming very acute in Chicago in 1855 when the first “Board of Sewerage Commission- ers” was organized under an act of the State Legislature. This Board selected Mr. E. S. Chesbrough as its Chief Engineer and directed him to proceed to prepare comprehensive plans and estimates for a system of sewers. Before taking up the work done by Mr. Chesbrough it might be well to consider the topographical features and natural con- ditions of Chicago at that time. The site of Chicago in 1855 was a low, flat, marshy prairie lying north, South, and west of the river and its two branches. At that time the elevation of the streets in what we now call the loop district was from 6 ft. to 10 ft. above the lake level; the present elevation of these streets is from 13 to 14 ft. The condition at that time was similar to that of the Calumet region today. If we go beyond the flat plain upon which the central portion of Chicago was built, we find clay bluffs rising along the shore of the lake, extending north from Wilmette. West of these bluffs is the Skokie Marsh and the head waters of the north branch of the Chicago River. Further west is a high ridge sep- arating, the Chicago from the Desplaines River. This ridge, which forms the divide between the great lakes and the Missis- sippi basin, extends South to about the line of North Avenue. From this point to Beverly Hills (at 87th Street and Western Avenue) is a flat prairie, the lowest portion of which (at Ogden ditch) is about 10 ft above the level of the lake. This Ogden September, 1011 eptempel 29] 254 546 K. Hill—Severage System of Chicago. ditch is along a natural W*Way forming a connection between the Chicago and the Despiaines rivers, and in times of high Water it was possible for small boats to pass from the waters of the lakes to the waters of the Mississippi. The Blue Island ridge extends south from Beverly Hills to the Calumet River, a distance of about six miles. Here is another ºtural depression which connects the Calumet with the Des- Plaines River. The Calumet basin extends over the northern portion of the State of Indiana, and at the present time is a very important element in the Sºwerage problem of Chicago. This will be cºn. sidered more in detail later. When Mr. Chesbrough was appointed Chief Engineer of the ~ 22. 2^2 > …’ 22° 2^_ ~ 2 22 2 -2.2%. 2. Zºzºz 22222222222. F | LLING f D D, i r Lº NNNNNNVVV * WWWWWWWWWVA TYPCAL CHICAGo-sewer N LOW. GROUND Fig. 2.-Typical Chicago Sewer. Sewerage Commission he set to work to obtain all information Possible. For this purpose he obtained many documents and reports from other cities, especially from England. At that time there was a commission at work in London planning a modern System of sewers that was intended to replace some of the archaic sewers of that city and to unite them into a harmonious whole. The engineers in charge of that work were able men, and many of the conditions there were similar to those of Chi- cago. It was fortunate for us that Mr. Chesbrough appreciated the wisdom of those men and applied some of their theories and methods to the problem here, and was not influenced by more Vol. XVI. No. 7 -}/zerº-z-*"*^*)^*） scALE | N M LES $ * 4 *-EG NAARCH, S I C. }_. t TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF CHICAGO AND VICINITY eoundary of Sanitary District — — — — Boundary of Cook County — — — — — — C on hour Line ---------------------- wał er 5hed L E. G E N D * * * * - - - - - - ~~~ cº • • „~~~~ ** = *** - - - **** - - - - - --> &se \ / , º .*** º,4,&aco Rºve” - （~） … ~~~~• • „ - * | | | | | * • • , 3º – vers_ºrºsºs： , �«A №s T T } ！ 1 } sººn Jłº_ _ y A RY sº A N ---;; TO ES T O L L • A • • • • • • • I � ü # * £ ● = ; * * } ） J ）) � VNV VICINË }y ſovëſ ſëį · SIONIȚII *� •k.}}* ， NOWWW.H.’ 'M};; ~1， • • • • • • •* → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → + |||: *- ----� �b ！* ... ;; ·}|－| - - - ~~~）; * ~*~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (- ~~~~ ~ ~ 4 ~~\~ ~~~~}« »--------- L ----- *·!،1）;}į● - - - - - *！：±!}ae ! •ºs, ; ; ;ſ-º|| . | ą!, º|!CÔ!|-:! » I• .�}s!•Qço�|} �• !!*-------:-)----+-- • • • • • }|－* • • • • • |－# -*№gº0 ●¡ ; - - - - - -;-----Ķ|－.*į ،»→●†| ！u|�●● ●• *ſº ſ';|ſe * ,į - - - - - - -ě - + - - - - # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?r – † - ~ º … !º --#* , º s• ;}!I+ : ~;~ -- ---------- --&----●|�!tº i • • • • ;• • •Nťuș!! q |• • ſ, !į}! ș !æ:? !.. ' •·<！--（ſ）-->· u● ！»**<- .* * • • • : · ·. « ~~~~. :） ~ ~}- - - - - - ~~-●� * | 3_I\/LS • ! •· · · · · ·- & • ; • • . º. • . . . ?, ~ſ NN • !.- - - - - • • •• • • •�----- !} • • • ●• • ; • * *！|&-w- : * · * *z;-; -º- （-), ; , - - ----+- - - - - .. # * • *;-------• V!*… • ! * ... 03.ļsīvH; i ſ-y" º: ſſ W\ºv, ; .£• º į×** b; •}& & .|}|！|·ºs ; /· >> | .+5 «→* ç ----● �！• • • ’ ”ſz. ;•!«?• ; * ,Cá|------- ; • •, \!» :| &!�!« *|- }|0！*ſąį§*;№ º---1-å |± ------- & !-->{●■-+●; ： ;į!*i } -------|---- --#-------+-------!1.À.–ſ§. - -----|- - - - - - - || ~ ~ ~ ~: •}）± ą·4|،>�■|* -}{●; ſå st ||||）;|!|>}!!`s,|}}I ķ-· %…ș·s Ř ● *| \ \, ,!!§}:};“ę-----+------|-------|----- -*-! 4-4 /2 ;i_ \,●●}}';|--------!|--->||' «» , •}}----- ----！+-------------+------+------------! |!3^\/ ;; ： , 8tz}）;;}}!}،}`s,}|| �！}| ;u!|#:●~ !č* |}* ,!|-« } }}į!}（~.|）|}||}| `-------|-------|----- « * ►&qt|t.;įș،ſw|-ł w!{ - - - - - --,- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---+---------rº* - - - - - - - № •*å-!į ||}!;±●}！●�|-?†*<● I||0|-●!8*||ae|! `s ） ;» tw●•·●|－●*º |！!|ſ.●}|�; .Iș|!:}v {| ！«}■--★ → → → → • • • • • • • • }|}|#|-*|}// $' ;}į}}|; ><; }{+¡– – + – – – – – – + – – – – –;- - - - - - - ?）/- -*- - - ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\ ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --+-- - - - - - - --^J！ b|:|»}ü●|-}?}!�*| ș|{●|:}� ●;`… ; }0w |－}- &||Y|!0*&*------ ſ---:&|į|*&!||{�, ！ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ – + – – – – – – + - - - - - - ~,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, -«-» ， * • •!-- - - - - - --★ → • •- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* * * * = • • •=~~~ --> �#|ș;§|;:|ſ Tº, *d* ;|}}:||; “J ¡& ·!I- •ș ! l t t --- l ---------h. • ： ●u • - - - - - - - - - - - • • • •, * - - - - - - - -*- - - - • • • • 4- ●- :Cºr � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - & c. - - - - - - - - - - ¡ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - $ y |--?;||}}}* * · •！）į}{<º.ș ●||{*|}OłC);� T| ------ ---;-+-------+------+----- Nº-：----+|;------+H+---+-------|-------+------|------<---*-+------#------+----ĒĢ---+------- }? |- ! |; ;||||} | }$（'zzº. T z’ .* ...’”. 2’. … 2. '_4 sº º 7 7）^^<> Aºjr -F SHO W J N G =- F D L K S T. S E W E R ! ¡ ¿ \ Nº\ ț¢ （\ “_Z „S” AVA^1）^^;^ （^/. /Sº\, ， r \ ） \ : * \º, Ņ\� | | \ – – F F O FD I L ED ~2% º 2-y ºr ~~~ . . . . . .2 .*.*, 2/4， // Z. 3//_º^ z - ºr---> → ~ :r 22° 22 ° 22′. ~ 2% º ’N ‘‘‘. - ~~ ~ > .2% a' .. 2. ~~~~ Ž 2. <> 2. «*^ ~^^ ^<>^ O £2 ºx///> - o. 54 • A2/6, Arze v. -> < c, Jr. Z e / o Fig. 8–Sewer Clogged with Sediment. September, 1911 55S Appendia—The Sewerage System of Chicago. These sewers are 3 ft. in diameter at the outlets where they empty into the South Branch of the Chicago River, and are 2 ft. in diameter at the summits, which are located between State street and Wabash avenue. From the summits these sewers slope to the east to a main sewer in Michigan avenue which is 4 ft. in diameter at the outlet at the main river, and 2% ft. in diameter at the Summit near Congress street, and thence sloping south to the intercepting sewer at Twelfth street. There are brick sewers 2 ft. in diameter in the north and south streets extending from Randolph street north to the main river. South of Randolph street in the north and south streets, there are tile pipe sewers 12 in. in diameter that empty into the brick sewers in the east and west streets, having a summit in the middle of each block. Insufficient Sige of Sewers.-The sewers in this district were designed and built 50 years ago on a liberal scale to provide for the storm-water run-off that was to be expected, and proved sufficient for the conditions of the following 25 years. During that period there were no sky-scraper buildings, , the pavements of the streets were not impervious, there were considerable areas of private land not roofed or paved, and there was no serious difficulty in draining the streets and the buildings. The conditions of today, with large buildings, impervious pavements, and private property, nearly all covered with either roofs or paved areas, require a capacity much larger than these sewers possess. With the conditions that we will have ultimately, the sewers should have a capacity of about five times the capacity of the present sewers. During recent years, many complaints from owners of buildings as to lack of drainage have made apparent the inadequacy of the entire System of sewers in this district. These complaints are increasing as the years go by, and the conditions that cause them are growing. It is not remarkable that sewers that were designed and built 50 years ago are no longer ade- quate to care for this district, which has been completely built up and is now being rebuilt with enormous modern buildings. Sewers Not Self-Cleansing.—The surface of the Streets in this portion of the city was originally 6 or 8 ft. below the present grade of the Streets. The sewers necessarily were built shallow and with flat grades, and for this reason the current is sluggish and sedimentation occurs in all of them, it not being possible for them to be self-cleansing. At the present time these sewers are nearly half full of mud and water, even in dry weather. This is due partly to the fact that it is impossible to keep them clean, and partly to the fact that such a vast amount of water is used in the buildings in the district. - Obstructions in Sewers.-In several places these sewers are obstructed by pipes passing through them. . It is probable that these pipes, were laid in the early days when the surface of the street was so low that it was not practicable to lay water mains over the sewers. The pipes are obstruct- tions to the flow of the sewage, and in many cases cause very considerable deposits, and they prevent the proper cleaning of the sewers. Cleaning of Sewers Difficult.—As has been stated, these sewers are not self-cleaning, and the work of cleaning them becomes more and more difficult. This difficulty is due partly to the fact, that they are generally submerged, particularly the small pipe sewers, so that it is difficult for the men to pass rods and chains through the sewers. The vast amount. of traffic on the streets, particularly the street car traffic, makes it impossible to place derricks over the manholes and to Scrape the sewers in the usual manner, except by having the men work after midnight and before five o'clock in the morning. This night work is not only very expensive, but it is not as effective as it would be if it were under the supervision that could be given day work. In this district, more than elsewhere, it is important that the sewers be self-cleaning. Gººse in Sewers—There are a great many restaurants and hotel Vol. XVI. No. 7 Appendia—The Sewerage System of Chicago. 559 kitchens in this district, and sufficient precaution is not taken to prevent the grease from these kitchens passing into the sewers. In fact, an examination of most of the tile pipe sewers shows a large accumulation of grease. This grease in the sewers which adheres to the sides of the sewers and to the sides of the manholes, very materially prevents the flow. In many cases of complaints from buildings, the trouble is due primarily to this accumulation of grease in the main sewer and in the private drain from the building. Damage Caused by Large Buildings.-The construction of the modern large buildings, and particularly the construction of curb walls extending to a depth of over 30 ft. below the surface, has caused settlement of the sewers. A recent case of this sort is the sewer in Eldridge court west of Michigan avenue, which has apparently collapsed, this being caused by settlement due to the construction of the Karpen building. Naturally the settlement of the sewer, even though it may not collapse, will cause sedi- mentation to take place, thereby obstructing the flow. Drains for Buildings.--All of the modern buildings have deep basements, and power pumps are installed that force the sewage from the buildings into the main sewers under pressure. Such buildings have very little trouble; but the water that is forced into the sewers from them is forced back through the drains into the basements of buildings of the old type, particu- larly when it rains, at which times the sewers are insufficient in size to carry off the water. This forcing of the water back through the drains has the effect of forcing the silt from the main sewers into the drains, thereby further damaging the drainage from these old buildings. The connections from the buildings to the main sewer are frequently laid too low and at too flat a grade, so that these pipes are often submerged, and in consequence the flow through them is very sluggish, they become filled with sediment, and are completely obstructed. - Maintenance of Catchbasins Difficult.—All of the streets in this district are filled from curb to curb with various pipes and conduits. Some of these conduits are laid along the sides of the streets where catchbasins are built, and in some cases interfere very seriously with the effectiveness of the catchbasins, and particularly with the connections from the catchbasins to the main sewer. It is almost impossible to clean some of these basins. and in others the connecting pipes have been placed below the conduits and are so low that a comparatively small amount of dirt swept into the basins will completely fill the mouths of the outlet pipes. When streets are paved, it is almost impossible to find room to build the necessary additional catch- basins. Recently the construction of the new curves connecting the street- railway tracks has made it necessary to remove the catchbasins at the curb corners, and it has been difficult to build the new basins necessary. In Some cases connecting pipes from the street inlets to the adjacent catchbasins are laid over conduits, and they are so shallow and are laid at so flat a grade that they soon fill up with the detritus washed from the pave- ment. Suin mary of Conditions.—It has been shown that these sewers are of in- Sufficient size; that they have been badly damaged by the construction of buildings and other structures; that they are not self-cleaning, and that it is practically impossible to keep them clean. Prescnt Sewer System Should Be Cond cºunct.—The more this problem is studied, the less possible it seems that we will be able to use any of the present sewers. A system of relief sewers, giving additional outlets to the main Sewers, will not be sufficient, for the reason that the greatest trouble is from the small lateral sewers. The entire sewer system should be con- demned and replaced with an entirely new system that will be completely up-to-date and take care of all possible future developments of the district. Reconstruction Necessary.—The reconstruction of these sewers should have been commenced years ago, but it was impossible to make any intelli- gent plan for a new system of sewers that could be used in connection with September, 1911 560 .1/pcndia—The Scwcrage System of Chicago. tºº. the proposed subways for transportation and other uses. The cost of such a System of sewers would be so great that it would be manifestly absurd to build them with the idea that they would be torn out when the sub- Ways were constructed. It was impossible to prepare any definite plans for such sewers until definite plans had been adopted for the construction of subways. These subway plans have now been prepared, and it is the pur- pose of this report to suggest how the sewerage problem can be solved in connection with the construction of these subways. , Essential Features of New Design.—The new sewers should be de- signed in accordance with certain fundamental principles: 1. There should be a complete separation of storm-water from the Sewage, necessitating the construction of separate systems of sewers. 2. All Storm-water drains, without exception, should flow by gravity to the river and should be free from inverted syphons. No storm-water should be pumped. 3. All Storm drains should have ample capacity to carry off promptly all rain from roofs and pavements. 4. Inlets from Streets to sewers should be so arranged as to permit the flushing of pavements. It may be necessary to omit catchbasins on account of the construction of subways. 5. At necessary points arrangements should be made for connections with water mains for the purpose of flushing the storm drains. 6. Large sedimentation basins should be constructed along the line of the storm drains near the outlets to prevent the discharge of detritus into the river. 7. All Sanitary sewers should, so far as is practicable, flow by gravity to the river with a minimum amount of pumping and a minimum number of inverted syphons. 8. All sanitary sewers should be so designed as to be self-cleansing. 9. All sanitary sewers should be discharged into the South Branch of the Chicago River. 10. If possible, arrangements should be made that will prevent the discharge of sludge from the sanitary sewers into the river. 11. The sewer pipes of all adjacent buildings should be so arranged that all rain-water will be discharged into the storm drains, and all other sewage and waste water will be discharged into the sanitary Sewers. 12. It may be necessary to require the owners of buildings to lift the sewage from basements so that it will discharge into sanitary Sewers laid at an elevation higher than that of the basements. All sewage from that part of the building at or above the street level should discharge into the sanitary sewers. 13. All sewage and drainage from the subways should be lifted and dis- charged into the sanitary sewers. Importance of Problem.—The most important problem in the designing of the new sewer system is the determination of the amount of water that will be delivered to the sewers. With the streets paved in a modern fashion, with shallow gutters, there is little storage room for storm-water on the surface of the streets. If the sewers are not of sufficient size to take the rain as fast as it falls on the pavements and on the roofs, the water will accumulate on the pavements and will overflow into the entrances of the subways; at the same time, the sewers being full, it will be impossible to drain the basements of the adjacent buildings, and a flooding of the sub- ways and the buildings will result. - Determination of 4 mount of Sewage.—The determination of the amount of sewage to be discharged from the buildings is comparatively easy, as it will equal in amount the water supplied to the buildings. Elaborate esti- mates have been made of the amount of water that will probably be con- sumed in this district when it is completely rebuilt with modern buildings, and water mains of the size necessary to supply this water will be installed. Vol. XVI. No. 7 Appendi.r—The Scºverage System of Chicago. 561 Sanitary sewers that will take this water from the buildings should have as great a capacity. The volume of sewage from the buildings will be con- stant day after day, and will not vary much during the hours of the day. Determination of A mount of Storin-Il atcr.—To determine the neces- sary size of the storm drains to carry off the rainfall is more difficult. Or- dinarily in designing sewers provision is not made for taking care of all of the rainfall in times of storms of exceptional severity; that is, it is not considered bad practice to design a sewer that will prove insufficient in size two or three times in a period of ten years. Because of the great damage that would be done by the flooding of the subways, the storm-water drains should be of sufficient size to take all of the water that could be reasonably expected, judging from the experience of the past. In designing sewers in Chicago, particularly in the outlying districts, it has been customary to assume that only a small portion of the rainfall will enter the sewers during the time of the rainfall; that is, we assume that the larger portion of the rain will be held back on the surface of the ground, and will enter the sewer slowly, and that a considerable portion will not enter the sewer at all. In designing the new storm drains for this central district, we must assume that all of the rain will enter the drains as rapidly as it can flow from the various parts of the roofs and pavements to the nearest inlets, and that the volume of the flow through the sewers during any period of time will equal the vol- ume of rain during the same period of time. Sewers designed on this prin- ciple will have a much greater capacity per acre of land drained than any sewers heretofore built in the City of Chicago. Separate Systems Nccessary.—The volume of the maximum rainfall will greatly exceed the maximum volume of sewage from the buildings. If com- bined sewers are built that will receive and carry the sewage from the buildings, as well as the storm-water, the sewers will be so large that in dry weather the stream of sewage will be comparatively small, and will be sluggish, so that it will be impossible for these to be self-cleansing. If, in addition to this, street sweepings are washed into the sewer the sedimenta- tion will be increased, and the sewer will become very foul and offensive. A majority of authorities on sewerage advocate a separate system of sewers under all conditions. In this district it is particularly necessary, for the reasons indicated above, that the separate system be established. Flushing of Drains.—The flushing of pavements is advocated by many authorities on street cleaning. It is usually opposed by officials who have charge of sewer cleaning, but the opposition is seldom effective, for the reason that the public is more desirous of having clean pavements than clean sewers. The flushing of the pavements of this district appears to be inevitable, and it is advisable that such provision be made as will permit this with the least possible harm to the sewerage system. It will be im– practicable to construct catchbasins that will prevent the washing of detritus from the pavements into the storm-drain. During dry weather this detritus will lodge in the drains, and the water from the flushing of the pavements will not have sufficient force to carry it along. If this sediment is not mixed with sewage from the buildings, it will not be particularly offensive, and no harm will result, provided the sediment is flushed out of the drains in times of rain. For fear of the smaller storm drains being obstructed, it is advisable that pipes be laid connecting the water mains with the upper ends of the drains, provided with the necessary valves so that it will be pos- sible to flush them. Drains Frc c from I nº crtcol Syphons or Pumps.-Because of the large amount of sediment that will be washed into the storm drains, it is absolutely necessary that they should be laid on proper gradients, and that they should be entirely free from inverted syphons. An attempt to pass such a storm drain beneath the subway by means of an inverted syphon would certainly result in the syphon becoming absolutely obstructed with sediment. The construction of a system of storm drains laid at a level lower than that of September, 1011 562 Appendir—The Scºverage System of Chicago. the river, thereby requiring the use of pumps, would be very unwise, for the reason that it would be necessary to install machinery of so great, a capacity, that all of it would not be used except once or twice in a period of years, and at the same time it would be necessary to maintain all of this machinery ready for instant use. The installation and operation of such machinery would be very expensive, and as a matter of fact, there need be no difficulty in installing gravity storm-drains in connection with a well designed system of subways. Sedimentation Basins.—This general arrangement will result in a large amount of sediment being washed into and through the storm drains and discharged into the river. In view of the growing opposition of the Federal Government to such practices, it is advisable that the storm drains be ar- ranged to discharge through large sedimentation basins, which should be located near the outlets. Apparatus could be installed that would remove the sediment from the basins much more economically than it is now possible to clean the ordinary catchbasin in the streets. Inverted Syphons and Pumps in Sewerage System.–In the case of the sanitary sewers it is permissible to use inverted syphons and pumps if the conditions absolutely require them. The flow through the sanitary sewers is fairly constant at all times, and there is very little danger of sedimentation in the inverted Syphons. However, it is advisable to avoid anything of the sort. The particular objection to the pumping of sewage is the cost of opera- tion. If all of the sewage were carried through low-level sewers and were lifted by pumps it would be necessary to pump all of the water that would be delivered to all of the buildings in this district. The greater portion of this water is discharged from the upper stories of the buildings, and it should not be difficult to arrange the sewerage system so that all water discharged from the upper stories of the buildings would be carried by gravity to the river. The Sewage from the ordinary basements of buildings located near the river could be discharged in the same manner, but it would not be pos- Sible to take the sewage from basements at a considerable distance from the river without pumping. No Sewage Discharged In to Main River.—It is very important that no sewage be discharged into the main river, but that the sewers be so built that the sewage will be discharged into the south branch. While it is true that there is a flow in the main river from the lake, it is also true that a momen- tary fluctuation in the level of the lake will sometimes cause a correspond- ing reversal of flow in the main river, and a large flood in the valley of the north branch may cause the normal flow in the main river to be reversed for several hours, and any sewage in the river, or any sludge in the bottom of the river, might be washed into the lake. It is hardly conceivable, how- ever, that any flood would be so great as to reverse the flow in the south branch of the river, and it is therefore apparent that the discharge of the sewage into the south branch is much preferable to its discharge into the main river. Anticipate Future Purification of Scºvage.—In the designing and the building of these sewers it is advisable to anticipate the future construction of an intercepting sewer that will convey all of the sewage of this district to some convenient place for purification, as the population of the City of Chi- cago will undoubtedly increase to such an extent that the mere dilution of its sewage will not be sufficient. It will be necessary to install apparatus that will purify, at least partially, the sewage before it is discharged into the Sanitary District channel. Sludge Tanks.--It is possible that some apparatus might be installed at the outlet of each sewer that would to some extent purify the sewage and thereby decrease the pollution of the river. It is quite probable that Some form of a sludge tank could be installed that would materially decrease the amount of sludge that is now being discharged directly into the river. It is a fact that a vast amount of sludge has accumulated in the river and in the Vol. XVI. No. 7 Appendia—The Sewerage System of Chicago. 563 main channel of the Sanitary District, and the Federal Government is taking notice of this accumulation. This sludge problem is one of the most serious problems that is con- fronting Chicago today, and, in the designing of these sewers, it should re- ceive very careful attention. Separation of Roof Water from Sewage of Buildings.--It will be neces- sary to require the owners of buildings to rearrange the Sewer pipes of all buildings so that all rainwater will be discharged into the Storm drains, and all other sewage and waste water be discharged into the Sanitary sewers. The neglect of this rule would result in the Overloading of the sanitary sew- ers during time of rainfall, or else in the discharge of sewage into the storm drains, where it would lie stagnant and putrefy. Sewage from Basements to Be Pumped.—The sewage from all portions of the buildings above the elevation of the Sanitary Sewers would discharge directly by gravity into the sewers. The Sewage from the basements that are below the level of the sewers would have to be lifted by pumps. This is now being done by the owners of modern buildings, and it would not be a hard- ship to require it in all cases. There may be difficulty in working out the details of this requirement, but it should be no more difficult than the adjust- ment of other questions involved in the construction of the subways in front of the buildings. Report of Mr. Arnold.—If a complete system of Subways is built in accordance with the general plans and recommendations contained in the re- port of Mr. Bion J. Arnold, dated January 31, 1911, it will not be difficult to arrange the system of drainage and Sewerage to conform to the foregoing requirements. Sewers on Each Side of Street.—The lack of space between the pave- ment and the tops of the cars in the high-level subways will prevent the crossing of these subways with drains and sewers except where these sub- ways are depressed. It follows that it will be necessary to lay a drain and a sewer on each side of such subways. In general the direction of the prin- cipal sewers and drains will be parallel to such high-level subways. The sewers and drains in cross streets where there are low-level subways will necessarily be limited in length by the intersecting high-level subways. In such streets it will be possible to obtain the necessary service with one sewer and one drain, but it is preferable to adhere to the general plan of pro- viding one sewer and one drain on each side of the street near the buildings, leaving the space in the centre of the street over the low-level subway for other utilities. Space for Sewers and Drains.—Where the high-level subways contain but two tracks, there will be ample space beneath the sidewalk for both sewer and drain, as well as for other utilities. Where there are four tracks, the requirement of entrances to the stations between the tracks necessitates the placing of one track beneath the sidewalk, leaving a narrow space for the sewer and drain and a very limited space for other utilities. It will be necessary, therefore, to lay the principal lines of such utilities in other streets, which can be done without any difficulty. Objection may be raised to the narrow roadway shown in the typical cross-section of a four-track subway (Plate No. 13), and a remedy may be suggested by narrowing the sidewalk and placing the car nearer the building line. This must not be done if it results in eliminating the necessary space for the sewer and drain. *. Where the drain serves a small area (one or two blocks) but little space is required for it, but where it serves a large area it may be several feet in diameter. In general it is advisable that the main drains be laid in streets other than those containing four-track subways, and this can be done with possibly one or two exceptions. Materials of Construction.—In streets where high-level subways are built, it will be necessary either to incorporate the storm drains in the roof September, 1911 564 Appen dir—The Scwerage System of Chicago. of the subway (particularly near the summits of the sewers), or to suspend the drains along the side walls inside of the subways. The sewers will be Suspended in a similar manner at an elevation somewhat lower than that of the drains. For this form of construction iron or steel pipes are apparently the most suitable material, provided the sizes are kept within reasonable limits. Where the storm drain serves as an outlet for a considerable area, the necessary size of the drain will require some other material, and for this purpose reinforced concrete is suitable. The concrete drain will be incor- porated in the structure of the subway and should be inside the outer walls. As the Subways approach the river and are correspondingly depressed, the drains and sewers will emerge through the roof and will continue to the outlets as independent structures. Progressive Construction.—The construction of the subway system by progressive stages, extending over a number of years, would not only pro- long the present intolerable condition of inadequate sewerage in many of the streets, but would make it very difficult to maintain some of the sewers in as good condition as they are now. If it is possible to finance the project, a definite determination should be made as to the extent of the subways, and the work, especially in this district, should be pushed to completion with as little delay as possible. In laying out the progressive steps of the work, some consideration should be given to the requirements of the sewerage system. Some of the first subways would lead to crossings of the river, and would naturally afford outlets for new drains. A subway along State Street, being near the summits, could be temporarily connected with the existing sewers without causing any trouble. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to care for the sewers cut off by a high-level subway in La Salle Street, if such subways were built in advance of the construction of the necessary sewers in the streets east of La Salle Street. In all streets where Subways are not to be built, sewers and drains should be constructed as Soon as out- lets can be provided for them. Cost of New Sewer System.—It is impossible to estimate the cost of the new system of sewers and drains in advance of the preparation of definite plans. It is probable that the cost will be between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. Special Assessment.—If the new system of sewers could be built inde- pendently of the subways, the entire cost should be assessed on the property benefited. Any portion of the system which forms a part of the Subways could not be considered a local improvement unless the whole Subway System were so considered. It is possible that an assessment might be confirmed to pay for the cost of some of the sewers built in streets where subways are not built, but it is very doubtful, since these sewers are necessitated by the construction of the subway system. It is almost certain that the courts would not consider the subways or any portion of the system as a local improve- ment. Cost of Sewers Included in Cost of Subways-Whatever arrangements are made for the financing of the subways, ample provision must be made for the reconstruction of the entire system of sewers in the district under consideration. The fact that a small portion of the existing sewers may not be disturbed by subway construction is not a sufficient reason for leaving them as they are. The entire cost of the complete reconstruction of the sewer system of this district should be included in the cost of the subway system. Respectfully submitted, - - C. D. HILL, Superintendent Bureau of Sewers. Vol. XVI. No. 7 THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD >{< LANGDON PEARSE, M. W. S. E.” Presented January 30, 1911. Recently, while investigating the disposal of sewage in Europe and England, I found several interesting and curious facts concerning the sewerage of London. Prior to 1815 it was a penal offense to discharge domestic sewage into the Sewers. Cesspools were used until, in 1847, a regulation was passed mak- ing compulsory the discharge of all house drainage into the sewers. In less than six years over 30,000 cesspools were abolished. By 1849 the volume of sewage became so great that the self-purification of the River Thames was absolutely inad- equate. The question of sewage disposal was agitated until, in 1856, the present scheme of intercepting sewers was begun and the extension and improvement of the system has been carried on ever since. I mention this since it is of interest to know that at the very time when the sewage-disposal problem was first faced so markedly by the city of London, Mr. Chesbrough was making a trip abroad in order to learn what he could of ad- vantage in planning a sewerage system for the Chicago of his day and providing for the future. At that time Chicago was a small town and London was the largest city of the world. Now the proportion is about four to one, as London has from eight to nine million inhabitants and Chicago about two and a quarter million. In population Chicago is running a good race and also encounters the same difficulties with sewage disposal. This evening I want to give you a brief sketch of the status of the sewage-disposal problem from the viewpoint of a specialist, and to show you the general trend of thought in this country and abroad concerning the best methods of handling the question. In the first place, we may look at the matter either in the light of preventing pollution of a water Supply, or of the abatement of a nuisance. Those are the two issues to consider. Usually, where the water-supply problem does not enter into the question, there is the matter of nuisance,—particularly in Germany, where many water supplies are filtered, or taken from ground water at a distance from the river. The general trend abroad is that the effluent to be discharged into a stream shall be no worse than the general character of the stream itself. This is also in accord- ance with Some recent judicial decisions in England, particularly in connection with the Birmingham sewage-disposal works. Such a criterion, of course, allows leeway, in that more or less pollution may enter the stream, but it does not prevent nuisance altogether. The Continental idea is to use the self-purification *--> *Assistant Engineer, in Charge of Sewage Disposal Investigations, The Sanitary District of Chicago. September, 1911 566 Pearse-Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. power of a stream as far as possible whenever sufficient dilution is available, while in the eastern states of the United States we are gradually outgrowing the idea that all sewage must be highly purified, and we are looking towards effecting a sufficient degree of purification for the purpose in hand and making use of any reasonable dilution wherever a water supply is not directly con- cerned. . With a lightly polluted source of water supply, the purification of the water by filtration or other adequate means for bacterial removal is usually cheaper and safer than to purify the sewage to a high degree, even if the dilution be very great. The purification of the water supply also affords protection, not only against continued sewage pollution, but also any chance pollution, as from shipping. The first and most immediate solution of the problem con- fronting large cities was dilution. In the case of the large cities located on or near the Seacoast, the sewage could readily be dis- charged into a river, a tidal estuary, or the ocean, where there was dilution and sufficient dissolved oxygen in the water to carry on the so-called Self-purification,--that is, oxidation of the or- ganic matter. Sewage has often been discharged into drinking- water supplies on the same basis without ill effect so long as the pollution was slight and the distance relatively great between the source of pollution and the waterworks intake. But, with the rapid growth of population, the amount of Sewage increased and the water supply became So badly polluted as to be danger- ous to health. In other cases the dilution was not sufficient to oxidize the putrescible matter, and nuisances developed. I shall now discuss the matter from the sewage disposal standpoint with the intent of preventing nuisance, assuming that the sewage is removed entirely from a water supply. This has been the case in most of the larger schemes in this country and abroad. The first development was in chemical precipitation by the addition of coagulants. This process, I think, was being tried in England even as early as 1850, about the time when Mr. Chesbrough was making his trip. Later, methods of sedimenta- tion were taken up, and in the course of time the septic tank developed, in which the sludge was allowed to accumulate in contact with the incoming liquid. In a few years, experience and study showed the difficulties of the septic tank, and the so- called Travis or Hampton tank was invented,—a double-deck type in which the sludge is deposited into a lower chamber from the liquid flowing up above, and a certain portion of the incom- ing fluid is diverted through this sludge chamber to wash away the products of decomposition. So-called colloidors, or slats, are hung in the settling portion of the tank to increase the set- tling effect. Today, the trend seems to be away from the septic tank and the Hampton tank towards the so-called Emscher tank, devised by Dr. Imhoff for the Emscher Sewerage District in Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 567 Germany (Fig. 1). In this tank there are two decks or compart- ments. In the upper one the suspended matter settles, the sludge dropping through a slot into the lower, or sludge-diges– Af7%/e/77 &/7”/~ - F - ////e77 &/er | R t N Q * / * N º ST------K– A/?%e/ 2 * %2, Zºe-S-His -Sl__ _{!.… ze sº sº * A ////ez? § # , , (/e/7 § gº-rº º § § rº L//ae/ J". -- - - N º * § § Azee § § º N N— — — — * N N ‘Y N § N N 4–––5 N — — — —N N t N N ** — — —N N s N N * N § § § § N N N SN N N N N § * N N * N N N N N N N N § N S N N * N N So N N N N N N N N N § § N N , N N S N N N N § § § § § § N § N § §––– § § § S N N § N N N S. N N Q 4%az/7/27 7% § ©iº %.; § § *::: 6;IITITTIN § 3º4:ll lººs---Y---Y- §3%Z&Z@D.3% SlR Nº N NTTN N N SERS Žl ºl Exi E2, Ex Ex Ex. 2: * * Ui- f J7 A/ºry of A/oe Sectional Elevation The Sanitary District of Chicago Sewage Disposal Investigations Emscher Tank Fig. 1. The Emscher Tank. tion chamber, where decomposition can progress without in any way polluting the incoming liquid. This has the advantage of providing a very fresh effluent, and is a direct improvement September, 1911 568 Pearsc—Scºvage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. over the old-fashioned septic tank, where for one or two months a year more suspended matter may be discharged than arrives in the influent. An effluent of that character may easily require more dilution than the crude sewage itself. Such is the general trend of the preparatory end of the problem, namely, the removal of the suspended matter from the Sewage. The next, and probably the most pressing question today, is how to handle the sludge. The fact is now generally accepted that, while a certain portion of the deposit in a septic tank may liquefy, there is bound to be an accumulation of Sludge, and a definite amount must be removed yearly, just as in any sedimentation process. This sludge must be disposed of no matter what process is used. It is akin to the old law of the conservation of matter. The accumulation of sludge will not dis- appear in any magic fashion, but must go somewhere, if it does not remain in the tank. Our experience is that it will be dis- charged by the tank at the time of the year when it is least desired, in the warm months of the summer. I believe that the present problem is more nearly solved by the use of the Emscher tank, by its depth of 30 to 40 ft., because it produces a very compact sludge which contains a number of gas bubbles under pressure, which will expand when the sludge is run out on a drying bed, allowing the sludge to drain more quickly. This statement, however, has not been verified by us at the ex- perimental testing station of the Sanitary District. Our tank was built in June, 1910, and as yet, we have not removed any sludge. We do, however, know from experiments in this country that the idea is correct, and we have also the German experience to guide us. You will realize how large the quantity of sludge is when I tell you that in the various cities of this country and abroad, there is retained in the settling or septic tanks from 1% to 8 cu. yds. per million gallons. Sludge has an average water content of from 80 to 95%. In planning for a city located like Chicago, the question of sludge disposal cannot be passed over casually. It is a real, live issue, since the sludge should not be put into the lake, and cannot be put into the canal. Some method of land disposal therefore must be figured on. If the sludge be dried on sand-beds, septic or sedimentation sludge requires about 30 days to be spadeable, whereas it is claimed for the Emscher tank sludge that from 3 to 7 days are sufficient. The resulting air-dried sludge can be used for filling or even burned, with the addition of a small amount of fuel. Probably by the use of tank boats the sludge could be carried down the canal to waste land, and there treated or disposed of. In taking up the sewage disposal proposition from the standpoint of increasing the dilution capacity of the Drainage Canal, no matter what preliminary steps are adopted,—for in- Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 569 stance, screening or sedimentation,-the effluent of the process is always going to be putrescible; in other words, will not be stable and does not contain enough dissolved oxygen to carry on its own purification. While such a method is successful where sufficient water is available for dilution (as is the case with the Drainage Canal for the present), it would not be ap- plicable everywhere. If partially purified sewage is to be dis- charged into a watercourse where there is very little flow, or perhaps none at all, it is not sufficient to settle part of the sus- pended matter. Further means of removing the putrescible mat. ter and making the liquid more stable must be adopted. Several processes have been evolved in the past, such as in- termittent sand filters, then contact beds, and of late years, the sprinkling filter, which today is generally recognized as being One of the best means available for the purpose, although it has its limitations; in fact, all devices in sewage disposal have their limitations, but today the sprinkling filter is the most efficient way of turning the putrescible effluent of the tank into a stable liquid by sprinkling the liquid over beds of crushed stone and allowing nitrification to go on under favorable conditions. But no one now claims that such a filter is all-sufficient for removing bacteria. Perhaps 80% may be removed with a sprinkling filter Operating under average conditions. Sometimes we have re- moved as high as 99% ; ; ºut with a count of a million, even if 99% are removed, there are still 10,000 bacteria left in a cubic centimeter, and with the 10,000 largely composed of bacteria of uncertain character, the effluent is not safe for drinking purposes. At the testing Station, one adventurous spirit drank some of the effluent of a sprinkling filter without any ill effect thereof, but Such a procedure is not recommended. However, when bacterial removal is required, the effluent can be treated by disinfecting it with chloride of lime, which readily and cheaply removes all the bacteria. This is a modern finishing process and has been adopted in some of the plants of this country, particularly Bal- timore, where an effluent thoroughly free from bacteria was de- sired to protect the shellfish industry below the outlet of the Sewage disposal works. Now, you may inquire what led the Sanitary District to consider the matter of sewage disposal by methods other than dilution. You have seen very vividly, in the case of Chicago, how any arrangement for the sewage disposal of a city, and, I might add, for the water supply of a city, is quickly outgrown under the conditions of rapid expansion which exist in the United States today. We have figured, in accordance with the charter of the Sanitary District, that if the Government only permits us to take 10,000 cu. ft. per sec. from the lake, when we reach a population of three million, we shall have exhausted the capacity of our canal for self-purification. In other words, the September, 1911 570 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. canal will not be able to effect the purification necessary to pre- vent nuisance. Therefore when that time comes, in 1920 or earlier, further steps must be taken to increase the capacity of the canal. This means that enough of the putrescible matter must be removed from the sewage so that it can still be dis- charged into the channel and find enough oxygen in the water to oxidize the organic matter. The first step probably will be to Screen the Sewage to remove the suspended matter that is Offensive to the sight. While this may remove 15% or 20% of the suspended matter, it will not help the putrescibility of the liquid very greatly. The next step would be the installation of Settling basins at suitable points and then finally, whenever we have to go so far, sprinkling filters might be installed in certain districts of the city. That, however, is a rather remote con- tingency at the present time. We are making a thorough study of these matters at the sewage-testing station, so I do not propose to discuss them tonight. At a later date I hope to give you a talk which will take up the entire scheme of our work, whereas this evening I am only going to take up the subject of sewage disposal in a general way. There is one question which is very often asked me, even by engineers, and that is, why is it necessary to study the sewage of a city in such detail, and is not all sewage alike? People fail to realize that there is a vast difference in sewage, not only between cities, but between cities in this country and abroad. That difference comes partly from the habits of the people, in part from the amount of water that is used, the great variation in the amount of water, and then from the makeup of the sewer- age system itself. To illustrate the difference in the composition of sewages in this country and abroad, I have prepared two tables. One of them (Table I) is compiled from various published results, and the other (Table II) is taken from a report made by George A. Johnson on the Sewage Disposal of Columbus, Ohio. In Table I typical analyses are shown from the cities in the United States, selected more particularly because testing Stations or plants have been built and operated at each, and also with a view to illustrating the wide difference in the sewage. From the chem- ical analyses in parts per million, the range in the constituents is shown. Boston, for instance, is a city largely of domestic tastes, without much heavy manufacturing; Waterbury has a good deal of metal industry and light manufacturing, yet, in neither are the industrial wastes exceedingly prominent. At Gloversville, however, the principal industry is tanning and allied processes. Consequently there is a large amount of in- dustrial waste in its sewage. Worcester is a manufacturing city, peculiar on account of the acid wastes from the big wire mills of the U. S. Steel Corporation. The acid wastes at times are Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 57.1 A so strong that the alkalinity of the sewage is exhausted and the sewage may become actually acid. For Chicago, I am showing the results of the tests in the 39th street intercepting sewer, giving you the average for the year 1909-10. On the basis of the analysis in parts per million, the sewage of Chicago is very weak as com- pared with some of the other cities. But when the chemical constituents are figured as grams per capita, it shows up very strongly, even when compared with the large English manufac- turing cities. There is a remarkable amount of chlorine in the sewage of Boston due, not to domestic pollution, but to the infiltration of salt water. At times in Chicago we find very high chlorine for short periods, which can be traced to the salty discharges of ice cream factories. The alkalinity in the sewage varies more or less with the hardness of the water used for drinking purposes. Chicago, for instance, has a hard water from TABLE I. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF CRUDE SEWAGE OF BOSTON, COLUMBUS, WATERBURY, GLOVERSVILLE, WORCESTER, AND CHICAGO. (Parts Per Million) Bos- Colum- Water- Glovers- Worces- Chi- ton, a bus, b bury, c ville, d ter, d cago, º 1905–07. 1904–05. 1905–06. 1908–09. 1908. 1909-10 Nitrogen as : Free Ammonia . . . . . 11.4 11.0 7.8 12.0 22.2 S.8 Organic Nitrogen.... 9.1 9.0 14.8 23.0 * - - e. 7.6 Nitrites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.09 0.14 0.38 * - 4 - 0.11 Nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 0.20 1.52 0.88 * * * * ().35 Oxygen Consumed . . . . . . 56+ 51f 46+ 95+ 117 3Sí Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2300++ 65 4S 15S 57 40 Alkalinity * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = 125 350 41 233 * * * * 208 Suspended Matter: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 209 165 406 258 141 Volatile . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 79 115 229 166 S1 Fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 130 50 177 92. 60 Free CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e - 27 18 10 * * * * Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e - 25 26 48 * * * * 23 a From Winslow and Phelps, “Investigations on the Purification of Bos- ton. Sewage in Septic Tanks and Sprinkling Filters.” Technology Quarterly, Vol. XX, No. 4, p. 410, Dec., 1907. (See Note.) ..ºrge A. Johnson, “Report on Sewage Purification at Columbus, O...” pp. 26, 34. cWm. Gavin Taylor, “Waterbury Sewage and Its Septic Action,” Eng. News, Vol. 61, p. 597. #Sample immersed in boiling water for 30 minutes. f Sample is boiled 5 minutes. ** Chlorine from Water-Supply Paper No. 185 (U. S. Geol. Surv.), pp. 111-114. r Y dEddy and Vrooman, Report on Sewage Purification, Gloversville, N. ., p. 59. Note.—Nitrogen values as given are corrected to be comparable with other figures. September, 1911 572 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. TABLE II. ESTIMATED AVERAGE QUANTITIES OF PRINCIPAL CONSTIT- UENTS IN GRAMS PER CAPITA DAILY OF THE SEWAGE OF VARIOUS CITIES. - Small Manufac- City. Columbus, Mass. London, turing Chicago, Combined or Ohio, Cities, Eng. Cities, 1909-1910, Separate System. Combined. Separate. Combined. Combined. Combined. Average daily flow of Sewage, U. S. gal- lons, per capita. . . 121 95 54 * * 289 Oxygen consumed : * Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13— 25 50 42 Dissolved . . . . . . . 14 * g. e e Suspended . . . . . . . 16 Nitrogen as: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 9.7 13.0 13.0 18.5% Organic: Total . . . . . . . . . 6.2 4.7 1.5 * * 8.3 Dissolved. . . . . 2.4 * * Suspended. . . . . 3.8 tº e e - 6 & • G. Free Ammonia. . . . 8.2 5.0 8.0 5.5 9.6 Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 16 24 44 44 Dissolved Matters: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 S5 157 26S Mineral . . . . . . . . . . 3.54 5S 102. 178 Volatile . . . . . . . . . . 56 27 55 90 Suspended Matters: Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9S 49 87 145 155 Mineral . . . . . . . . . . 51 11 41 69 89 Volatile . . . . . . . . . . 47 38 46 76 66 Total Solid Matters : Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 134 244 413 515++ Mineral . . . . . . . . . . 405 69 143 247 * * Volatile . . . . . . . . . . 103 65 101 166 Free Carbonic Acid. . . 13.6 º º e * * is º Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 * * * * 26 * Including Nitrates and Nitrites. * Figure made up from determinations between Oct., 5 and Nov. 28, 1910. Average daily flow is 234 gallons per capita during that period. Lake Michigan, whereas the water used in Columbus at the time of the tests was even harder than in Chicago. The variation in flow in different cities is illustrated in the second table. The use of water and consequently the amount of sewage is less for the foreign cities than those of the United States. In London there is a sewage flow of 54 gallons per capita daily, and in some of the German cities it runs as low as 25 or 30 gallons per capita daily. In Chicago, on a yearly aver- age, the flow at 39th Street pumping station is 289 gallons per capita per day. In Massachusetts, the sewage flow is very much less, however, as the water consumption ranges from 50 Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 573 to 150 gallons per capita per day, whereas in Chicago it is about 235 gallons per capita per day on the yearly average. This, you can see, will greatly affect the problem of purification, both in the period of sedimentation and in the after treatment. The modern idea is to build a sewer that will deliver the sewage to the outlet in as fresh condition as possible. This development is seen to greatest extent today in Germany, where sewers are built with smooth walls and very careful grades, in order to have no deposits, and also to obtain a rapid flow in order that the sewage may arrive at the places where it is to be treated or discharged into a water-course as fresh as possible. Such a procedure assists materially in preventing a nuisance. This may seem a strange doctrine, for probably all of you have heard the old saying “a running stream purifies itself,” and then the modern qualification that a stream of sluggish flow will purify itself to better advantage. From the standpoint of protecting a water supply where the pollution is slight, the self-purification caused by sedimentation and the factor of safety provided by the time element in the destruction of pathogenic bacteria is very materially furthered by sluggish flow or quiescent conditions. But where the pollution is gross, as is usually the case in a sewage-disposal problem, the sewage or the mixture of water and sewage should be kept flowing as fast as possible in order to prevent sedimentation. The reason for this is that if sedimenta- tion is permitted in a stream, sludge will accumulate on the bottom, and septic action will ensue which will rapidly exhaust the oxygen and interfere with the self-purification. If the stream flows through pools, those pools may become very live nuisances. I am now going to speak to you of a number of typical de- velopments of the sewage-disposal problem. First, I will call your attention to the Metropolitan Sewerage District (Fig. 2). This contains the city of Boston and its suburbs, and is one of the most highly developed and best organized districts in the country. The original scheme for the disposal of the sewage of Boston was the main drainage system built by the city, to an outlet at Moon Island, where large tanks were constructed, in order to store the sewage and discharge it on the outgoing tide. Subsequently, within the last fifteen years, two intercepting systems have been developed, the North system and the South, or high-level system. The North discharges at Deer Island, where the sewage is pumped out into a rapid-running tidal race, and the South system discharges at Nut Island. There is no treatment of the sewage except by coarse screening, which is merely to protect the pumps and hold back large floating matter, as garbage, dead animals, and the like. The total area served is 195 sq. mi., which is half that of the Sanitary District of Chicago and practically the same as the area of the city within the pres- ent city limits. The population is nearly a million inside the September, 1911 574 Pearse-Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. area indicated by the shaded lines. The pumping plant at Deer Island has vertical, centrifugal pumps, steam driven, somewhat similar in layout to the 39th Street Pumping Station. Most of the largest cities in this country have combined sys- tems of Sewers. New Orleans, however, is one of the principal exceptions. On account of the low-lying land on which the city is built, a System of drainage has been developed as well as a System of Sewerage. The sewage is discharged into the Mis- sissippi River below the city, while the storm drainage is dis- charged into Lake Pontchartrain. The entire city is necessarily Surrounded by levees. New York City is one of the large cities which adopted the Scheme of dilution in the early days, and is now facing the ques- tion of the prevention of nuisance. The solution is being has- tened by the controversy over the proposed discharge of sewage from all the towns of the Passaic Valley into the lower harbor. The capacity of the tidal prism and the flow of the Hudson River is becoming insufficient to completely dilute and carry away the Organic wastes discharged at frequent intervals on the North River and on both sides of the East River. The sewers in Man- hattan and Brooklyn are very short, and the sewage is there- fore very fresh. One of my Brooklyn friends says that on Sun- day mornings the sound of the excreta dropping down into the sewers sounds like the distant discharge of a rapid-fire gun. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission is now working on plans for the alleviation of the conditions in New York City. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission is studying the Jersey conditions. An intercepting sewer has been proposed in the Passaic Valley to bring all the sewage to a screening and settling plant and then discharge it out in the lower harbor at many points through submerged pipes. - Until recently Baltimore had no sewers for domestic wastes, although provided with some storm-water drains. A complete, separate system is now nearly constructed. The domestic sew- age is carried to a disposal plant, where the sewage is to be treated in settling tanks and sprinkling filters, and is finally sterilized by the application of chloride of lime before discharge into the bay. This is being done to protect the oyster industry. The sludge is to be digested in separate sludge-digestion tanks SO that the settling tanks can be frequently cleaned. In the German cities the discharge of sewage into rivers has been studied very closely, because of the principle that treatment is necessary only to make the effluent as good as the stream and not increase the pollution ; in other words, to pro- vide an effluent which will not exhaust the dilution capacity of the stream. In Vienna there is a typical intercepting Sewerage system, all the sewage being carried down below the city for dis- charge into the Danube. Dresden has also developed a typical Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 57 intercepting sewerage system on both sides of the Elbe, bringing all the sewage to a common point for Screening before discharge into the river. As yet, we have no example in this country of fine screening before discharge into a diluting stream. Berlin is of interest because it affords an excellent illustra- tion of the enormous development to which the pursuit of Sew- age disposal by sewage farming has led. The city proper covers an area of about 20,000 acres, whereas there are over 40,000 acres in the sewage farms. For Berlin, the scheme is a huge real estate speculation rather than a Sewage-disposal plan. It is only a question of time before the city will sell this land at large profit and turn to modern biological methods. I men- tion this because many people ask why a Sewage farm is not adaptable to this country. It is impracticable around Chicago on any scale, on account of the climate and the Soil. The expe- rience in England has been that the land soon becomes sewage sick, and will develop a nuisance if the application of Sewage is persisted in. The most successful sewage farm in this coun- try, to my knowledge, is the one at Pasadena, Cal., where the sewage is valuable from the Standpoint of irrigation and the soil is very porous and Sandy. English walnuts are raised with some profit, I believe. In Berlin, garden truck is raised, poor farms are operated, and cattle bred. Paris likewise has a sewage farm. But to most of us, Paris is notable on account of the extent to which public utilities have been put under ground in convenient conduits. In a typical tunnel, the water pipes, telegraph wires, telephone wires, elec- tric service lines and the sewers are carried side by side. Rails are also laid so that a Small electric locomotive can enter and haul little cars around for the purpose of removing deposits from the Sewer. I believe a public-utilities tunnel was proposed for the lower portion of New York City at the time of the plan- ning of the first rapid-transit tunnel. It was never built because of opposition, the source of which seemed to be the contractors and others who were interested in the maintaining of the Street-repair work and the American custom of continually rip- ping up the streets. In Fig. 3 is shown a skeleton map of the sewerage system of London, which outlines the development up to 1909, and the present scheme of purification adopted there. Originally, as I have already said, the Sewage was discharged directly into the Thames in the heart of the city and caused nuisances as far back as 1854. A Commission was appointed, and under the leader- ship of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, this body worked out the details of a System of intercepting sewers which is practically the same as the one in use today. For the last 25 or 30 years the dis- charge has been treated by chemical precipitation; that is, by the addition of lime to precipitate the suspended organic matter September, 1911 576 Pearse-Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. before the sewage enters the Thames—about 11 miles below London Bridge. In order to take care of the sludge from a population of eight or nine million people, five sludge steamers are traveling all the time carrying the sludge out into the North Sea and dumping it there. There are a number of pumping stations scattered over the city, some operated by electricity and some by steam, in order to lift the sewage from one level to another, in case the grades become too low for gravity flow. It is also interesting to know that extensive experiments on Sewage disposal were carried on for over five years in London quite recently to secure, through biological purification, a means of extending the usefulness of their works, since in a few years the capacity of the present scheme will be exhausted. - Among the English cities, a number are distinguished for their pioneer work in matters of sewage disposal, of which Leeds is noteworthy, being styled the graveyard of more experi- ments and Schemes in sewage disposal than any other city in England. I shall only speak briefly of two English installa- tions. One is at Manchester, because the Manchester situation is analogous to that of Chicago in that the sewage is put into a ship canal. In Chicago Our canal is a ship canal of the future, but at Manchester it is actually a ship canal, but without the constant flow of fresh water which we have in Chicago. The results, from the standpoint of prevention of nuisance, are not as successful as those in Chicago. Settling tanks were used in the early days, first as chemical precipitation and then as septic tanks. Contact beds and storm water beds have been built, since the English cities are forced by the Royal Sewerage Commission to purify the storm water before discharge. The contact beds are 40 in. deep, whereas the storm water beds are only 20 in. deep. The material is largely what is called “cinder” abroad, but probably approaching Our clinker. One sludge steamer is kept busy carrying the sludge away to dump in the Irish Sea. Another noteworthy English plant is the one at Birming- ham. This was built by the Birmingham Tame and Rea Drain- age Board to purify the sewage of Birmingham and the sur- rounding towns, and prevent a nuisance in the river Tame. In 1859, chemical precipitation was tried, being supplemented later by irrigation and sewage farming. In 1901, chemical precipita- tion was abandoned, and septic processes tried. In 1903, Sprin- kling filters were introduced, and the plant rebuilt and increased until today the installation is one of the largest in England, having upwards of 50 acres of sprinkling filters. The sand catchers and septic tanks are followed by roughing tanks, which remove the suspended matter working over from the septic tanks, before treatment on the sprinkling filters. Final settling basins of the upward flow type are used. Provision is also made Vol. XVI. No. 7 ‘EISV8 ÅL|O NO LS08 ANOTTIEB ' L-I OO|| 4NW 8088IV/H NOLS08 JO HE LVNA MOT NWEWN WOTHA `L J (79'00||S| H0||HW\ WO LW6 W7 O L (1EY!HE JE \! 3!}}V SNO||LWABTEI þTIWISEGI-gaoſans HawwanamaNyaRYTYILL*：）*）*ºyZ//Zº 7，9%/%7/////////QZ907 ŞGTIVNIŪSZUÏNVÄLITUADHILGIWN HLD|[]$§©®39 ZZQ ZZZZ//////24/º.º./Z/Zº /////72%2：//Z// 477Z77：//%22 •• • • ！=，，=,\, Q ! „~“）, № A *»}, }} \ , ， ， , , \ ，*>）( | ) |-į įjį£º^ ^áš„'， ！ x \!*Tº •~）*№. ^ \{ $ſ，ſºm ſº• • •~} \, •}}•ſjºv.·ØNSŃ ^Jaeſº ^. ...” （L)!}{LSIA gºſł82|MAGIS JO S\ſ]}} j. -\ -*- -- A, y， s ma s s * * * * ，，…... ~~.z ºs º}}\\$， º （º ſèy #- ！ 8„ſý ·Q·№i xC „№ A3SnOHN3380s{！}}}}}′ººº Sºrſ:**Tipūrą ~~~）; }，<7 Åsſia robº ſų sąſiri z • s$2&syº ºzžžšºșățătº, / , ！ $ ¢ © ®£ （$A, ، ��- №：№ſ *Zgo Ō----• # * f {|×. L.* oººoww??|« s’667'，//OES · ș.*∞- - ！“· §į **,>）**)·±.a |d O | J QY S VN? |----ÎNĶ}%|-！ſë, O№jkE_y^{*} YA --~~~~ • ，ſae№ NĮ í ſì” O’， ‘n}} -- - - -- ſeº. rº© :）， � **s）, ' ， ,t # '';·º rºſ. “... ~~- → * UD ' – , I/ rz, ’N ，Afºn 1. Lo o s cj v， w ^^ S^.' ZIJ № --~~.� «=== xT^~x~.~~~----__ .O 、→ ? /`J ]> §y： ！ prì~ ~ ¿№ |---- ~ (C- ！№voa gºwyſ JMJS aNW HELVM NV LITOď08 LBW ka dwW ś06ľI KNVT WOd+ dEldVGV ‘SSVýN NOLS0{{ — ECO — LOTHLSIGI EÐV}{-{\\{-{S NWALITIOc{0}{LGIWN ĐĎ]\[[^\\OPIS AVIDSL 4;&*）…?• ,tae ~^ * }→→→ ** ** **- -* ..., - ----- ~~ Fig. 2. co º s?” º, º STAN/FORD { TTAP SHOWING -----º" -->ses? & H! – L. sº |MAIN, INTFRGEPTING AND OUTFALL j SEWERS _2 * * ~ezzºg OF < H IG H ºss HOL LOWAY \ west END \ LONDON, ENGLAND. - & 2 º .. tº DALSTON STRAT FORD º . WEST HAM W HAR, ESDEN KılbuRN 'N ...? & * ~~~~ N AT!of St. Baucºus - $ºrari ovº - A tºuri Sw º - ri). BARºº SF SNANPRECIPITATIO) gºrks 2 24 g º N * : A BAYSYvATER Y. A e. sº ROSSNES PUMPING STA $º v crop la Docks precipitan. ZX 1.2% WORKS custº == º º - sº - - ~. Aº > ~ G R E E M \ºv C. H. Nº ARS tº £5 2… º - º PS. "Y__ - sovrº - º s º 2 lº :: * : FLU has TEAD ABBEY WOOD SS BAR NES º º /~ *] I G-REENwict, *Čºv *|Clºt Z RAR ºf COhº! On | s}{OOTERS 2" | º BLACKHE AYH h; 1 Ll. 2~~ ! NU N H E AD \, OWER Z S--~~~~ : wº d }{\D B ROOM E ſ sº \ cº \ º PEC tº w Abi RYE W º - o & C 6 NºtNº on | . bº º - Ø. BROCKLEY \ ROF HANA PTON ºr | F Sºº-º-º-º-º: EUTH ANA \ S d | A º \ § ğ. assº § --~~K? / º \ a sº one § ſº TU U.S E H ! L. L. OULWII CH \ - - FOR & 5 § 47 BA LH Att º Bºst l --------~~~ ! ſ º Nºse, / [NG)'ſ U.S. ! _--~~ -* | sº ׺ º \ $1. & } 2” varie-room }-\ .6% * \ Ç \ TERCEPTING B 00TFAll SEW ERS == * co; ºrno tº \ º SYU) EN HANA () N t --- N / MAtN SEws Rs Most of which & STREATHAM w ,” \ / Formerly piscº ARGED wito \ TOOT) N6 º ; ^ | The PIN E R THANA E.S. ss=–w * and sº as \ * `------~~~ woup931, `-----999 tiſt.----- \_*T STOR Nºt R E L J E F SEW ERS. *tter º, gºtº / YSS d <2-, * / `s--2^ºl S C A \,-\º. & 27 W LACE ...A *—º—#3 Y 2. 3 Mars 4.--~~ A -*. ~~~ _^ ! . . - Fig. 3." Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 577 for handling the storm water. The plant has greatly improved the condition of the river, and its effectiveness is recognized by a judicial decision. From England I am going to step to Germany and speak of the so-called Emscher tank and the Emscher District. The Emscher District is a sewerage district taking care of the dis- posal of sewage of a number of large German towns, one of which is Essen, the home of the Krupp Works. Several small water courses are available, which are sufficient for dilution if the sewage is properly treated. Many of these have been lined with concrete in order to promote a smooth flow, and some of the sewers have been built as open ditches, with neat fences on Fig. 4. Recklinghausen. (Courtesy of Dr. K. Imhoff.) either side. To prepare sewage by the removal of suspended matter, the so-called Emscher tank was developed. The smaller tanks are circular and built of brick. They are sunk much in the same manner as well curbs are sunk in this country, a circu- lar brick shell forming its own sheeting as the earth is exca- wated from the center. The larger tanks are built rectangular though usually with circular sludge wells. One of the larger plants is that at Recklinghausen (Fig. 4). There is very little odor from such a plant. This is probably due in part to the depth of the sludge well. Our experimental tank (Fig. 1) has an over-all depth of 18 ft. from the surface to the bottom of the sludge compartment, whereas in Germany they are built with September, 1911 578 Pearse—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. an effective depth of 30 and 40 feet. This is important to hold back the gas that is produced by the decomposition of the sludge, and is one of the important details of such a type of treatment, because when the sludge is brought out on the sludge filter, the gas expands and honeycombs it, allowing the water to drop down. The sludge, buoyed up by the gas bubbles, rises to the surface of the water and the liquid drains away quickly. Sludge-drying beds are provided and the sludge is so handled that not over seven days are required to dry to about 50% moisture. We find that with septic sludge it takes nearly 30 days to dry to any such moisture content. There is very slight Odor in the process. The material is spaded off the beds and carried away for filling. Very little is sold to farmers. The tanks have been built in closely-populated sections of the city without nuisance. Another interesting development has occurred in Germany, namely, in the mechanical handling of fresh sludge. The Emscher tank idea is to make sludge of such character that it will dry quickly on a sludge bed. The Schaefer-ter-Meer ma- chine has been devised in order to remove quickly by centrifugal force the moisture from sludge that is freshly settled. The sludge enters at the center of the machine and the solid matter flies out to the circumference. When the outside is filled, the machine automatically discharges the dried sludge, the inflow of wet sludge stopping for the time being. Such machines have been installed at Hanover and Frankfort, in Germany, as well as at smaller places, in connection with sedimentation basins. I understand that a machine is about to be placed at the chem- ical precipitation plant located at Coney Island, for New York City. It is possible in this way to take a fresh sludge and dry it very quickly to 50 or 60% moisture, so that the sedi- mentation basins required need not be of the size or cost that would be necessary where capacity for storage is provided, as in septic tanks or in the Emscher tank. There are no cost figures available for such a treatment under the conditions in the United States. Such a scheme would seem to be attractive if the sludge is to be burnt, as the heat content is probably higher in the fresh than in old sludge. The development abroad of screens has been quite diverse, there being radial types, such as used in Wiesbaden; the endless- chain type where the screen travels and is cleaned by fixed brushes or combs; the fixed type of screen that is cleaned by traveling brushes or combs, as well as the familiar lifting type where the entire screen is lifted out. A new development, however, is the self-cleansing type of screen that has been installed at Reading, Pa., in connection with the sewage-disposal works there. It was invented by Mr. O. M. Weand, and consists essentially of a cylinder 6 ft. in diameter and 15 ft. long, on Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 579 which is a fine screen of 40 meshes to the inch, supported by a coarse, heavy screen of A-in, mesh. The sewage is admitted at the center of the cylinder, and drops down through the bot- tom. The cylinder revolves slowly and is washed from the outside by water jets, the solids being collected by an angle iron placed on the side of the screen, gradually working down to the end farthest from the inflow of sewage. With a screen of this type, it is claimed that from 15 to 20% of the sus- pended matter can be removed, and that it is peculiarly adapt- able for the protection of the nozzles of a sprinkling-filter plant. It is, however, open to the objection of a large loss of head through the screen in a plant of any size, which would entail additional pumping unless there is plenty of gravity head avail- able. Fig. 5. Columbus, O., Secondary Tank. (Courtesy of J. H. Gregory.) Of the large sewage-disposal plants in this country, I shall discuss very briefly the one at Columbus, Ohio, as it is typical and was the first sprinkling filter plant of modern design to be undertaken in the United States. The sewage flows from the city proper to a pumping station by means of intercepting sew- ers on both sides of the Scioto river, and is pumped to a point about two miles below, where it enters the septic tanks. There are four preliminary tanks and two final tanks, so to speak. The tank was designed with the intention of having an 8-hour period, but at present it is operated with about a 16-hour period. The effluent is carried to a controlling house at the center of the beds which are arranged in radial fashion, and can be discharged on September, 1911 580 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. four sprinkling filters having a total area of ten acres. The nominal capacity of the plant is twenty million gallons daily, when working at the rate to yield two million gallons per acre per day. The sewage is sprinkled over the surface of the stone, trickles through, and then the effluent may be diverted to either of two shallow settling basins, which remove the suspended matter before it is discharged into the river. This settled mat- ter is quite different in composition from the original sus-- pended matter in the septic tanks and is much less putrescible. In Fig. 5 is shown a picture of the second, or larger, basins, which show the scum boards that were put in. During the operation of the Testing Station, no scum was noticed. Scum has occasionally formed in slight amount, but during the last summer considerable trouble occurred from suspended matter Fig. 6. Columbus, O., Sprinkling Filters, Under Construction. (Courtesy of J. H. Gregory.) working up from the bottoms of the tanks and over onto the filters. Such action, however, scum boards will not prevent. A picture of the plant during construction is shown in Fig. 6, illustrating the arrangement of the distribution system and the method of placing the stone; the completed filter in operation is shown in Fig. 7. The low walls which divide the bed into compartments contain a tile pipe, which distributes the sewage to a cast-iron riser, at the top of which there is a circular nozzle. All the controlling apparatus of the distribution system is placed in the central house. The result of this plant has been a very distinct improvement in the condition of the river below Colum- bus, and the entire removal of the nuisance which used to exist. Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 581 A non-putrescible effluent is produced, the purification being sufficient, since the water is not used by any city as a source of supply until after the river has entered the Ohio. I am now going to give you a few brief notes on the experi- mental sewage-testing station which we are operating at 39th Street. I have shown you a typical analysis of the sewage compiled from the results of over a year. Fig. 3, of Mr. Hill's paper (in this issue of the Journal) shows the main sewerage system of the city. The drainage area tributary to the 39th Street Pumping Station is somewhat over 22 sq. miles, extending from 87th to 31st street and westerly from Lake Michigan to State Street, and as far as Ashland Avenue on the southwest corner. It is the sewage from this district which has been tested in our Fig. 7. Columbus, O., Sprinkling Filters. (Courtesy of J. H. Gregory.) experimental plant. In our investigations, we have also taken samples from typical sewer outlets in the Calumet region, and are extending our survey to other sections, in order to establish the concentration and character of the sewages in the city. The sewage is pumped up from the intercepting sewer by a 2% in centrifugal pump, the suction of which is protected by a screen, with bars set 53 in. opening in the clear. It then enters the grit chamber and is divided through three experimental tanks, two of which are septic and one a settling tank. The grit chamber also supplies a modified Dortmund tank (Fig. 9) and the Emscher tank (Fig. 1.). The amounts supplied to each device are measured, and a continuous record kept over 24 hours. The essential part of our September, 1911 582 Pearse-Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. | ** ––––– *- o A TTT N //&/º/-//ze –=S 4. A S CRS e §º-*—zzczz /4” $ N – K- N Z/e/7 - § “Azez &ze- I § 2 N O. o//, ///7 N * , “ § ..? ſ s § //e/ /# * § § SR § § o - § § - N N–––F– ** NN §§ R 1 & § §§ 'o N tº | N §§ tº # is > | | § 2. * § o, S. §-Hº § s S, SITTº N Q N WF § N N • § § Q N N N N * , º - § § <"2ar//727 77° N P. S § L §: § _|_2 & 20/x/.5/~/2ce †- || N 8. &. N - § §§ Çiğl III, lºs ~-y– S I I I I ILLIR: *º e §–––Y-- ZZZZZZZZZZZZººZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. * .S. º N S N S-T-HS N Z Z 2 Ø Z Z_2_2 22 ^ N * T § N N g- 3 J%e 46m-o/* \| & Sectional Elevaſion A////en/ 64/ºr %2/ A-7774/e/ The Sanitary District of Chicago ſ Sewage Disposal Investigations Dortmund Tank Fig. 9. Modified Dortmund Tank. Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 583 work is the study of the different means of preparatory treatment. We have been operating an open and a covered septic tank, with periods of 8 and 6 hours of nominal displacement; also, a plain sedimentation tank of 8, 6, and 4 hour periods of nominal displace- ment. Our Emscher tank has been operated with a period of 94, 1, 2, and 3 hours nominal displacement in the upper settling cham- ber, and the modified Dortmund tank is operating on about a 6-hour period. The difference between these processes is chiefly in the relation between the sludge and the incoming liquid. In the septic tanks the sludge is allowed to lie, and is washed continuously by the incoming liquid passing over its surface. At times the liquid that discharges from the tank is worse than the crude sewage which enters it. In the sedimentation tank, the sludge is removed whenever it shows signs of septic action. In the modified Dortmund tank (called by º “Tº Fig. 10. Half-Tile Under Drains at Bottom of Filter. Prof. Phelps the “biolytic” tank), all the liquid which enters the tank comes in at the bottom and rises through the entire depth of the accumulated sludge. This tank has produced almost continuously a large amount of hydrogen sulphide, and is an extremely interesting type of tank to study, because it gives a comparatively clear effluent. The Emscher tank is the direct opposite, in that the incoming liquid is kept entirely separate from the digesting solid matter. We have also 31 distinct experiments going on in 7 sprinkling filters. We are using different sizes of stone, and depths from 4% to 9 ft. (Fig. 10). Some of our filters are provided with settling basins, so that we can settle the sediment that is washed from the filter. We also have sludge filters on which we dry the sludge in September, 1911 584 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. warm weather (Fig. 11), and various apparatus for experiment, such as a dilution tank, rotary tank, and an apparatus for screening experiments. These are distinct from the routine work of the plant. The general appearance of the plant as seen from the water front is shown by two pictures (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13), one of which illustrates our typical sprinkling-filter installation in wooden tanks 15 ft. 6 in nominal inside diameter; the controlling house in which the effluents of the tanks are measured, and the sewage to be dis- tributed to the sprinkling filters is also measured. We have one filter that is covered and another which is built with rubble stone sized to give freer aeration. We successfully operated our sprinkling filters all through last winter, although a small ice-cap formed as shown in the picture (Fig. 14). The distribution was much im- proved during last summer, so that during the present winter little ice formed. From this brief description of the plant, you will gain an idea of our work. In the course of the next few months we expect to obtain Fig. 11. Drying Sludge at 39th Street Station. a complete idea of what we must plan in order to extend the capacity of the canal, and take care of the growth of the city which is ex- pected for the next ten and twenty years. We have come to the con- clusion that the best possible scheme for the disposal of Chicago sewage is through the method of dilution and discharge into the Drainage Canal, because in that way we can keep all of the sewage out of the lake. In regard to the Calumet region, we have found that the cheapest method for the disposal of the sewage is to keep all the sewage out of the river by an intercepting sewer, to discharge at Blue Island into a canal from the Calumet to the Sag. This is cheaper than the purification of sewage and safer from a sanitary standpoint than the discharge of even purified sewage into the lake Vol. XVI. No. 7 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 585 of the volume to be expected in that region, so long as the water supply of the city of Chicago is not purified. On account of the Fig. 12. 39th Street Sewage Testing Station–From the East. bacterial content, a sprinkling-filter effluent alone would seem hardly sufficient unless sterilized. In the Loop district and the more congested sections of the city, at the time of the rebuilding of the sewers necessitated by the con- º º Fig. 13. 39th Street Sewage Testing Station–From the North. struction of the transit tunnels, some means can be introduced for purifying the sewage before discharge into the canal. If a separate system is built, as proposed by the Superintendent of Sewers, Mr. September, 1911 586 Pearse–Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. C. D. Hill, a grit chamber at the outlet of the storm-water sewers would undoubtedly remove much of the grit and mineral matter from the street wash, and properly designed Emscher tanks at the outlets of the sewage system proper would lessen the amount of organic wastes which would have to be cared for by the canal. In the industrial sections of the city, settling of the wastes and other Fig. 14. Ice Caps in Winter Season. special treatments will undoubtedly become necessary, in the near future, in order to prevent deposits in the river and the rapid ex- haustion of the capacity of the canal. In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the Trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago and of their Chief En- gineer, Mr. George M. Wisner, in permitting the use of drawings and data in the preparation of this paper. Vol. XVI. No. 7 Discussion—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 587 DISCUSSION. W. G. Potter, M. W. S. E. : In the German plant shown, where the sewage was passed through the screens only, to the rivers, is the water used below for water supply? Mr. Pearse: In general, it is not. But the German custom is, as a rule, to purify all surface supplies used for water consumption. In the case of Dresden, I think the water is not used below. Prob- ably the best illustration of that is the Elbe at Hamburg. Hamburg purifies its sewage by screens and discharges into the Elbe. Altona is below Hamburg, and uses sand filters to filter the water Supply; Hamburg also has water filters. That is, the intention abroad is that all surface supplies shall be filtered, but the tendency has been toward the use of ground-water supplies wherever they can be had, in order to avoid any possible pollution that might pass the filter. Mr. Potter: Does the screening only of the sewage necessitate more purification than is ordinarily given the water in the filters? Would that process be more expensive Mr. Pearse: The object of the screening is largely to remove the floating matter and a certain amount of the coarse suspended mat- ter. Sufficient dilution must be had. The pollution there may be great and the bacterial content large. The saving to the water works, however, would not be very great, if any, because the removal of bacterial matter is practically nil. That is, the use of sewage screens is practically restricted to questions of nuisance, and is not applicable to questions of water purification. B. J. Ashley, M. W. S. E. : I would ask Mr. Pearse if he has made any experiments along the line of inducing gentle currents of air through the filters and noting whether the degree of purification is different from that in which there is no induction of air through the filters P * * Mr. Pearse: No, we have not made such experiments, because in the winter time it would not be practicable unless the air were heated, and would involve expense; in the summer time we have not a very good chance on account of the sheltered conditions. We are thinking of putting in a little blower and trying it, but there are three or four months of the winter when we are liable to have air at freezing temperatures. Mr. Ashley: Induced or enforced aeration of filter beds has been tried in Germany and has been alluded to in some of the articles recently published in this country. I am sure Mr. Pearse has read of this introduction of air into modern filter beds and found that method to very materially increase nitrification. Mr. Hering, of New York, visited Germany last fall and during his investigations of the Emscher tank he also investigated some experiments that had been recently made regarding the aeration of beds, by using revolv- ing cowls on the top of air stacks which connected with the sub- drains. When the wind blew, a current of air was forced very September, 1911 588 Appendir—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. gently down the ventilating shafts and into the bed at the bottom, the result being, as stated, that nitrification was said to be doubled. Mr. Hering has introduced this feature, I believe, into the Atlanta, Ga., plant. I have recently reviewed an article that appeared in the Engineering Record a year or two ago relative to the experimental Sewage-disposal plant that was built at Philadelphia, and in order to arrive at some determination in regard to the effectiveness of introducing air into the beds, they attached the air ducts that were connected to the collecting drains to the chimney stack in order to induce currents of air into the bed. In connection with this, I may say that on Saturday I received a letter from a gentleman in Michigan regarding the operation of an open filter bed in that state which I designed some three years ago, to the collecting drains of which I attached a chimney some 20 ft. in height. His remarks in substance were that in frosty weather he and his workmen have frequently seen condensation in the form of white vapor from the warm draughts of air passing out of the chimney, having the appearance of smoke coming from a furnace or stove, the vapor being quite white. This seems to show the effectiveness of even a chimney 20 ft. high in drawing the air down through the filter bed during the win- ter season and discharging it at the top of a chimney. So that, during winter or summer, induced aeration in filter beds must have a decidedly beneficial effect. If Mr. Pearse could make some ex- periments along that line, I am sure many of us would be much interested to know the results, and to know that such experiments could be made in this country as well as abroad. - APPENDIX. NOTES ON SEWERAGE SYSTEMS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Boston and Suburbs, served by Boston Main Drainage Works and the Met- ropolitan Sewerage System. Metropolitan Sewerage System : Area served: 191.37 sq. mi. Population: Est. 1909, 873,577. Miles of intercepting sewer: 101.99. Outlets (2): North Metropolitan System, at Deer Island, into Boston Harbor, 90.5 SO. 1111. - sout Metropolitan System, at Quincy, into Boston Harbor, 100.87 sq. mi. Pumping Stations: - - Metropolitan System—6 avg. daily cap. 3.4, 4.2, 22.7, 32.1, 58.6 and 60.6 million gals. respectively. Cost: North Metropolitan, to Dec. 31, 1909. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,312,130.61 South Metropolitan, to Dec. 31, 1909. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,785,297.80 Maintenance Cost: North Metropolitan, 1909. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,387.71 South Metropolitan, 1909. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,279.56 References : Annual Report–Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, 1909. Vol. XVI. No. 7 Appendia—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 589 . SEWAGE FARMS AT BERLIN. Population (1908): 2,137,034. Area City of Berlin : 25 sq. mi. = 16,000 acres. Area Sewage Farms: Total = 43,100 acres. Underdrained and farmed = 23,250 acres. Amount of sewage handled : Total, 73 million gals. per 24 hrs. (1908). Per capita: 35 gals. (from 20 to 102 gals. per day.) Cost: Sewerage System in City (651 mi.) and 12 pumping sta- tions (6,000 h. p.) about. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23,593,000.00 Sewage farms, underdrainage, buildings, etc., about. . . . . . . 16,250,000.00 Net Income from Sewage Farms (1909) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000.00 (Leased land, sale of garden truck and cattle). Reference: Pamphlet folder issued by City of Berlin, 1910. LONDON. Population (1908): 7,323,327. Area tributary: About 140 sq. mi. Flow of Sewage (1908) : Total dry weather flow, 340 million gals. daily. Maximum Storm Flow : 1,210 million gals. daily. Length of main, intercepting and storm water sewers: 352 miles. Pumping Stations: Number: Storm water (6), dry weather flow 5, total 11. Capacity: Total, 1,392 million gals. daily. Horsepower total: 9,000 to 11,000. Motive power: Steam, (6); gas, (5). Men employed : 900 to 1,000. * Chemicals used : Grains per gallon : Sulphate of Iron, 0.8. Lime, 3.3. Disposal Works: Barking : Precipitation basins (covered), 13; 860 to 1,200 ft. long by 30 ft. wide, - by 8 ft. deep. Capacity: Total, 25 million gals. Sludge Storage Tanks. Crossness: Precipitation basins (covered) : Six; (4), 560 ft. long by 128 ft. wide; (2), 558 ft. 10ng by 99 ft. wide. - Capacity: Total, 26 million gals. Sludge storage tanks. - Sludge steamers: 6. Capacity each, 1,000 long tons sludge. Sludge produced per year (1908), 2,5S3,000 tons. Total Cost to date (March 31, 1909): $55,000,000.00. Annual Cost of operation (1907): Disposal works, and outfalls: Precipitation plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $242,700 Sludge handling on land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,600 Sludge Disposal at sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,700 Reference: Main Drainage of London, 1909. A report to the London County Council by Chief Engineer, Maurice Fitzmaurice. * MANCHESTER. Population (1908): About 650,000. Area of city: 21.3 sq. mi. Combined system. Discharge into Manchester Ship Canal. Amount treated daily: Dry Flow, total, about 29 million gals. Per capita, about 51 gals. Storm Flow up to 151 million gals. September, 1911 590 Appendia—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U.S. and Abroad, Works, about 5 miles from City proper. Capacity daily, 151 million gals. Sand catchers with chain bucket dredgers. Screens: Coarse: 6 in. openings. Medium : 1% in. openings. Fine, 9% in. openings. Septic Tanks: 12. Total capacity, 12 million gals. Storm Water Tanks: (Open.) 4. Total capacity, 5% million gals. Contact beds. Furnace clinker, screened. Primary, 92. Total area, 46 acres. Depth : 40 in. Secondary, 31 in Operation. Total area: 15.5 acres. Depth: 40 in. Storm water filters: Furnace clinker, unscreened. Beds. Total area ; 27 acres. Depth : 30 in. Sludge: Sludge steamer (1). Capacity, 1,000 long tons. Amount removed yearly, 250,000 tons. Cost of works to date, about. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,400,000 Total Annual Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000 Including cost of sludge disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,000 References: Annual Reports. Rivers Department, 1909, 1910. City of Man- chester. BIRMINGHAM, TAME AND REA DISTRICT DRAINAGE BOARD. Population (1910 estimated): 954,533. Area served (City, 3 boroughs, 4 urban districts, 1 rural district) : 94 sq. mi. Combined system. Discharge into River Tame. Amount treated daily: Dry Flow Total, 33 million gallons. (1908) Trade Waste, 5.8 million gallons. Per capita, 36 gallons. Storm flow up to six times dry weather flow. Boards own 2,830 acres of land. Works: At Saltley, Cole Valley and Minworth. Saltley : Sand catcher, cleaned by mechanical dredger. Septic tanks, 20. Total capacity, 8.7 million gallons. Depth, 5 to 7 ft. Normal period, 21 hours. Sludge pumped out onto land. Buried in trenches. Roughing tanks, 5. Total capacity, 6.7 million gallons. Minworth–(Fed by 8 ft. conduit 5 mi. long from Saltley): Silt Tanks : 22 in all. 2 units of 8 each, 25x25 ft. by 20 ft. deep. 6 tanks each, 44 ft. diam. by 33% ft. deep. Sprinkling Filters: Area: 50 acres (1909). Depth about 6 ft. Rate of application about 960,000 gals. per acre per day. Stone 1 to 2 inches. Settling Basins: Upward flow type. Storm Water Beds : 30 acres. 5 ft. graded coke breeze on coarse underdrains. Capital Cost: - Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,650,000 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 2,190,000 Reference: J. D. Watson. Birmingham Sewage Disposal Works. Inst. C. E. —1910. 1909-19 Vol. XVI, No. 7 l Appendia—Sewage Disposal Problem in the U. S. and Abroad. 591 º : EMSCHERGEN OSSEN SCHAFT. Regulates and constructs Sewerage Systems. Constructs and operates sewage-purification plants. Regulates drainage and streams of entire valley. Composed of 100 Kreis (corresponding to American “County”). Area : 308 sq. mi. Population : About 2,000,000. Estimated cost of works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,000,000 Of this, sewerage and disposal works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000,000 Disposal works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200,000 Type of Disposal Works: Screens. Grit chambers. Emscher tanks. Sludge drying beds. References: Saville. The Emschergenossenschaft and the Imhoff tank. Eng. News, Dec. 1, 1910. COLUMBUS, OHIO. Population: About 180,000. Area in corporate limits: 16.81 sq. mi. Sewage pumped and treated : 11.9 million gals. daily average (1909). Capacity of plant: 20 million gallons daily. Septic tanks: 12 ft. deep. Primary. 4. Each 56 ft. 6 in. by 150 ft. long, capacity 710,000 gals. Secondary. 2. Each 115 ft. 6 in. by 262 ft. long, capacity, 2,590,000 gals. Total capacity: 8.02 million gallons. Gate house containing valves for controlling the operation of filters. Sprinkling filters. Radial from gate house. Area : 10 acres—divided into 4 beds, 2% acres each. Stone. Depth averages 5 ft. 4 in. Size of major portion 1 to 3 in. Lower 10 in : 3 to 4 in. Designed to yield 2 million gallons per acre per day. Settling Basins: 2. Each of capacity 2 million gallons. Depth averages 4 to 4% ft. deep. Sludge is blown into river from septic tanks. Sludge is pumped into river from settling basins. Cost: Sewage Purification Works complete, $456,350. Note: The total cost of the improved sewage works, including pumping stations, force mains, levees, railroad bridges, purification works, etc., was $1,351,020. Reference: John H. Gregory. The Improved Water and Sewage Works of Columbus, O, Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LXVII, p. 206 et seq. September, 1911 Jy ‘.… < ** 5, 2) : . £ : : * - Ax : º * -** : :3 { -- ~* } * -- Ex; sº : --- : : - -. ‘. ~ y s - *. *-- * *~ *: º - < 2 '. 3. £ * f} º: * > .* 3. *º- *::: x - t • ?: º: º, . * .x: ! 33 s ? ！ ;، ！§§ º №ſºs à º， ， ， ，ſ§ :$-）º, º g : „ ， ！*§§§ 5. ſ ºſ º gº： » ！ ！！ !！ ） ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■∞!，§§ （ ）, º ■ --:::&aeſſae: &####ºſ º * * ?ſºț¢ £ € ~ ！， ----£; £i3， §§§§ººaeae:º £ €، ، ، e é ;-） ！！ ！！ ！！ ………….…;…; cael~：• -- ， §§:ſſ::::::::：::::::::：::：:：::::--→， ， ，• №r ·---- ſºr*,* , ， ,* ,. ***„șº~* y exae ： . aer, ſ， , ， ） »Ł* ¿, š {{.*, .… …’.， \ &…，yº！" （， ;） ） *** * * * * * i "… , &, ， , , „^$. • ’ | /**¿¿.*¿¿.-， , ，,,* ?， „? · * • *~~ :，'';&‘º...º.. ： „ ' ， ！ § “sºšºſiºſº，, \, ， , ， , , • , º, 4° **）, * ?• 1 º $ * *$'）: ?）&...…*3*g' .. '！, čº*** *** *>.* ‘...t. - * ºrº * x * & ºr * v3 * * ... sº º * s + *x 3. §º, ºxº 3. .*.*.*.*.* , 3. w §§§ -. §§ §º A:… 3 §ºs gººgºº, *. *3:3-7. **** }: * * * *ś # ; zºº.” £x: - “…'... ** : ºft & * : *. * 3. ~ & ~~x sº , *. #. .*- *...* * -- § # º #s .3 £: *.º; §: & & º º- º: s º * * f * . * * .* : * . .." & ºw • * ‘…. º. “. . . . . . . . . .3, 3 ; : - s. … • * * *...* 3. -> *~. . . ." & ºt. . . .” " -- < *** sº. { **, * ... .” - . & % * * . . . ... * * : ** : 3. * * - * , ... * - 3, …< * , ..." . * : * * * • º, & & - * * :* * , - - * - ...” * **. ****, ºr º: - * * & a 2 " " -- ~ * * * ~ * < *.* & :...sº gº ºi" º: ... r rº -. % ; : *s x-r *:: *.* º §: sº. - - * , “ . ~, - ~~ * º : *...* - sy % º - - º: *** * * 3. ... - - .* * - • *... . § * , . " * - # - . - *. 3 - * * 4 v. - * x ~ * f * - : - - *. * -. - .A.- * , , ... • < * *: ... 's ; , * > - * - %. - * *3. •" - -> * > * # * 2. . * * * - - * * - *, *... 2 , > * * , r “... ºf . ~. . . , 3. “ - * ~ * s ** * - - - ‘. * . &# , ;- , ~~' - ~ ; ,-,-, ' , - Y. º, * * y § 3. *4 ; : * - * * Ş. * * * • - & - & * * ...&’ * x - § - S- 3. * * * * > * *. *— - * *. .* , -- > * x- # , • ** { * =. f - • , ... • - wº * ~x 3 * * * * - - * - p ** -> ** & * * _x • 3. - - * * * * * - *. - , - ~ *, $º. - ., * t .* * * * ; łº, -- x - & --- --- 4 * - & 3 * - ..." - T × 2 ~ * - ... • , --~~ ; : , ºr - - - * ~ * -- “x t- • -}. » g >~ .* -- 3 . & “ ~. . . ... -- ~ -: ; : × - s - - -- - ºr s. - - * * - 3 ** ºr # *s, * . . . . . . . * - , - . . . ; * - *** * - - - * * * > -º-, *. * - } * …” -. -- - r ‘. * * , 3. * - * ( ~, 3. * . . * * , -: * ~ - ** . - - 3- ºr , x * x • 3. - • & . - * - “. . . . ~~ - - - - , ! .. t? • * .4 :: *, * 'J - -- 2 \, - ** * & - f • - - * ~ *.*. - - - & * * †. Az * *... . . . &" * . - * . ... i.” i. ** K - ? ºf ‘s * . - ... * * ... *s * * - --" M. º: ... - .* • '. ... * t - * *** - - - - Y - ... • - . - * * > * - **. - & ". . . ; ; , , - . . . * ... " t - .* * - - * . * * * . . . . . . . . , * > . * * ~ * • r t 3. . x & *N. x * - %. , s *R - j % * X- * ... ' & 3 * * ~ : t - * : * ~3 . * * ~ - - “, 3. $. * , 3. * > . , g -- • * - * - 3's . ** Sº - x- ; ; i .* g § - º -: * ar" AT: .3 º & ... • * 3&; ?::::::::::: *** li:#; | º: · ·…șaeg-Ģaewaes~ *× *|-& * „...?*+^$\.¿¿.*$*$s:cae ¿¿.**. \！ §§%ſ*$'）, * º *...* * * & · ∞·- -zº-gºxº ^· -ſae:grş=ņwwęş， ·ș; † 5. ** , ， ），§§） iſ .*?\w.*? *ſ*… $*~ ！№. 3 §§§*****…§），4！ {，.¿?***,¿?*、、、、、、、*ț,…, :{,}$（' §§*3*?）$';----} & > f. č.�& +· , g.” ， „ºrºſº！！！,,，^{<;,#:№g&& ！ ！.Řłaeg ***\ſ*} （） （ * -ae，}&.*;， :*”， “¿（...） : į， º ſºff • >）*; ſººſ ºs º?? ， ，'$ $º; £ J 2:（*.*?（.*）.***.*?\.? *）?$ ~ \！\， . ſº， x）-^-º : · * 3 & 3 » %ſ*.* . &...， ſ.º.º. s.ſ. ºr 6* ~x. ~*** … ¿? Aº + s * * （?:\ſ**… . . …*; *（） -”.· * * * * · * * * * * · * ș », « ', $ 1 * a *« * * -， *ſ*. → · §r § 3;- << *** ?,,*"&&\ſ*）（?? ！ ！！ !！！！!！！！!！！ $ $ º , （* *‘‘… . * <<”，y : * * * * *ș. ·ş ·*** ;.* # & ¿;...'， §§;&, ſººſ : «;&## „¿¿.** ***^*）?'. £, , * ºººº.* … * .*v , ** * *^, } •... ׄ}“& & **, …*..*.., ſ': *（; , ** **}»§§§§sº. ----*ș: **;x§， №8 • ſg *, *） ≤ºk „ſº （...-^-, • ºº * , , |-----,，Š» *****）: §§§§ • № ... * * *. * . . . *.* ºg „“ （ , , ， ， ; … ? • Kº»…” , ！ … ».…*.* （*,， • *.«· · · * ?; * * · ·,·）, （* 3.）; ∞ √° √° s.）. ** „A”? №” “… **}* º.º. , ^ ; f* ~~~~* ·*** ¿ſ sa, š Ť .rº *** ? . ~ £ € x ºxº … 。 、、 &.*** * + y^T:»... * *, x ?všļš. « x 3，…， 2. № » 4 §§§） ***¿.* *ș** șºś~$----、*¿.**3Jº. A * ,• ºº , , º_°√∞） × + $3 （$） （№º！！° ° , , ºff， º.）， „“, * .#ć”， ¿º »,，șº x ≡. *y * * * * „š… *** '（^） iş ; ºs Ł:º-， • …,f（！！）, 4".~~ 4= º ¿3 $?）;*,. §§ vš%;& §§§ žģī£§ * Aº- * **„, » : **ș,º *…！ ׺.-{ : * ''， .****® .*¿¿.** „.“ ,ºğºſ:??, ::：&Ģēģ ¿¿ ???）;…;） ???, ¿º）, §§§§）, º&£§§į šº →•*！”;&*- ¿¿. **« șºſ.„¿* v ??? «? ** # . ~ * …..… º ºrºs）, *.„ … ~~^ *** ș. …« *** , ！”, ~）;$. * 8 , ; , * .* *...*.*... * ſ; ***， . |-# · * } 8 * Å, Ä, .*.*. ~f. * * ★ → .*¿¿.* , ;3. K š, *** %， **** ; ; .* &?） *** ≡ §§ :&# jº;•;‘Çsſ.· * *, **} „， ， ; *** 4.- ** *** ,' º.º. , -， ） ， , ? ,，× r)（...så |ק§§ **）（?！~ ?· şº,* ��***„…**&&----*<（ - ·*ș „s. u.« <, jº;"&& ș, * # *¿¿.*;; /* § ¶ ¡ ¿ º �� §§§）， „Ž £”， șšę;&#ț¢”. X’’, , , ， ſººſ ».*********},3，. ...）， „** <--...，’ , ?-?）...;sº « »： ' ? ::::№ve?” §;&^%*** 3. §. � -* {**** ș （， * ? * š, * ? * * * ¿??¿ ? • % ſº *;, «?|-·** ！, → **** <！-- ** X.|- $ ».kg-…š.*§ *-----！ 2·&*** ' *:* （&.**, 3. … ¿¿.***** ģºſ.” …'）;„“; , , *$%$§ 3 . »~~,-4） ×* ... × 3.’;& }ț¢; }… ſº ** ſą * * * *,·） »* §§§ *% （3 *** *, X İț¢” ,á º！?& \ & §§r.„* * * ·*- → ***-*T**. №*~… **.**}\,）; Jº & & &+&y& * ? *）?*----º× ×-- „ . . № :*$$*$%.）,#* * … ¿' . . （***: »ý¿ ? „» ž* · *******,！«, sºț¢† • *****... » ; * 4. * …*: *）（.**<--！ *$:.** ‘, , ; ***。！?? ÇÉ.¿ºur*. ſº ‘...º-**ş*s„šķ::ž$）;* * , , y × ×~）; % ^ & *, **** .$（'#'）: ?！$, ， ， ， š，3%） șº- .***A.» （）. ¿¿&&-\， ^ .. *…? * * 'N ****&&&&&&-* .* —* ... （ ?, ? . . ..* ‘… → • ș* »~ … è žº， º ~*>）*' ». ***！, * 2. **， … ... ， **）„Țăț¢ * »,șș-z º.º.-ś&§. -Ä ： ?× …’, :（。 、、、 3. *** }ğ^*^;, «ººŅ.*?<！-! ***¿ $$$$$$ * *:）* · :*: *）（$*::«… *sº « » （, ， §2.3）, º→º. º: .&», ' '）\,|×”.. * * ¿? §§ ¿<ș a?; ?; ?,?）< ; } < ≡•«.•••••••• ---- * · · · *>' ） ? 'yº！ s！！！！！ »... * *? ！ -, x,$（ ' ， ， ， * • -->¿!, *“）:（…）， Ķº, №8 tº:::::}}; } jºš º ·* * **¿¿. # ** * † #. ** … + *, *ſě. » . **-* & \ ^. （, , ，– º.ſ.v., Jºſ.* ！ *, **， *） * √ √°√∞ . º’ è s-x} , ſans; -x: ...,-3 ·~:: ）; ' ， ~~ ~ .“ ^:** » №. ！ « „”， *~ ！% &~~~ · • „（.*· ·,≤） * • * ?, º..→