DUPL
B 473343
. . .” . . . . .
****śs * * * :-
f * .
TD
52.5
S2.
S2.4

. … -----
Uſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Œ Œ Œ Œ œ (， ， ， ， Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō ， ， ， ， • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •\\SRſ
LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
l
& ré.
•ÜNU
US
JȚIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
∞ √° √∞ √° √≠ ≤ ∞, ∞; ∞, ∞
ſº II：
§§
ſ
%%%%%ſ\\
∞ √∞, ∞; ∞, ∞， ∞， ∞
















{}}N IV, C F M CH,
Aff 4 1907 wº
**- Śwrix & W.N. Askendart
United States Circuit Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In Equity, No. 7025
/
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY,
Complainants,
WS.
WILLAGE OF SARATOGA, SPRINGS AND THE
SEWER, WATER AND STREET COMMIS-
SION OF SARATOGA SPRINGS,
v. Defendants.
Pleadings and Proofs
JOHN J. HEALEY, JR.,
Saratoga Springs, N. Y.,
Solicitor for Defendants.
EPHRAIM BANNING,
Chicago, Ill.,
CHARLES L. STURTEVANT,
Washington, D. C.,
Of Counsel.

i3.;
c;§
TESTIMONY :
Alvord, John W., Direct. . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Burdick, Chas. B., Direct. . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Huber, Rev. V., Direct. . . . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IHill, Henry W., Direct. . . . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-called — Direct . . . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Williams, Benezette, Direct . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wyllie, Hubert D., Direct . . . . . . . .
Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Te-direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
160463
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• & © e s e s e º e e º e
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g º e º 'º
e e º 'º e ºb
º e º e º º 90S
G tº & © tº e 749
tº a tº º º º 859
e e º Gº tº º 862

‘‘ OWING TO AN ERROR ON THE PART OF
THE PRINTER, THE FIRST 59 PAGES AND
294 FOLIOS OF THIS RECORD CONTAIN
THE PRINTED COPY OF THE COMPLAIN-
ANT'S PRIMA FACIE CASE. TO AVOID,
THEREFORE, THE TROUBLE AND EX-
PENSE OF ENTIRELY REPAGING AND RE-
NUMBERING THE FOLIOS, THE CASE IS
LEFT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, THE COURT's
ATTENTION BEING RESPECTFULLY
CALLED TO THE ERROR.’’
United States Circuit Court
Northern District of New York

CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY.,
Complainant,
against
VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, In Equity
AND THE SEWER, WATER AND * No. 7025.
STREET COMMISSION OF SARATOGA
SPRINGS,
Defendants.
Testimony in behalf of the complainant for final
hearing, taken at the office of Gifford & Bull, 14].
Broadway, New York City, before R. B. Cavenagh,
Notary Public.
New York, February 6th, 1905, 11 A. M.
Met pursuant to notice. Present: C. L. Sturte-
vant, Esq., and J. J. Healey, Jr., Esq., Counsel for
Defendant. Livingston Gifford, Esq., Counsel for
Complainant.
Complainant’s counsel offers in evidence the fol-
lowing documents:
1. Certified Copy of the patent in suit, being
Letters Patent of the United States, to Donald
Cameron and others, No. 634,423, dated October 3,
1899, which is marked “Complainant's Exhibit
Cameron Patent.”
2. Certified copy of an assignment of said patent
and others by Donald Cameron and others which is
marked “Complaint's Exhibit, title paper, No. 1.”
2
3. Certified copy of a second document in the
chain of complainant's title to said patent, which is
marked “Complainant’s Exhibit Title Paper No.
2.”
4. Certified copy of a third document in the
chain of complainant’s title to said patent, which
is marked “Complainant’s Exhibit Title Paper
NO. 3.”
5. Certified copy of a fourth document in the
chain of complainant's title to said patent, which
is marked “Complainant’s Exhibit Title Paper
NO. 4.”
6. Certified copy of a fifth document in the chain
of complainant's title to said patent, which is mark-
ed “Complainant’s Exhibit Title Paper No. 5.”
7. Certified copy of a sixth document in the
chain of complainant's title to said patent, which is
marked “Complainant's Exhibit Title Paper No.
6.”
Defendants admit that the construction and Op-
eration of the sewage disposal plant in use by them
at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., from July,1903, up to the
present time, is substantially correctly described
in the article published in the Engineering Record,
Vol. 51, No. 3, January 21, 1905, pages 82 to 86,
entitled “Sewage Disposal at Saratoga Springs,
N. Y.,” a copy of which article is marked in evi-
dence herein as “Complainant's Exhibit, Engi-
neering Article on Saratoga Plant.”
3
Hubert D. Wyllie, a witness produced on behalf
of the complainant, being first duly sworn, testifies
as follows:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. Hubert D. Wyllie; age, 51; resi-
dence, Chicago, Illinois; occupation, Sanitary En-
gineer and General Manager of the Cameron Septic
Tank Company.
Q. 2. What experience have you had qualifying
you to testify as an expert in relation to the treat-
ing of sewage? A. I received a common school
education in England, after which I was employed
by my uncle to assist him in his business as a sani-
tary engineer, making a speciality of constructing
Sewage and drainage systems. I acted as assistant
to my uncle in this business in all about eight years.
I then came to the United States and was employed
in railroading until 1899, the last
fifteen years of this time I was chief
clerk and assistant to the General
Manager of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail-
road. During the last three or four years of this
time I had in contemplation returning to the profes-
sion of sanitary engineer and devoted my spare time
in educating myself in that direction. Early in
1899 I made a trip to England for the express pur-
pose of examining the operations of sewage disposal
plants there, and particularly those constructed un-
der the Cameron system described in the patent in
suit. Ever since then I have devoted myself exclu-
sively to the designing, construction and operation
of sewage disposal plants under this system in the
United States. I have devoted my attention not
only to the practical part of constructing and oper-
ating sewage disposal plants, but have studied the
11
12
13
14
4
15
16
17
18
19
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
subject from a theoretical standpoint. I am now
General Manager of the Cameron Septic Tank Com-
pany.
Q. 3. Have you examined and do you under-
stand the specification and drawings of the Camer-
On patent No. 634,423, here in suit? A. I have
and do. 4
Q. 4. Have you also examined and do you under-
stand the description of the construction and Op-
eration of the sewage disposal plant of the defend-
ants herein, contained in “Complainant's Exhibit
Engineering Article on Saratoga Plant,” being the
article referred to in the admission by defendants
at the head of your deposition herein? A. I have
and do.
Q. 5. Have you also examined the sewage dis-
posal plant operated by the defendants herein at
Saratoga Springs, New York, and if so, when did
your examination or examinations of the same Oc-
cur? A. I made two examinations of the Sara-
toga Springs plant; the first on November 3rd, 1903,
and again on November 21st, 1904.
Q. 6. Were such examinations sufficient to en-
able you to understand and describe the construc-
tion and operation of that plant? A. Substantially
so. Q. 7. What, if any communications did you have
with the defendant in regard to the Cameron patent
here in suit? A. Before the Saratoga Springs
plant was commenced, that is, before the construc-
tion was commenced, I learned through the news-
papers that it was in contemplation, and on April
3rd, 1902, I wrote the letter of that date, a copy of
which I now produce and which is as follows:
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
“Chicago, April 3rd, 1902.
“Mr. H. F. Thomas,
Clerk Sewer Com’n,
Saratoga Springs, N. Y.
‘‘Dear Sir:-
‘‘I note in the engineering journals that a sew-
age-disposal system is proposed for your city, and
desire to call your attention to the Cameron Septic
Tank System, briefly described in the pamphlet
which is being sent you, under separate cover.
“The Cameron Septic Tank System has only re-
cently been introduced into this country, but a
complete installation was put down at Glencoe,
Ill., last fall, which is doing remarkable work. A
similar plant is now under construction at the
Onwentsia Golf Club, Lake Forest, Ill., and will
be in practical operation by May 1st. In addition
to these plants, installations have been put down
at Vancouver, B. C., and Sackville, N. B., and in
Great Britain 185 plants have been installed with-
in the last three or four years, all of which are
doing excellent work.
“Before deciding on a sewage-disposal plant
for Saratoga Springs I would suggest a careful
investigation of our System, and any additional
information you may desire in regard to the mat-
ter I shall be glad to give you.
“Yours very truly,
(Signed) CAMERON SEPTIC TANK CO.
By H. D. Wyllie,
‘‘General Manager.”
I also produce and read the correspondence which
followed :
“Sewer, Water and Street Commission,
Saratoga Springs, N. Y.
H. F. Thomas, Clerk.
April 7th, 1902.
“Cameron Septic Tank Co.,
No. 706 Plymouth Bldg.,
Chicago, Ill.
“Gentlemen:-
“We have already decided upon tanks, through
20
21
22
23
24
6
25
26
27
28
29
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
the advisability of our engineers, Snow & Bar-
bour, Boston, Mass., and any information regard-
ing same may be had from them.
Respectfully,
(Signed) H. F. THOMAS.”
“Chicago, April 9th, 1902.
“Mr. H. F. Thomas,
Clerk, Sewer, Water and Street Commission,
Saratoga Springs, N. Y.
“Dear Sir:-
‘‘I am in receipt of your favor of the 7th inst.,
advising me that you have already decided upon
tanks for your sewage-disposal plant, and re-
ferring me to Messrs. Snow & Barbour, Boston,
Mass.
“The Cameron Septic Tank Co. has recently
secured control of the U. S. patents covering the
Septic tank process and apparatus, granted to
Messrs. Cameron, Common & Martin, of Exeter,
Eng., and it would perhaps be well to satisfy your-
self that the system upon which you have decided
does not conflict with those patents.
“A system recently installed at Plainfield, N.
J., does conflict with those patents, and will prob-
ably be the subject of litigation in the near future.
“Yours very truly,
(Signed) CAMERON SEPTIC TANK CO.
By H. D. Wylie,
General Manager.”
After the completion of the plant I examined it,
as I have stated, on November 3rd, 1903, and at that
time called on Dr. D. C. Moriarta, Chairman of the
Sewer, Water & Street Committee of Saratoga
Springs, and gave him as the representative of the
Village, verbal notice that the plant infringed the
patent in suit.
Q. 8. What reply, if any, did he make to that
notice, in substance? A. That it was a matter
that he really knew very little about, but that if we
7
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
Supposed it to be an infringement, we probably
knew What to do about it. That is in substance
What he said.
Q. 9. Did you understand him to mean by that
that he left you to substantiate your charge of in-
fringement by suit? A. That is what I under-
St000, as the gist of our conversation on the sub-
jec.t
Q. 10. What, if any, means have the owners of
the patent here in suit adopted upon the sewage
plants constructed under said patent, to notify the
public that the said plants were patented under
the patent here in suit? A. On all plants con-
Structed under the Cameron patent, a name plate
is attached stating, among other things, “Patent-
ed Oct. 3, 1899.”
Q. 11. Was there any difference in the construc-
tion or operation of the sewage disposal plant of
the defendants between the times that you inspected
it on November 3rd, 1903 and November 21st, 1904?
A. None, that I could see.
Q. 12. How did the construction and operation
of the defendants’ sewage disposal plant, as you saw
it at those times, compare with the description
thereof contained in “Complainant’s Exhibit En-
gineering Article on Saratoga Plant?” A. They
were the same.
Q. 13. What means did you adopt in the course
of your examination of defendants' sewage disposal
plant to ascertain the construction and operation of
the same? A. I followed the course of the sewage
from its entrance into the plant to its exit there-
from, opening manhole coverings from the appa-
ratus so that I could see, examine its contents and
30
31
32
33
34
8
35
36
37
38
39
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
note the various stages of its operation. With a
glass tube or guage which an attend-
ant had on the premises, and which
Was thrust through the manhole down
into One of the tanks in operation, I was able
to remove and examine samples of its contents at
different levels, including the sludge at the bottom,
the liquid at mid depth and the scum from the sur-
face. I also removed and examined a sample of the
effluent as it flowed from the septic tanks at the
aerator. I also removed and examined sample of
the effluent from the filter beds. One of the septic
tanks not being in operation, I descended into it and
took the measurements of its sizes and the location
and arrangement of the inlets and outlets.
Q. 14. Is there any substantial difference be-
tween the defendants’ system of sewage, or the ap-
paratus employed by the defendants therein, and
the method and apparatus described in the paſt-
ent here in suit. In answering this question, please
give a general outline of the system of each? A.
No, they are substantially the same, both in method
and apparatus. In both the sewage is subjected to
the following successive operations:
First: To a settling operation adapted to permit
any coarse mineral water, such as gravel Or Sand, to
Settle.
Second. To a septic operation in a septic tank,
wherein the whole mass of solid organic matter in
the sewage is liquefied; or, in other words, in which
the liquefication extends throughout the whole
mass of the sewage.
This is exclusively a bacterilogical operation and
the bacteria by which it is accomplished are what
EIUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
are known as anaerobic, because they live or thrive
without air. The sewage on entering the tank is
distributed through a series of inlets separated
across the width of the tank at mid-depth and leaves
the tank through outlets at the Opposite ends of the
tank also at mid-depth. On entering the tank, the
sewage moves bodily and slowly forward to the exit
at the opposite end of the tank, but in this move-
ment the solid particles of the sewage in Suspension,
according to their specific gravity, rise to the Sur-
face, or settle to the bottom, forming respectively
the scum and the sludge. I should have added that
the sewage enters and leaves the tank without agita-
tion. The scum forms a crust several inches in
thickness over the whole of the liquid in the tank
and acts as a complete excluder of air and light.
Air and light are also excluded by the covering of
the tank. The exclusion of air from the sludge and
the under surface of the scum presents the best con-
dition for the culture, life and activity of anaerobic
bacteria, and their location is such that they are
in the best position to operate on the whole mass
of sewage passing through the tank and liquefy it.
The liequefied effluent contains in solution this
liquefied organic matter, as well as some inorganic
matter in suspension, and probably also some or-
ganic matter which, though not liquefied in a theo-
retical sense, is so comminuted as to be liquefied for
all practical purposes with regard to the subse-
Quent treatment to which the sewage is subjected.
Third: The next operation on the sewage is an
aerating operation, to which it is subjected in both
the patent in suit and in defendant’s plant, by being
caused to flow in thin films over surfaces to which
40
41
42
43
44
10
45
46
47
48
49
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
the air and light have free access. In defendant’s
plant this aerating operation is continued at the
filters by being caused to be distributed on their sur-
faces in open channels exposed to light and air. In
exposing the sewage to light and air, conditions are
introduced favorable to the life and activity of
bacteria, known as aerobic, because they live With
air, and this class of bacteria complete the Work
of purification commenced by the anaerobic bacteria
in the septic tanks. The action of aerobic bacteria
is frequently referred to as an oxidizing action.
Fourth : The sewage is next subjected to the
action of the filter beds, from which it is discharged
finally purified.
Recess until 2:30.
Q. 15. “Complainant's Exhibit Engineering
Article on Saratoga Plant,” stated as follows on
January 31st. 1905:
“The tanks have never been emptied since they
were put in service in July, 1903, and no solid
matter has been taken from them * * * * *
* * Septic treatment was begun in the sum-
mer at the time of maximum population, the re-
sult being a rapid accumulation of solids during
the first two months. * * * * * * The
depth of the scum and the deposit continuously
increased up to April, 1904, when about 44 per
cent. of the entire volume of the tank was occu-
pied by these accumulations. * * * * * *
In August, when the sewage had reached its max-
imum temperature of 70° Fahr., the per cent. vol-
ume occupied by the scum deposit had fallen to
21.4 per cent. Since then the temperature has
lowered, and accumulated solids on Jan. 1, 1905,
occupied about 25 per cent. of the volume.’’
How does an apparatus constructed and operated
as described in the Cameron patent in suit, compare
in its results with the description I have just quoted
11
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
of the operation of defendants' apparatus? A. I
should say the result would be very similar.
Q. 16. Will you please explain why it is that the
results of the use of the defendants' apparatus and
the apparatus of the patent in suit, show an in-
crease of the scum and deposit at the commence-
ment, and thereafter no further increase, but rather
a diminution? A. The reason for this is, that the
defendants' plant was put in operation rather late
in the Summer, when the population was nearly at
its maximum. It takes several weeks for the culti-
Vation and development of anaerobic bacteria, even
under most favorable conditions, and before this
development was complete cold weather set in and
it is a well known fact that the action of anaerobic
bacteria is affected by the temperature, being very
much slower in a low temperature; the natural re-
sult then is that the accumulations in the tank
would increase. Later, when bacterial activity is
more complete, there is a marked diminution in the
solid matter in the tank, notwithstanding the fact
that it had been constantly added to by the con-
tinuous flow of sewage from the Village.
Q. 17. As I understand you, then, the results
above alluded to are due to the fact that the scum
and sediment have to accumulate for a period
which, under the most favorable conditions, would
Occupy several weeks before sufficient anaerobic
bacteria will be cultivated in the under surface of
the Scum and in the sediment to take care or dispose
of the solid organic matter constantly entering the
tank, after which, allowing for variations in tem-
perature, the increase of the scum and sediment
will substantially cease?
50
51
52
b3
54
12
B5
56
57
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
Question objected to as grossly leading.
A. That was my meaning.
Q. 18. Have you made a drawing, or caused one
to be made, substantially representing the defend-
ants’ sewage disposal plant at Saratoga
Springs, New York, inspected by you
at the times you referred to, and
if so, will you please produce the same? A. I pro-
duce a blue print of a drawing which was prepared
from notes I made during my examinations of the
defendants' plant.
Q. 19. Does this blue print substantially repre-
sent the defendants' plant as it stood at the time
examined by you? A. It does.
Complainant's counsel offers in evidence
the blue print just produced and the same
is marked “Complainant’s Exhibit
Blue Print of Saratoga Plant.”
Q. 20. Please describe the construction of the
defendants' sewage disposal plant, in connection
with this blue print, as it stood at the time you in-
Spected it. In giving this description, please use
on the blue print, letters and numerals correspond-
ing with the letters and numerals by which corres-
ponding parts are designated in the drawings of
the Cameron patent in suit, and wherever the
language of the Cameron patent in suit correctly
describes the construction of the defendants' plant,
please adopt such language and quote the same
from the patent in your description of the defend-
ants' plant. A. I do so, as follows. I now quote
from line 40, page 2, of the Cameron patent in suit.
“Fig. 1 represents a sectional plan view of a
tank for use in the treatment of sewage. * * *
13
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
* * * Fig. 2 represents a longitudinal sec-
tion on the line 2–2 of Fig. 1. Fig. 3 represents
a transverse section on the line 3—3 of Fig. 1.’’
Fig. 4 represents a transverse section on the line
4–4 of Fig. 1.
I now quote from line 66, page 2 of the patent in
suit.
‘‘A, being the tank which is constructed of *
* * * * cement concrete. It is shallow in
comparison with other dimensions and is provided
with a cover 60 which is " " made air tight
and * * * man * * * holes 61 are pro-
vided in such cover * ***
I now quote from line 81, page 2:
“The inlet 63 to the tank discharges into same
some distance below the normal water level and
is * * * * directed horizontally * * *
so as to avoid breaking the scum which forms in
the tank when sewage has been in it for two or
three days. The outlets from the tank is sub-
merged " " * In the upper half of the depth
of the tank and is extended across the * * *
greater part of the width of the tank so as to draw
off the clear water below the scum or floating mat-
ter without disturbing the latter. It is necessary
to discharge the contents of the tank or vessel
along an extended line lest the flow should be con-
centrated to a point or points of discharge and so
disturbed and carry away the floating matter. The
outlet therefore consists of a * * * conduit
10 * * * following the line along which it is
desired that the contents of the vessel or tank A.
should be discharged and having throughout its
length”
an “aperture by which liquid may enter the said
* * Conduit.”
This aperture consists of two inch holes in two
horizontal rows lettered 10a in the blue print
about three and a half feet from the surface, and
constitutes the substantial equivalent of a slot, es-
60
61
62
63
64
14
65
66
67
68
69
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
pecially if this slot were provided with a strainer
for the exclusion of solid matter as the patent in
Suit states it may have (see p. 2, line 121).
I next quote from line 128, page 2, of the patent
in suit:
There are “two or more tanks “ ” * so
that any of them may be emptied if necessary with-
out interrupting the purification of the sewage.”
I now quote from line 132, page 2 of the patent
in suit:
There is “means for the removal of mud or other
material deposited * * * for which purpose
the bottom of such tank or vessel " " " (is)
sloped toward * * * a pipe or conduit 11.”
I now quote from line 25, page 3 of the patent
in suit:
“In the arrangement shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3
the sewage or other liquid coming through the
sewer 13 is delivered into a well 14, where grit and
other solid matters are allowed to settle. It then
passes through the pipes 15 and 16 and the inlets
63 into the tank A in which it may be treated *
* * bacteriologically. * * After treatment
in the tank A it passes into the pipe or conduit
10 through the * * *apertures provided for the
purpose, the effect of which is that it is evenly de-
livered all along the line of the * * * open-
ings into the * * * conduit and concentration
of the flow to one or more points is avoided. From
the * * conduit 10 the effluent passes through
pipes 17 * * * into the aerator 18 * * *
down which it flows in thin films “ ” * this
operation being repeated until it arrives at the last
compartment whence it * * * (is) conveyed
through pipes 66 to a filter or filters for further
treatment. It will be seen that as the effluent pas-
ses over the inclined surface 65 it will be exposed
to the action of the air and so aerated.”
67 is a dosing tank connected by the pipe 66
with the sand filters 69.
15
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
Q. 21. As I understand it, your last answer is
a description in connection with the blue print
which you have produced of the defendants’ sew-
age disposal plant; those portions of the answer
in quotation marks being quoted from the specifi-
cation of the Cameron patent in suit; is that cor-
rect?
Same objection.
A. It is.
Q. 22. Now, please describe in connection with
the blue print of the Saratoga plant, how the de-
fendants operate said plant? A. The method of
operating the defendants’ plant resembles so
closely the processes described in the Cameron
patent in suit, that I can not describe it better
than in the language of the specification of the
patent in Suit, which I will now do, placng in quo-
tations those portions of my description which I
Quote from the said specification.
I will now quote from page 1, line 51 of the
patent:
“In carrying out the process the first step is to
develop in a flowing current of sewage micro-or-
ganisms or bacteria of a character and quantity
capable of practically liquefying the mass of solid
organic matter contained in the flowing current of
sewage. This is effected by forming a pool in the
flowing current and secluding said pool from light,
air and agitation while permitting a non-disturb-
ing inflow of the sewage into the pool,” from the
inlet opening 63, ‘‘and an outflow therefrom '' from
the openings 10a. In this condition of the pool, in
the absence of light, air and agitation, the micro-
organisms increase at a fabulous rate, being fed by
the incoming solid matter of the sewage until a
mass of bacteria is developed sufficient in char-
acter and quantity to liquefy substantially all the
70
71
'72
73
74
16
75
76
77
78
79
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
Solid organic matter contained in the sewage pass-
ing through the pool. During this operation there
is formed on the surface of the sewage in the pool
a brown Scum. This crust of solid substances
floating and completely bridging over the water
is (several) * * inches thick * * *”
I will now quote from the specification com-
mencing with line 81, page 1:
* “After the formation of this practical solid
dissolving mass of bacteria, the non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow are continued until practically all
the Solid organic matter is dissolved and the out-
flow is in the form of a liquid without solid par-
ticles of sewage. The operation goes on and the
flowing current of sewage is continually liquefy-
ing. The liquefied sewage as it leaves the septic
pool has a slight odor * * * and to relieve it
of this slight odor it is subjected to an aerating
operation.’’
There is no chemical treatment of the sewage.
The process is exclusively bacteriological and is
accurately and literally described in claims 1, 2, 3,
4 and 21 of the patent in suit.
Q. 23. I have carefully compared with the spec-
ification of the Cameron patent in Suit the quo-
tations therefrom that you have given in your
last two answers as correctly descriptive, in con-
nection with your blue print, of the defendant’s
apparatus, and its process of use, and it appears
to me that the principal parts of the specification
that you have omitted to quote are the parts de-
scriptive of alternative constructions, or merely
words of preference. I therefore ask you whether
you understand that the quotations of your last
two answers include substantially all of the im-
portant parts of the specification of the Cameron
patent in suit descriptive of the form of apparatus
17
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
therein described as preferable and its process of
operation?
Objected to as leading and manifestly an
attempt to suggest to the witness.
A. They are substantially so.
Q. 24. Turning now to the process claims 1, 2,
3, 4 and 21, of the patent in suit, state whether
the process of treating sewage employed by the
defendants and heretofore referred to by you, con-
tains the invention particularly specified in Said
claims respectively, or either of them, and give
your reasons for any opinion you may express. A.
It does as to each and all of said claims. This
opinion is based on the manifest fact that the
language of each of said claims describes literally
the process carried on in the defendants’ plant,
and that therefore not only is the same result ac-
complished, but in precisely the same way as de-
Scribed in each and all of the said claims.
Q. 25. Turning now to apparatus claims, 5, 6,
7, 8, 11, 12, 20 and 22, of the Cameron patent in
suit, please state whether you find the invention
specified in said claims respectively, or either of
them, contained in the apparatus of the defend-
ants’ plant before referred to by you, and repre-
sented in your “Exhibit Blue Print Saratoga
Plant,” and give your reason for any opinion you
may express? A. I do, as to all of the claims
mentioned. Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 20 and 22, are each
literally descriptive of the defendants’ apparatus.
Claims 7 and 12 are also descriptive of defendants’
apparatus, but with the exception that the outlets
are referred to as a slot. In defendants’ plant this
aperture consists of two horizontal rows of holes
80
81
82
83
84
18
85
86
87
88
89
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
10a, extending across the entire width of the tank
and constitutes the mechanical equivalent for a
slot and is especially So if such slot were provided
with a strainer, as is stated on lines 121, 122, 123,
page 1 of the specification, as follows:
“The slot or apertures may also be provided
with a strainer for the exclusion of solid matter.”
Q. 26. Is this outlet from defendants’ tank, and
which you say is the mechanical equivalent of the
slot of the claims, the same which is described in
Exhibit Engineering Article on Saratoga Plant,
as follows:
“The septic effluent is discharged at the oppo-
site end through 96 2-in. pipes, in two horizontal
rows, also 3% feet below the high water line * *
* extending the width of the tank.” º
A. It is.
Q. 27. “Exhibition Engineering Article on
Saratoga Plant” gives the depth of the sewage
at the inlet end of the tank as 7% feet and at
the outlet end as 8% feet, and states that the four
inlet openings for the sewage are at a depth of
3% feet below high water line, and that the out-
let openings are also at 3% feet depth. Are these
the depths that you referred to as mid-depth? A.
Yes. In other words, both the inlets and outlets
are about four feet from the bottom of the tank.
Q. 28. What position were these inlets and out-
lets in with respect to the scum on top and the
sediment or sludge at the bottom of the tank? A.
Between the two.
Q. 29. The exhibit “Engineering Article on
Saratoga Plant” states that there are four of
these septic tanks in defendants’ plant, each 91%
feet long by 51% feet wide. Are the sewage in-
19
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
let and outlet openings respectively at tthe oppo-
site ends of each of these tanks, so that the mass
of Sewage flows lengthwise through an oblong
tank as it does in the patent in suit? A. They are.
Q. 30. Is it also true that the inlet and outlet
openings being distributed across the respective
ends of the tank cause the mass of sewage to flow
bodily through the tank from end to end in a cur-
rent which extends substantially equably across
the tank and between the scum above and the
sludge below, in both the defendants’ apparatus
and that of the patent in suit? A. It is.
Q. 31. What is the material in the defendants’
plant that is numbered 80 in “Complainant’s Ex-
hibit Blue Print Saratoga Plant” and which over-
lies the roof of the septic tank A, A. Earth fil-
ling.
Adjourned to Tuesday, Feb. 7th, 1905, 10.30
a. Iſl.
New York, February 7th, 1905, 10.30.
Met pursuant to adjournment;
Present, counsel as before.
Examination of Mr. Wyllie continued:
Q. 32. In describing the defendants’ process in
the language of the Cameron patent in Suit, you
used the expression “forming a pool in the flowing
current and secluding said pool from light, air and
agitation,” and you added, that under these condi-
tions, “the micro-organisms increase at a fabulous
rate, being fed by the incoming solid matter of the
sewage until a mass of bacteria is developed suffici.
ent in character and quantity to liquefy substanti-
ally all the solid organic matter contained in the
90
91
93
94
20
95
96
98
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
sewage passing through the pool;” such bacteria.
finding their lodgement and being cultivated in the
sediment or sludge, and the scum below and above
the flowing current of sewage. About what is the
speed of defendants' flowing current of Sewage
under which these conditions are maintained. In
answering this question you may avail yourself of
any data, given in Exhibit “Engineering Article on
Saratoga Plant.” A. The speed of the sewage
through the tank would be about from six to nine
feet per hour. This calculation is based upon the
statement in the Engineering Article referred to,
that the daily flow of sewage is retained in the tank
from ten to fifteen hours.
Q. 33. What provision is made in connection
with the defendants’ septic tanks for maintaining
the depth of the sewage therein substantially con-
stant and what provision is made in the Cameron
patent in suit for like purpose? A. The depth of
Sewage in the septic tank in defendants' plant is
maintained by the level of the weir, over which the
tank effluent is discharged from conduit L0 shown
in Figure 2 longitudinal section, on line 2–2, Fig.
1, Of the “Complainant’s Exhibit Blue Print Sara-
toga Plant.” In the Cameron patent, the depth of
Sewage in the tank is maintained by the level of the
aerator or slightly sloping surface 65, shown in the
drawings of the patent in suit.
Q. 34. In the Exhibit “Engineering Article on
Saratoga Plant,” the cut entitled “Interior View of
Septic Tank Looking Toward Outlet End, shows
the roof as supported by pillars, which pillars are
not represented in your blue print; why is this? A.
The pillars shown in the cut referred to are for the
21
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
purpose of supporting the roof of the plant, and
are not essential so far as the process is concerned.
They were therefore omitted from the blue print to
avoid confusion.
Q. 35. Does the cut referred to show the double
line of mid-depth performations that constitute the
outlet for the tank effluent, and which you have
designated by 10-a in your blue print? A. Yes, it
does. These perforations appear in the end walls
of the cut referred to, although somewhat indis-
tinct.
Q. 36. As I understand you, the defendants in
the use of their septic tanks, introduce nothing into
the tank excepting the sewage itself; is that cor-
rect? A. It is.
Q. 37. In the Engineering Article, it is stated
that in the defendants' tanks the depth of the sew-
age at the inlet end is 7% feet, and at the outlet
end 8% feet; is this because the floor of the tank is
slightly inclined downward from the inlet end
to Wards the Outlet end? A. It is.
Q. 38. What is the size of each of the four inlet
openings into defendants’ septic tank, which you
have numbered 63, on your blue-print? A. Each is
12 inches in diameter.
Q. 40. About how far are they spaced apart
across the Gnd of the tank? A. About 12 feet, or
possibly 13 feet apart.
Q. 41. Do the arrows on your blue-print show
the course taken by the sewage during its treat-
ment by defendants? A. They do.
Q. 42. Why have you designated the pipe 81 on
your blue-print as “distributing pipe?” A. Because
1()0
101
102
103
104
22
105
106
107
108
109
;
:
© tº º
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
its function is the distribution of the Sewage Supply
to the different tanks.
Q. 43. Explain more particularly than you have
done the connections by which the sewage supply is
distributed from the pipe 81 to each of the different
tanks? A. The sewage is discharged through pipe
81 into an inlet chamber 81-a, which is diſvided into
two compartments by a dividing wall, the top of
which is 9 inches above the maintained water level.
In this wall there is an opening controlled by a
valve which when open allows the sewage to flow
through it into an inner chamber. From each side
of this inner chamber, pipes 15 and 16 lead to the
septic tanks and the sewage is discharged into it
through inlets 63.
Q. 44. In the operation of defendant's apparatus,
was the pipe 11, which on your blue print is called
“pipe to sludge bed,” open or closed? A. It was
closed.
Q. 45. Describe more particularly than you have
done the connections between the tank outlet holes
10-a and the pipe 17, called on your blue print
“pipe to aerator?” A. The outlet holes 10-a open
into a conduit 10, extending the entire width of the
tank, and the sewage flowing through these holes
passes through conduit 10 and over a weir, by
Which the water level in the septic tank is main-
tained, into a weir chamber, shown on the blue
print. Thence to the outlet chamber, as shown by
arrows, from which it is discharged into pipe 17.
Q. 46. Is the weir chamber covered or uncovered?
A. It is covered, access thereto being through a
manhole.
Q. 47. Explain more in detail than you have
© Q
e°e e
* e e
º ©
© º
23
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
done, the defendant’s aerator, shown in your blue
print? A. The aerator is a circular chamber hav-
ing in its center a riser pipe which at the bottom
is connected with pipe 17. The sewage flowing
through pipe 17 rises to the top of this central riser
pipe and overflows passing in thin films Over and
through perforated surfaces into the body of the
circular chamber 18 before referred to; thence to
the dosing tank.
Q. 48. In the Exhibit Engineering Article, is
the flowing of the sewage over the top of the central
riser pipe in a thin film over the upper perforated
plates 65, shown in the cut entitled “aerator on the
discharge pipe of the Saratoga Springs septic
tanks?” A. It is.
Q. 49. Is there any substantial difference in the
mode of operation of this aerator, or the result
accomplished thereby, upon the septic effluent from
the septic tanks, from the mode of operation and
result of the aerator of the Cameron patent in suit,
Wherein the septic effluent from the septic tank is
Caused to flow in thin films. Over the successive sur-
faces three of which are shown and numbered 65 in
the drawing of the patent in suit? A. No, there is no
substantial difference. In both the defendant's
plant and the patent in suit, the sewage is caused
to flow in thin films over surfaces to which air and
light have free access.
Q. 50. As I understand it, there is no cover or
top over the defendants' aerator; is that so? A. It
has no cover.
Q. 51. Explain more particularly than you have
done, the function of the defendants' dosing tank,
numbered 67 on your blue print? A. The dosing
1 10
111
112
113
114
24
115
116
117
118
119
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
tank 67 is a receptacle in which a certain quantity
of sewage is temporarily retained for distribution
alternately through pipe 66 to the sand filters 69.
It is fitted with an apparatus for this alternate dis-
tribution.
Q. 52. Is this dosing tank of the defendants
roofed Over? A. It is.
Q. 53. I come now to the defendants' filter beds,
of which the Engineering Article states that there
are 20, and that 18 of them are about one acre in
size, and the other two somewhat smaller. As I
understand it, in Figure 1 of your blue print you
have shown one of these filter beds, and a portion
of the two adjoining it on either side, designated as
“sand filter 69;” is that correct? A. Yes, it is.
Q. 54. And I also understand that on your blue
print you have shown only the connection between
the dosing tank and one of the filter beds? A. That
is correct.
Q. 55. But I also understand that the dosing
tank is in fact connected with each of the Other filter
beds by pipes not shown in your blue print?
Objected to as leading.
A. I presme SO.
Q. 56. You have stated (Ans. 14) that the sew-
age is distributed on the surface of defendants’
filters in open channels exposed to light and air.
Is one of those channels shown on your blue print
extending across the filter bed 69? A. It is, and
marked “Main distributing channel.”
Q. 57. What, if any other channels are there on
the surface of the filter beds through which the
sewage is distributed over the surface of the bed
25
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
while exposed to light and air? A. The surface of
the beds is trenched.
Q. 58. Are the “Main distributing channel” and
the trenches that you have referred to, by which
the sewage is distributed over the surface of defend-
ant's beds, and at the same time subjected to light
and air, shown in the cut of the Engineering
Article, entitled “Intermitted Sand Filtration Beds
at Saratoga Springs?” A. They are.
Q. 59. Is the under drainage of the defendants'
filter beds, and which you have illustrated in your
blue print by the “Collecting Pipe,” that which you
understand to be described in the Engineering
article as follows:
“Only one line of under drains was laid under
each bed at a depth of about 6% feet, and a line
of 10 to 15 inch drains was placed at a depth of
11 feet, and the smaller drains connected with it.
In the main drain manholes were placed at the
junction of the laterals and the upper ends of all
drains were turned up and carried to the surface
in order to induce a circulation of air and reduce
the accumulation of carbonic acid gas in the body
of the filters.”
A. Yes, it is; but having no means of ascertain-
ing just what method of under-drainage was adopt-
ed in the defendants' plant, at the same time know-
ing that some such method was essential, I placed
the collecting pipe in the drawing as shown, for the
purpose of indicating the probable method of under-
drainage that might reasonably be supposed was
adopted.
Q. 60. Is any chemical added to the sewage, or
permitted to act upon the sewage, at any stage of
the defendants' treatment? A. No; there are mani-
festly no chemicals used, as their introduction
120
| 21
122
123
124
26
125
126
127
128
129
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
would interfere with the operation of the System,
which is admittedly bacteriological, or, in other
Words, septic.
Q. 61. Did you examine the final sewage effluent
from the filter beds of the defendants' plant, and if
so, what did you find as to the result upon the Sew-
age of such plant, and the 'comparison of such
result with that accomplished by a plant construct-
ed and operating as described in the Cameron pat-
ent in suit? A. I removed a sample of the effluent
from the filter beds and examined it. The result
was substantially the same as What might be ex-
pected from a plant built under the Cameron pat-
ent which is in suit. The purification of the Sew-
age was substantially complete.
Q. 62. Was such result substantially the same
as that which you have found to be produced by
plants 'constructed as described in the Cameron
patent in suit? A. Substantially so.
Q. 63. Did you also examine the sewage effluent
in the defendants' plant at the stage intermediate
the Septic tank and the aerator, and if so, what did
you find as to the result up to that stage upon the
sewage of the defendants' plant in comparison with
the result up to a corresponding stage accomplished
by plants constructed as described in the Cameron
patent in suit? A. Yes, by removing the manhole
coverings from the weir chambers and outlet cham-
ber, shown in the blue print drawing of the defend-
ants' plant, I was able to see the sewage passing
through them, and although I did not remove
Samples its general appearance was similar to a
tank effluent from septic tanks built in accordance
with the Cameron patent in suit.
27
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
Q. 64. Did you inspect the scum on the top of the
sewage in the defendants’ septic tank, and if so,
how did such scum compare with the Scum formed
on top of the sewage in the operation of a plant cOn-
structed in accordance with the description. Of the
patent in suit? A. I did examine it, and as already
stated in my testimony, removed samples. Its ap-
pearance in all respects was similar to the Scums
which form on septic tanks built in accordance
with the Cameron patent, which had been in opera-
tion for about the same length of time.
Direct examination closed.
New York, February 8th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Cross-examination of Mr. Wyllie by Mr. Sturte-
Vant:
XQ. 65. In what capacity were you employed by
your uncle during the period spoken of in your
answer to Q. 22 A. I was employed as assistant
to my uncle, Mr. John M. Martin, civil and sanitary
engineer, at Exeter, England. I did a good deal of
field work as well as assisting in the plotting, Sur-
veying and similar work, incidental to the business.
Also inspected works after completition. My uncle,
John M. Martin was the father of Arthur J. Martin,
one of the patentees of the patent in suit.
XQ. 66. During the time you were employed by
your uncle, did you have any special experience in
the constructing of sewage disposal systems, and if
so, state generally what experience you had? A.
The only sewage disposal systems that I can recall
having been engaged upon, was that at Ruabon, in
130
131
132
133
134
28
135
136
1:37
138
139
EIUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
North Wales. In this case I was not employed in
the field work, but assisted in the office.
XQ. 67. Can you give a general idea of the meth-
Od of Operation of that sewage disposal system and
the size of the plant, &c.” A. I can, in a general way.
In the sewage disposal plant of which I speak, we
disposed of the sewage of the City of Ruabon. On
a sewage farm of about 200 acres, the farm being
divided up into sections, and each section receiving
the sewage at different times, the farm being culti-
wated, and the work of construction, I might, say,
comprised the laying out of this farm, the irrigation
ditches, drainage, &c. There was no preliminary
treatment of the sewage.
XQ. 68. As I understand, you were not in this
particular work at Ruabon employed in the field,
but in the office, designing, working up notes, &c.;
but did you have in other cases actual field experi-
ence in the laying of sewerage systems, and Work of
that character? A. I did.
XQ. 69. But this was the only complete system
of sewage disposal upon which you performed any
work at the times mentioned, was it, during the time
you were in the employ of Mr. Martin? A. It is
the only extensive system, we were employed on
during that time. The only other sewerage systems
that I worked on emptied directly into tidal waters
or into streams, without any preliminary treatment
Or method of disposal.
XQ. 70. In your answer to Q. 2, you have stated
that you have devoted yourself exclusively the past
few years to the designing, construction and opera-
tion of sewage disposal plants under the Cameron
system in the United States. Please state where in
29
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
this country such plants have been constructed by
your company? A. The first plant we were en-
gaged on in this Continent was in Sackville, New
Brunswick; and the next was at Vancouver, B. C.;
Glencoe, Illinois; Clayton, Missouri; a small plant
at Lake Forest, Illinois; a plant at Davenport, Iowa
(this was for a public institution, with a popula-
tion of about three or four hundred); Mt. Pleasant,
Iowa; Cambridge, Illinois; Chickamauga Park,
Georgia (a military post); Moline, Illinois; Grand
Canyon, Arizona; another plant at Lake Forest (in
a ladies’ academy); and others, of which I will fur-
nish a list, if you wish.
XQ. 71. Were any of these sewage disposal
plants which you have mentioned, constructed for
the purpose of taking care of the sewage of the en-
tire towns, or only of institutions, independent
houses, and the like? A. They were either for
towns or institutions. At Glencoe, we disposed of
the sewage of the entire town, I think about 1200
population. At Vancouver we have taken care of
the sewage of a population of about 10,000, at three
different locations; that is, we have three plants.
And the others are for portions of towns, or for in-
stitutions with populations up to, say, 2500. For
example, at Clayton, Missouri, a plant which we
constructed there, takes care of the sewage from
the County buildings, the jail, and a portion of the
town. The sewage of a portion of the town has
been carried into the plant since.
XQ. 71. But so far as these plants, which you
have mentioned, are concerned, did you yourself
design the construction of the same? A. They
were either designed by me or under my super-
vision.
140
141
142
143
144
30
145
146
147
148
149
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
XQ. 72. What do you mean by under your super-
vision—by engineers or draftsmen in the employ of
your company, or by engineers of the towns or in-
stitutions working under advice from you? A. By
engineers or draftsmen in the employ of my com-
pany.
XQ. 73. What are the largest and the smallest
plants of this character, which your company has
constructed? I mean by the “largest,” to use the
term with reference to the population that the plant
has been designed to look after?
In order to avoid misapprehension, com-
plainant's counsel requests the witness
in his answer to state whether he refers
only to the American Company or to the
British Company.
A. Referring only to the plants constructed by
the American Company, the largest would be the
Vancouver plant, where each plant takes care of
5000, 3000 and 2000 respectively. This was put in
in the Winter of 1900 and 1901, I think, from plans
and specifications furnished by this company, or by
me personally, before the organization of the Cam-
eron Septic Tank Company. The smallest would
probably be a plant designed for a large ranch
house near Trinidad, Colorado, where, if I remem-
ber correctly, the population to be provided for was
about 20 Or 30.
XQ. 74. Are all of these plants, to which you
have referred in successful practical operation at
the present time? A. They are, with the possible
exception of a plant here and there that has not
received proper attention. I mean by this, that the
plants designed by us require so little attention,
31
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
that what little attention they need is often times
neglected. This refers more particularly to the
contact beds, and the care of the alternating gear
by which the tank effluent is distributed to them.
XQ. 75. Can you mention any of these plants
which you have knowledge are not in successful
Operation at this time? A. No. I believe at this
time they are all in good practical working order.
The last complaint I received was about a couple
of weeks ago from the Davenport plant, this cont-
plaint gave no particulars, but said it needed at-
tention. I sent a man there to look at it, and he re-
ported that the contact beds seemed to be clogged.
This was due largely to the inferior quality of the
material with which the beds are filled. In building
the Davenport plant we used cinders produced at the
institution, which to all appearances were suit-
able for the purpose, but we found later that
although these cinders were carefully screened, they
contained a good deal of unconsumed coal and ash
which after frequent saturation became disintegrat-
ed and clogged the interstices of the filtering ma.
terial. This has given us a good deal of trouble,
and is the cause of this particular complaint I
speak of. The septic tank in this and other cases
has worked satisfactorily.
XQ. 76. Leaving out of consideration the
Canadian plant, what is the largest plant you have
constructed in the United States, and for how large
a population does it look after? A. At Moline,
Illinois. Our plant there is designed for 2500. I
think that is the largest.
XQ. 77. Are all these plants, both the large and
small, constructed substantially in accordance
150
151
152
153
154
32
155
157
158
159
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
with the specifications and drawings of the Cam-
eron patent in suit? A. Substantially so, with
certain modifications made necessary by local con-
ditions.
YQ. 78. How large about would be the septic
tank in the smallest plant, you have referred to?
That is, to look after 20 to 30 persons? A. I
can’t state the dimensions from recollection, but
I can figure them out approximately, if you wish.
Approximately 12 feet long and 5 feet wide.
XQ. 79. Can you remember substantially the
dimensions of the septic tank in the plant at Mo-
line, Illinois? A. The plant at Moline consists of
two septic tanks and two sets of contact beds.
Each of the septic tanks, I think, are about 80 feet
long and about 12 or 14 feet wide.
XQ. 80. In both the large and the Small plant
referred to, does the sewage pass into a settling
chamber before going into the septic tank? A.
Yes.
|XQ. 81. In the large plant at Moline, do you
use the system of aeration set forth in the Cam-
eron patent in suit; if not, how do you aerate? A.
Not exactly; for the reason that we had so little
fall that it made it impractical. We therefore de-
pend on aeration in this plant in the contact beds
themselves.
|XQ. 82. I understand, then, that you aerate
on the filter beds in the Moline plant; is that cor-
rect? A. In the contact beds.
XQ. 83. Will you please explain how this aera-
tion is accomplished in the Moline plant in the
contact bed? A. To do so I had better perhaps
describe the contact bed. The function of a con-
33
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
tact bed is to hold the tank effluent in contact
with the material with, which the bed is filled.
When full of sewage it is allowed to remain full
for a certain length of time and then by an auto-
matic arrangement it is discharged, and as it
leaves the contact bed the air is drawn down into
the body of the filter, preparing it for its next dose
of sewage.
XQ. 84. As I understand it, then, a contact bed
is a filter bed, although a filter bed need not nec-
essarily be a contact bed; is that true? A. That
is right.
XQ. 85. The aeration, then, at Moline is simply
what naturally takes place in the use of a contact
bed; is that correct? A. Yes. We would prefer
to use an aerator, but as I have before stated, the
local conditions would not permit it.
XQ. 86. Still you consider that in the Moline
plant there is and must be aeration of the effluent
from the septic tank; that is correct, is it not? A.
To a limited extent.
XQ. 87. So far, then, as the process of aeration
mentioned in the patent is concerned, it is imma-
terial whether this aeration takes place at exactly
the time stated in the patent, or at the time it
takes place in the Moline plant; that is correct, is
it not? A. No; hardly immaterial; I wouldn’t
say immaterial, because I think better results are
secured by subjecting it to a distinct aerating
operation when it leaves the septic tank, and be-
fore entering the contact beds.
YQ. 88. Still you consider the aeration in the
contact bed of the Moline plant a mixing of the
160
161
162
163
164
34
165
166
167
168
169
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
sewage with the air to purify the effluent to a cer-
tain extent, do you not? A. Yes, I do.
XQ. 89. Please explain how the aeration of the
effluent is accomplished in the Small plant near
Trinidad, Colorado, to which, you have referred?
A. I don’t remember the details of that plant. It
was designed a long time ago.
|XQ. 90. You remember, however, do you not,
there was provision made in this plant for aera-
tion of the effluent? A. I presume so, but I don’t
remember the details.
|XQ. 91. In that small plant was the effluent
delivered from the septic tank to filter beds? A.
Yes, I remember that part of it, because I remem-
ber furnishing the necessary alternating gear for
its distribution to the contact beds
XQ. 92. Without regard to details, however,
can you not say positively whether or not there
was provision made in this small plant for aera-
tion? A: I can not, further than that it would
receive in the contact bed. As I have before
stated, I don’t remember the details of its con-
struction.
XQ. 93. Have you ever constructed a plant in
which there has been aeration of the effluent, ex-
cept in the contact or filter bed? A. Yes, sir; at
Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, for instance.
XQ. 94. Did you ever see that small plant near
Trinidad? A. No, sir. I merely furnished the
design; that is, the plans and specifications for
its construction.
XQ. 95. Will you ascertain how the aeration
was accomplished in this small plant near Trini-
35
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
dad? A. I shall be glad to do so. I have tele-
graphed for the plans.
XQ. 96. Referring to the Moline plant, please
explain how the sewage is passed from the set-
tling chamber into the septic tank. A. In the set-
tling chamber we have two valves connecting with
distributing chambers at the intlet end of each
of the tanks; from these inlet or distributing cham-
bers, the sewage is passed into the septic tanks.
YQ. 97. Is it passed into the septic tanks in the
manner illustrated in the patent in suit? A. Sub-
stantially so; we have a series of inlets into each,
tank, discharging at mid-depth in the tank. That
is, between the scum and the sludge.
XQ. 98. Is the manner of passing the effluent
out of the septic tank substantially like that shown
in the Cameron patent in suit, or if different, how
does it differ? A. It is the same.
XQ. 99. While perhaps you cannot remember
all the details of the various plants you have de-
signed and constructed, is it not so that in all of
them some provision was made for aeration of the
effluent? A. That is true whenever we have suf-
ficient fall for that purpose. Unfortunately it hap-
pens sometimes, as at Moline, where we have to
depend on the aeration to which the effluent is sub-
jected in the contact bed.
XQ. 100. Still in all cases there is aeration? A.
Yes.
XQ. 101. Do you remember as 'to the small
plant near Trinidad, Colorado, how the sewage
passes from the settling chamber into the septic
tank? A. I do not. But I think it is safe to say
that it is discharged into the tank substantially
170
171
172
173
174
36
175
176
177
| 78
179
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
the same as at Moline, or substantially the same
as into each one of the tanks at Moline.
XQ. 102. Do you remember as to the discharge
of the effluent from the septic tank at the small
plant referred to? A. I do not. I never saw the
plant and have only an indistinct recollection of
its construction, or design.
XQ. 103. I think you said in answer to one of
the questions on direct examination, that you
attach a plate with the Cameron patent date to the
tanks of the apparatuses which you instal. I sup-
pose you carry out this plan upon the large as well
as the small plants, do you not? A. We do. If
not on a name plate specially provided for that
purpose, it appears on the iron manhole covers
with which all of the plants, large or small, are pro-
vided.
XQ. 104. You consider, then, that so far as the
process of the patent in suit is concerned, and also
so far as the general construction of the apparatus
is concerned, that a plant of small size, as well as
a plant of large size, comes within the purview of
the patent in suit; that is correct, is it not? A. It
is.
Recess until 2 p. m.
The witness states that he desires to add at the
end of his answer to Q. 71 the words “or is con-
templated.”
XQ. 105. Did you yourself superintend the con-
struction of the plant at Moline, Illinois? A. Not
personally; the contract for the actual construction
of the Moline plant was let to a man who has had
considerable experience in the construction of our
plants, that is, he has constructed several of them.
37
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
His name is F. G. Mortimer, of Chicago, and the
construction of the plants which he builds for us
are directly under our supervision.
XQ. 106. Have you ever personally examined
the plant at Moline, Illinois? A. Yes, both during
construction and afterwards, several times during
construction.
XQ. 107. Do you know how long this plant has
been in operation? A. A little Over a year.
XQ. 108. Have you made an examination of this
plant since it was in operation? If so, when? A.
The last time I saw it I think was in the early part
of this winter.
XQ. 109. Do you remember about how much of a
sludge formation there was at that time? A. I
do not. I didn’t examine it. My object in visiting
the plant was to see that it was operating Satisfac-
torily, and to all appearances it was.
XQ. 110. Do you know whether or not there had
been or has been, any removal of sludge during its
operation? A. There has not.
XQ. 111. But you don’t remember how much of
this sludge deposit there was at the time you visited
the plant last, do you? A. No. There certainly
was not enough of an accumulation to interfere
With its operation or it would have been apparent
in the tank effluent.
XQ. 112. You have referred in your answer to
XQ 93 to a plant at Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, in which
there has been aeration of the effluent, Jther than
in the contact or filter bed. Will you please explain
the system of areation in use in that plant? A.
Yes; the aerator consists of a chamber 8 or 10 feet
long, about 18 inches or two feet wide, and about
180
181
182
} 83
184
38
185
186
187
188
189
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
2 or 3 feet deep. The tank effluent leaving the sep-
tic tank is discharged into this aerating chamber
through an upright pipe which is built up through
the bottom of a trough extending the whoſe length
of the aerating chamber. The effluent flows over
the top of this pipe into the trough, overflowing
the sides of the same its entire length in thin films
into the body of the aerator. from which it is con-
ducted to the alternating arrangement for distrib-
uting the flow on to the contact beds.
XQ. 113. As I understand it then, the effluent
passes through a closed pipe into a trough and when
the trough is filled the effluent flows over the edge
in a thin film into the aerating chamber, is that
correct? A. It is correct, except that the pipe is
not enclosed; it overflows over the top of the pipe
into the trough, and from the trough into the cham-
ber.
XQ. 114. Is this plant at Mt. Pleasant, as you
remember, the only one in which that particular
system of aeration has been adopted? A. No; the
same system is adopted at Saratoga Springs; that
is, the effluent is discharged into the aerating cham-
ber through an upright pipe, and overflows it just
as I have described in this case.
XQ. 115. I meant my last question to refer to
plants constructed by your own company; will you
please answer the question with that understand-
ing? A. As I think I before stated, in designing
plants, we are governed by local conditions. At
Glencoe, for instance, the septic tank is on the top
of a bluff, probably 75 feet above the beach of Lake
Michigan; the contact beds are located down on
the beach ; the method of aeration there was de-
39
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
signed to carry the tank effluent down the slope
of a bluff in steps, and at each step the effluent is
discharged into the upper part of a vertical pipe
6 or 8 feet deep, discharging at the bottom, and
so on, down to the foot of the bluff. The top of
each of these vertical shafts, I might call them,
being covered by an open iron grating. As I Say
we are governed altogether by local conditions.
XQ. 116. So that the particular means adopted
by you for aeration may vary with each plant you
instal; is that So? A. Yes, sir; so long as bearing
in mind the object in view, that is, the exposure of
the tank effluent to the action of air and light, as
far as practicable.
XQ. 117. You were unable to remember the
details of arrangement of the small plant installed
near Trinidad, Colorado, but is there any small
plant constructed by your company the details of
which you can remember? A. The plant I have
described at Glencoe is considered a small plant,
being for about 1200 people.
XQ. 118. Do you remember the details of any
plant constructed by your company which is of
size substantially that of the one referred to as
having been constructed near Trinidad f A. No,
that is by far the smallest plant we have had any-
thing to do with.
XQ. 119. Can you remember where the next
larger plant to that of Trinidad was constructed?
A. I think at Cambridge, Illinois, designed to take
care of a population of from 75 fo 100. In this
case subsequent treatment by contact is not resort-
ed to ,the effluent from the septic tank being dis-
charged through a long outfall drain to a creek, in
190
191
192
193
194
40
195
196
197
198
199
EIUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
which it is supposed to sufficiently purify itself in
the open stream to be void of nuisance.
XQ. 120. In this case, is there any areation of
the effluent? A. No, it is supposed to get its area-
tion in its passage down the Stream, and being a
small plant I think there will be no trouble On
account of lack of other aeration.
XQ. 121. Is this outfall drain a closed pipe run-
ning from the Septic tank to the creek: A. Yes,
that it is a covered pipe Open at both ends.
XQ. 122. In connection with this plant, how
does the effluent pass from the septic tank into the
outfall drain? A. From the tank it passes through
a slotted pipe, extending across the outlet end, and
is conveyed thence into an effluent chamber, and
the Outfall drain. I have referred to leads Off from
that chamber to the outlet.
XQ. 123. Is this plant provided with a settling
chamber? A. Yes.
XQ. 124. And how does the sewage pass from
the settling chamber into the septic tank? A.
Through inlets leading from this settling chamber
down through the end wall of the tank, discharging
into it at mid depth, very similar to that described
at Moline.
XQ. 125. About what would be the dimensions
of a septic tank of a plant the size of the one at
Cambridge, Illinios? A. The dimensions of the
Cambridge plant would be about 16 or 18 feet long
and about 5 feet wide; this statement is based on
figuring and not from recollection; and it should be
reinembered that the dimensions of a tank are not
governed entirely by the volume of flow, the char-
acter of the sewage has to be considered, and I do
41
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
not remember exactly upon just what basis the
Cambridge plant was designed.
XQ. 126. In your answer to XQ. 124 you state
that the sewage passes from the settling chamber
through inlets into the septic tank; for a tank of
the size mentioned, about how inlets would be plo-
vided? A. I think at Cambridge we ailowed for
two inlets into the one tank.
XQ. 127. I suppose the number of inlet Openings
would be increased according to the size of the tank;
is that so? A. Yes; the object being to distribute
the flow across the tank as completely as possible
to avoid agitation.
XQ. 128. Is there any special relation which
you aim to follow in the constructon of these tanks,
between the area of the inlet opening or openings
and that of the outlet opening? A. Both Inlet and
Outlet Openings are designed large enough to take
any flow of sewage which may be anticipated. No
particular relationship between the two is aimed
at Other than that they shall both be capable of
taking care of the maximum flow, without creating
any disturbance in the tank.
XQ. 129. If my recollection serves me right, you
have stated that for the purposes of the patent in
Suit it is immaterial whether the outlet pipe from
the Septic tank is one which has a slot extending
throughout its length, or whether a series of open-
ings are used to carry off the effluent. Is this cor-
rect? A. Yes; where the openings are sufficiently
numerous and close together, and extending smh-
stantially the entire width of the tank to perform
the same functions as a slot; or, in other words, its
mechanical equivalent.
200
201
202
203
204
42
205
206
207
208
209
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
XQ. 130. What are the functions of the slot?
A. . To allow the effluent to leave the tank at mid
depth without undue agitation of the contents of
the tank.
XQ. 131. So that you do not consider the num-
ber of openings, or the particular arrangement
thereof, material, so long as they carry away the
effluent in the proper quantity with relation to the
inflow, without agitation of the body of fluid in
the tank? Is that correct? A. No, it is not ma-
terial, so long as the result accomplished is sub-
stantially the same as would be accomplished by
using a slot.
XQ. 132. All that is necessary, then, is for the
outlet opening to be large enough to take care of
the inflow and conduct it away, without agitation
of the mass in the tank; is that correct? A. Yes,
provided it is not only large enough, but arranged
so that the discharge of the effluent extends sub-
stantially across the width of the tank.
XQ. 133. If the outlet opening is so arranged
with respect to the fluid level, is of such size as to
take care of the inflow and conducts the effluent
away without agitation of the mass as would inter-
fere with the septic action please give your reasons
for your statement in the last answer that the Open-
ing must be arranged so that the discharge of the
effluent extends substantially across the width of
the tank.
Objected to as indefinite, since it does not
appear what is meant by the expression
“take care of the inflow.” It being
obvious that a single round hole might
be of such size as to take care of the
43
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
inflow and possibly as not to ploduce
agitation, in one sense but not in
another.
A. The question is not clear to me.
XQ. 134. You have testified, have you not, that
the outlet opening must be arranged at mid depth;
that is as I understand it, below the fluid level; is
that so? A. Yes, it is.
XQ. 135. You have also testified that it must be
of size sufficient to carry off the inflow without
agitation of the mass in the septic tank as would
interfere with the spetic action; that is correct, is
it not? A. It is.
XQ. 136. These two statements being so, please
explain why it is that the outlet opening must be
“not only large enough, but arranged so that the dis-
charge of the effluent extends substantially across
the width of the tank.” The quotation is from the
answer to XQ. 132. A. Because it is not only
desirable but necessary for the proper operation
Of the septic tank that the outflow shall extend
substantially across the width of the tank.
XQ. 137. Why is it desirable and why is it neces-
sary?
Complainant's counsel understands the
present line of cross-questions to be
directed solely to the ascertainment of
the mechanical equivalent of the “slot.”
referred to in certain of the claims in
issue.
A. Unless the slot or its mechanical equivalent
extends substantially across the tank, it would not
be possible to get an equable flow throughout the
210
211
212
213
214
44
215
216
217
218
219
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
width of the tank, which, as I have already stated,
is necessary for its proper operation. Suppose, for
instance, the outlet consisted of one or two holes
in the center Or on either side of the outlet end of
the tank, the outflow would necessarily be at that
point, and would have a tendency to create a cur-
rent towards it, and the other portions of that end
of the tank would be deprived of an Outlet.
XQ. 138. If I understand your last answer cor-
rectly, assuming a septic tank 16 feet long by 5 feet
wide and 5 feet deep, all the other features, such
as exclusion of air and proper arrangement of in-
flow being present, such an apparatus Would not
be operative or practical if you should arrange the
outlet openings one on either side of the Outlet end
of the tank; is that correct?
Objected to as a misinterpretation of the
testimony of the witness, he not having
said “necessary for the operation,” but
having said “necessary for the proper
Operation,” and it. not ap-
pearing to what degree the proper
operation of the tank would be impaired
by the alterations suggested in the ques.
tion, or that the witness has made the
necessary experiment to be competent
to say in the language of the question
that “such an operation Wouſd not be
operative or practical,” or the contrary,
without qualification.
A. Under the conditions stated, that is, the loca-
tion of an outlet on either side of the Outſet side
of the tank, the tank would probably operate, but
45
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
how successfully I am unable to say, never having
tried the experiment.
XQ. 139. You have never experimented, then,
to ascertain just to what distance along the end of
the tank the slotted pipe should extend in order to
accomplish the best practical results? A. I have
never found it necessary to, believing that better
results are accomplished by following as closely
as possible the language of the patent in suſt.
XQ. 140. Have all the plants which your com-
pany has constructed, so far as your knowledge
extends, been provided with the outlet slot extend-
ing substantially across the greater part of the
width of the tank? A. Yes, either a slotted pipe
or its equivalent.
XQ. 141. Please state what you mean by “its
equivalent”; that is, what equivalent you may have
used? A. I have designed plants, small plants
particularly, with a baffle board or slab
extending from above the water level in the
tank to a depth of say two feet from the surface;
and another slab extending out from the outlet end
of the tank to within an inch or so of the other;
thus leaving an opening between the two for the
effluent to pass through. This I consider one of
the many mechanical equivalents which could be
mentioned. In other words, it would accomplish
the same purpose in substantially the same way.
XQ. 142. In connection with the construction
you have just described, where have you located
the outlet pipe or opening from the tank? A.
From the channel thus formed behind the baffle
board.
XQ. 143. In such an event, then, you have one
220
221
223
224
46
225
226
227
228
229
HUBERT D. WYLLIE.
outlet pipe from the tank, is that so? A. That
is hardly so, because in that case the channel I
have described is really effluent chamber and
not the tank. The outlet from the tank in that
case would extend the length of the opening be-
tween the baffle board and such other projection
in the end of the tank we may introduce.
XQ. 144. In such a construction is there any
opening through the wall of the tank to carry off
the effluent?
Objected to, as it does not now appear
what is to be considered the wall of
the tank. Whether the baffle board
which separates the tank from what
the witness has referred to as the ef-
fluent chamber, or the wall outside of
said effluent chamber,
XQ. 145. By the wall of the tank I mean the
wall outside of that which the witness has just
referred to as an effluent chamber. With that un-
derstanding, please answer the last question. A.
There is an opening by which the effluent leaves
the chamber I have called the effluent chamber.
XQ. 146. What is the shape of this opening to
which you have just referred? A. It is round,
although not necessarily so.
XQ. 147. What is the size of this outer open-
ing? A. The size of this opening would depend
entirely upon the volume of sewage to be taken
care of.
Adjourned to Thursday, February 9th, 1905,
10.30 a. m.
47
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
New York, February 9th, 1905, 10.30 a.m.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Cross-Examination of Mr. Wyllie Continued.
|XQ. 148. You have mentioned in your answer
to XQ. 141 a baffle board or slab arrangement
which you have used as a substitute for the
slotted pipe. Can you mention any other so-called
“equivalents” of the slotted pipe which you have
used? A. No, I have used no other equivalent.
XQ 149. In your answers to XQ. 145, and 146,
you have spoken of the round opening through
which the effluent leaves the chamber. Please
state whether a pipe is inserted in this opening
to lead off the effluent? A. My impression is
that a pipe was used, or rather designed, to lead
off the effluent from the effluent chamber. It
would be the most convenient method of construc-
tion, I think, but it would depend altogether on
conditions.
XQ. 150. In the specification of the patent in
suit, on page 3, lines 112 to 117, it is stated:
“After treatment in the tanks A it (sewage or
other liquid) passes through, the slotted pipe or
conduit 10 and pipes 17 into a conduit 20, whence
it may be conducted to an aerator as in the previ-
ous arrangement, or direct to a filter or filters, if
desired.”
If it were conducted directly to a filter you
would consider it essential, would you not, that
there should be aeration at the filter, if not by
some special form of aerator; is that So? A. ES-
sential for what?
XQ. 151. Essential for the proper treatment
230
231
232
233
234
48
235
236
237
238
239
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE.
of the effluent. A. Proper treatment of the ef-
fluent is a matter of degree and to what degree
it is properly treated would depend the efficiency
of the system adopted. Personally, I believe that
to get the best results from this system the ef-
fluent from the second tank should be subjected
to as complete an aeration as is possible. In the
case cited you do not state whether the filter is
to be intermittent or continuous. If intermittent,
it would receive a greater degree of aeration than
if continuous; just what aeration would exist in
a continuous filter would depend on the method
of its distribution and the material used.
I consider that aeration is an important fea-
ture in the purification of the tank effluent.
YQ. 152. As I understand the matter, you con-
sider the aeration of the effluent essential in the
proper treatment of the Sewage, and in all the
plants of which, you have spoken some way has
been provided for aeration, either between the
septic tank and the filter bed, or in the filter bed,
or perhaps in other ways; is that correct? A. It
is substantially correct. Where complete purifi-
cation of the sewage is desired this is undoubted-
ly true. .
XQ. 153. But the point at which the aeration
takes place is one that is determined by local con-
ditions, is it not? A. I think that would be
true.
XQ. 154. In your answer to Q. 13 you have
stated that in the examination of the Saratoga
plant by means of a glass tube or gauge you
were able to remove and examine samples of the
sludge, the liquid, the scum, the effluent from
49
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
the Septic tank and the effluent from the filter
beds. What sort of an examination did you
make; was it a mere occular examination, or did
you have analyses made? A. My examination of
the sludge, scum and the effluent from the filter
Were occular; that of the effluent from the tank
taken at this time was also occular; but a sample
of the tank effluent, which was taken at the aera-
tor, was analyzed.
XQ. 155. What is the purpose of the aeration
of the liquified sewage as it leaves the septic
pool? A. For the purpose of introducing con-
ditions favorable to the life and action of aerobic
bacteria, by which the process of purification
Commenced by the aerobic bacteria is completed.
XQ. 156. Will you kindly point out on the plan
drawing of “Complainant’s Exhibit Engineering
Article on Saratoga Plant,” and also on the
“‘Complainant’s Exhibit Blue Print Saratoga
Plant,” the settling tank which forms an element
of claim 6 in the patent in suit? A. On the
‘‘Blue Print Saratoga Plant” the chamber re-
ferred to is marked 14. On the cut in the Engi-
neering Article referred to it is the chamber at
the end of the force main, also marked 14 in red
pencil.
XQ. 157. How do you know that the chamber
to which you have just referred is a settling tank?
A. It may not have been designed for that pur-
pose, but should the sewage on reaching that
point contain any coarse mineral matter, such as
sand or gravel, it would inevitably settle. This
settling arrangement is also provided for in the
240
241
242
244
50
245
246
247
248
249
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
defendants’ plant at the pumping station, de-
Scribed in the Engineering Article referred to.
XQ. 158. Will you point out in the two ex-
hibits referred to the outlet for the effluent from
the Septic tank? A. In the Engineering Article
referred to the two horizontal rows of holes form-
ing the outlet from the defendants' plant are
shown in the end wall on the cut “Interior View
of Septic Tank, Looking Toward Outlet End,”
on page 83. On the Blue Print exhibit referred
to, these holes 10a are shown on Fig. 4, “Section
Showing Outlet End of Tank.”
XQ. 159. Does this outlet to which you have
just referred comprise a conduit having a longi-
tudinal slot open across the greater part of the
width of the tank? A. No; these holes could
hardly be described as a “conduit,” but they
open on to the floor of a conduit 10 shown on the
Blue Print exhibit, Fig. 1, “Sectional Plan
View,” which I have already described. This
conduit extends substantially the entire width of
the tank, as also do the holes leading into it.
YQ. 160. Does this outlet consist of a pipe ex-
tending across the greater part of the width of
the tank, and having a longitudinal slot, or an
opening in its wall throughout its length? A.
No. the outlet described is manifestly not a pipe;
it is, however, a conduit, the alternative of the
pipe, referred to in the language of the patent
in suit.
XQ. 161. Claim 20 of the patent in suit, as to
one of its elements, calls for “a non-disturbing
inlet * * * provided with a broadened
mouth.” Please point out this element in the
51
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
Cameron patent in suit? A. It exists in the
language of the claim referred to, and in plants
we have constructed under this patent we often
use an inlet having a mouth of greater dimen-
sions than the body of the inlet.
XQ. 162. Do you find any basis in the draw-
ings or descriptive portion of the specification of
the Cameron patent in suit for such element? A.
I find no special reference to a broadened mouth
referred to in the specification, unless the
language of the specification which I quote from
line 59, page 1, “while permitting a non-disturb-
ing inflow of the sewage into the pool,” might be
construed as suggesting such a device. It cer-
tainly does suggest the desirability of some such
an arrangement. Referring to the drawings, it
is not clearly shown, but might be inferred from
the inlet shown on Fig. 2.
XQ. 163. Referring to Fig. 2 of the Cameron
patent which you have just mentioned, what is
the dotted line shown just within the left-hand
wall of the tank?
This line of questioning is objected to on
the ground that the interpretation as
to what is the signification of the ex-
pression “broadened mouth,” is a
matter for the court.
Counsel for defendants states in reply to
the objection that witness has alleged
infringement of claim 20 of the patent
in suit, which claim mentions as an el-
ement the “broadened mouth.” It is
perfectly proper therefore for witness
to be called upon to show by reference
250
251
252
253
254
52
255
256
257
258
259
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
to the specifications and drawings of
the patent in Suit the basis for the ele-
ment mentioned. -
In view of the above explanation by de-
fendants’ counsel of his question, the
Question is objected to as entirely im-
material to the interpretation of the
words “broadened mouth” of the
claim because the question, as now ex-
plained, is limited to only one of the
openings 63 of the drawing, whereas
the drawing shows in fact that the to-
tal mouth consists of more than one
Such opening, and the same is true of
the inlet mouth of the defendants' ap-
paratus.
A. It is possible that the dotted line referred
to is intended to indicate the inner wall of the
inlet referred to, and probably does.
YQ. 164. With reference to the plants which
you have constructed, do you know of any in
which the entire mass of solid organic matter in
the septic tank has become liquefied? A. From
a theoretical standpoint, possibly not. But from
a practical standpoint, I should say yes. In the
effluent from a septic tank designed with due re-
gard to the volume and character of the Sewage,
what organic matter remains in suspension is so
comminuted as to present no obstacle to any sub-
sequent treatment to which it may be subjected;
that is, in contact beds or filters.
XQ. 165. So far as your experience has gone
in the analyses of effluents from your septic tanks
as constructed, is the entire mass of solid organic
53
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
matter liquefied in the tank? A. With the quali-
fications mentioned in my last answer, yes.
XQ. 166. You consider, then, that under the
Scope of claim 1 of the patent in suit, it is not
necessary that the whole mass of solid organic
matter should be liquefied; is that so?
Objected to as indefinite, because the
question does not state whether the
word “whole” in the question is used
in a theoretical sense or a practical
SerlSe.
A. This is something that I have not consid-
ered. The scope of any of the claims of the patent
in Suit involves questions that could probably
Only be decided by the court.
XQ. 166. You considered the scope of the
claims of the patent, or certain of them, sufficient-
ly to testify that the defendants' Saratoga Plant
infringed those claims, did you not?
Objected to since the question of in-
fringement is for the Court to de-
termine, and it is thought that the
witness has not used the word ‘‘in-
fringement” anywhere in his deposi-
tion thus far; his statements having
been that the Saratoga Plant and its
operation are described by and con-
form to the language of certain of the
claims of the patent in suit.
A. I was not aware that I had testified that
the defendants’ Saratoga Plant infringed the
claims mentioned.
XQ. 168. You did testify, however, did you
260
261
262
263
264
54
265
266
267
268
269
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
not, that you found in the Saratoga Plant the
elements set forth in claims 1 to 8, inclusive, 11,
12, 20, 21 and 22, of the patent in suit?
Objected to since the witness’s answers
to Q. 24, and at the end of answer to
Q. 22, show precisely what the wit-
ness has stated on this point.
A. In my answer to Q. 22 I quoted from the
Specification, commencing with line 81, page 1,
referring to the treatment of the sewage, and
added that the process described is exclusively
bacteriological and that it is accurately and lit-
erally described in certain of the claims of the
patent in suit. And in my answer to Q. 24. I tes-
tified that the language of each of Said claim de-
scribes literally the process carried on in the
defendants’ plant. These statements I now re-
iterate in answer to the question.
Recess.
New York, February 10th, 1905, 10.30.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
The Witness Wyllie states: That in compli-
ance with XQ. 95 he has telegraphed to Chicago
for the plans of the small Cameron plant near
Trinidad, and having just received a blue print
of the same, now hands it to counsel for defend-
ant for use in the case if he desires. He further
states that on this blue print the location of the
plant is given as New Mexico, and he under-
stands that Trinidad is in Colorado, and the
ranch is in New Mexico.
55
|HUBERT D. WYLLIE
Counsel for defendants introduces the
Said blue print in evidence and it is
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Cam-
eron Trinidad Plant.”
XQ. 169. Referring to the exhibit which has
just been introduced, will you please describe the
blue print in detail, putting suitable letters upon
the same? A. I do so as follows: The main
sewer '13, discharges into the settling tank 14,
from which it passes through inlet 63 into tank
A. On its entrance into the tank at the inlet end
it moves slowly and bodily forward) towards the
outlet end of the tank A., leaving the tank
through the outlet 10, which extends and is open
throughout the entire width of the tank. Both
the inlet 63 and the outlet 10 are disposed at mid-
depth. After passing through the outlet 10, the
sewage enters an effluent chamber 10b, and is
conducted therefrom in the effluent carrier 17 to
the aerator 18, from which it is distributed alter-
nately over the surface of the two contact beds
69 in open channels.
YQ. 170. What is the construction of the
aerator marked 18? A. The construction and
operation of the aerator marked 18 is as follows:
The tank effluent as it leaves the effluent carrier
17, is discharged on to an inclined plane over
which it flows in thin films into the aerating and
distributing chamber below, from which it is dis-
tributed over the surfaces of the two filters 69 al-
ternately, through the open channels marked 100.
XQ. 171. What are the dimensions of the in-
cline plane over which the liquid flows? A. It
scales a trifle less than a foot long and about six
270
271
272
273
274
56
275
276.
277
278
279
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
or eight inches wide. In addition to the aera-
tion received by the tank effluent in flowing over
this surface, the aeration is continued, of course,
in its distribution through the open channels
and on the surfaces of the contact beds.
Cross-examination closed.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Gifford.
R-d-Q. 172. In your cross-examination as to
the plants constructed in accordance with the
Cameron system described in the patent here in
Suit, you have omitted mention of any in Eng-
land, I believe. And I notice that in your letter
of April 3rd, 1902, herein, you made mention of
185 plants installed in Great Britain within the
previous three or four years. Please state how
large any of those plants were; that is to say,
how large the population it took care of. A. The
plants referred to as having been constructed in
Great Britain vary in size from small plants for
individual country residences and institutions, to
cities of about 50,000, and I believe over. One
plant that I have seen in operation at Exeter
takes care of a population of about 50,000; an-
other at Barrhead, North Britain, which I have
visited and inspected, takes care of a population
of 10,000. Cromer, another city where the Cam-
eron system has been installed, has a population
of, I think, 60,000.
R-d-Q. 173. You have stated that in designing
plants under this Cameron system you were gov-
erned by local conditions. What part of the
plant do local conditions govern, what part not?
A. When I stated we were governed by local con-
ditions I should, perhaps, have added “So far as
57
HUBERT. D. WYLLIE
the Subsequent treatment of the sewage is con-
cerned after leaving the septic tank.” In all
plants, large and small, the method of treatment
in the Septic tank is the same, as well as the de-
sign of the septic tank itself. The sewage en-
ters the tank at mid depth at one end and flows
bodily and slowly toward the outlet end, where
it is discharged through an outlet, also at mid
depth, extending across the greater part of the
width of the tank. The object of this is to give
the Solid matter in the flowing sewage an oppor-
tunity to rise to the surface or fall to the bottom,
according to its specific gravity, thus forming in
a flowing pool the Scum and the sludge for the
development of the anaerobic bacteria by which
the liquefication of the solid organic matter of the
Sewage is accomplished.
R-d-Q. 174. In other words, as I understand
you, under all conditions in designing the plants
under the Cameron system you have, so far as
the septic tank is concerned, invariably followed
substantially the form and general proportions of
the long, shallow tank, shown in Figures 1 and 2
of the drawings of the patent in Suit and contain-
ing provision for the maintaining there through
of an equably and bodily flowing current of the
liquid from inlet to outlet between the overhead
scum and underneath sludge? A. We have and
do.
R-d-Q. 175. Is it your understanding that the
plant represented by “Defendants' Exhibit Cam-
eron Trinidad Plant” (which I believe you have
said was the smallest built in this country under
the Cameron system) served to dispose of the
280
281
282
283
284
58
285
286
287
288
289
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
Sewage from only a single house, or from a col-
lection of houses or buildings? A. As I have
before stated, I have never seen this plant; but
as I remember it, it takes care of the sewage
from the ranch house, and other buildings, such
as Servants’ quarters, and possibly the stable.
R-d-Q. 176. Please designate on ‘‘Defendants’
Exhibit Cameron Trinidad Plant,” by the number
101, the outfall pipe from which the finally puri-
fied sewage is discharged from the filter bed. A. I
have done so.
R-d-Q. 177. Considering the mouth of the in-
let into the septic tank as consisting of both the
openings 63, 63, in what way, if at all, is that
mouth shown as broadened in Fig. 1 of the draw-
ing of the patent in suit? A. In the sense that
it extends from one opening to the other.
R-d-Q. 178. In other words, as I understand
you, the total mouth is broadened by spreading
the parts of it, 63 and 63, apart across the end
of the tank.
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir; and this is for the purpose of dis-
tributing the flow across the tank and for the
maintenance of a more equable flow of fluid.
R-d-Q. 179. How does this means of broaden-
ing the mouth of the inlet of the patent in suit
compare with the means by which the defendants
broaden the mouth of the inlet to their septic
tank, as shown on “Complainant’s Exhibit Blue
Print Saratoga Plant?” A. They adopt exactly
the same method of distribution, discharging the
sewage into the tank at four points about equi-
distant across the width of the whole tank, there-
59
HUBERT D. WYLLIE
by accomplishing the same results as is ac-
complished in the Cameron patent in suit.
R-d-Q. 180. In your examination of the opera-
tion of the defendants’ plant at Saratoga Springs,
at which end of the tank did you find the scum
to be the thickest? A. At the outlet end. At
the inlet end it was less than a foot thick; at the
outlet end it was about three feet.
R-d-Q. 181. And was its increase in thick-
ness gradual from the inlet toward the outlet end?
A. That I am unable to say; I only examined it
at two points; one at the inlet end and one at the
outlet end. I am referring to my examination on
November 21st, 1904.
Complainant rests prima facie case, and
expresses the desire that the defend-
ants expedite the introduction of their
case as much as practicable.
290
291
292
293
294
60
295
296
297
298
299
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT_NORTH-
ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

\
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY.,
Complainant,
against
VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, AND in Enuity
THE SEWER, WATER AND STREET wo. 7025.
COMMISSION OE SARATOGA
SPRINGS.
Defendants.
Reply testimony on behalf of the defendants for
final hearing, taken at the office of Gifford & Bull,
141 Broadway, New York City, before C. E. David.
son, Notary Public.
New York, June 8, 1905, 10:30 A.M.
Met pursuant to notice. Present: C. L. Sturte-
vant, Esq., J. J. Healey, Jr., Esq., and S. W. Ban-
ning, Esq., Counsel for defendant. Livingston Gif.
ford, Esq., Counsel for Complainant.
F. Herbert Snow, a witness produced on behalt
of the defendants, being first duly sworn, testifies
as follows:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. My name is F. Herbert Snow. I
am 39 years old. My home is Brockton, Massachu-
setts, and I temporarily reside in Boston. I am a
civil, sanitary and consulting engineer; member of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, doing
business under the firm name of Snow & Barbour,
with offices at Boston, Mass., and Columbus, Ohio.
61
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Q. 2. Please state what education and experience
you have had which enables you to qualify as an
expert in this case? A. In the Spring of 1882 I
graduated from the Mansfield High School and took
up the study of surveying and engineering in the
Office Of Thomas Keith. Of Brockton. In this Office
I did considerable work for Mr. Amasa Glover, an
inventor of Sewage disposal apparatus, and through
his representations I began a special study of Sani-
tary engineering. Subsequently I was employed
by different engineers and in January 1890 was
elected City Engineer of Brockton.
I designed and built the sewage disposal works
and the sewerage system there, also the surface
drainage system. I was engineer until 1898 and
then sewerage commissioner until the middle of
1900, when I resigned on account of inability to at-
tend to the duties of that office and my profession-
al calls out of the State.
In connection with the Brockton disposal works,
I constructed and equipped a chemical laboratory
and there had exceptional opportunities to study
on a practical scale, sewage purification as accom-
plished in that city. This laboratory was the first
one built in this country in connection with the
operation of sand filters on a large scale.
I have been associated with sanitary improve-
ments in over 30 municipalities in this country.
The work accomplished by my partner and myself
in connection with sewage disposal plants has been
original, novel, and to-day is quoted by other en-
gineers as typical of the best American practice.
Among my consulting work I might mention that
to the Ohio State Board of Health, by appointment
300
301
302
303
304
62
305
3()6
307
308
309
F. HERBERT SNOW.
of the Sanitary Committee of the North West Ter-
ritory Exposition, that to the sewer department of
the City of Boston, and that to the engineer of the
Massachusetts Metropolitan Water and Sewerage
Commission.
Besides being a member of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, among other societies I might
mention, the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, the
Engineers Club of Columbus, Ohio, the National
Public Health Association, the Association of
Boards of Health of Massachusetts, etc.
As types of the sewage disposal plants with which
I have been connected, I will mention the one at
Brockton, the one at Saratoga Springs and the
plant at Mansfield, Ohio. In these plants either
directly or in conjunction with my partner or under
our joint supervision, the plans were designed and
the works constructed and, with the exception of
the Mansfield plant, operated.
Q. 3. Have you examined and do you under-
stand the construction and mode of Operation of
the sewage system and apparatus set forth in the
patent in suit? A. I have and do.
Q. 4. Have you examined and are you thorough-
ly familiar with the Saratoga Sewage Disposal
Plant? A. Yes. This plant was designed in the
office of Snow & Barbour, and constructed by us
under the more personal supervision of my partner,
Mr. Barbour, and after its construction it was
placed in our hands for management during the
first year of its operation. I am familiar with all
the details of the design and the construction of
this plant and equally share in the responsibility
for the design and construction of the same.
63
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Q. 5. Does the blue print exhibit of the Saratoga
plant, introduced and marked “Complainant's
Exhibit Blue Print, Saratoga Plant,” substantially
illustrate the Saratoga plant? A. It does sub-
stantially, but there are some elements of the plant
not fully or properly shown in said exhibit.
Q. 6. Can you produce copies of plans of the
Saratoga Plant, from which the same was con-
structed? A. Yes.
Witness produces set of plans, and they
are offered in evidence and marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit, Plans of Saratoga
Sewage Disposal Plant,” the sheets of
tracings being respectively numbered
from 1 to 8, inclusive.
Q. 7. Please explain these plans, referring to
the separate sheets by number, and if you consider
it necessary, using blue pencil lettering to indicate
the various parts? A. These sheets fully and
truly show the features of the Saratoga plant im-
perfectly represented in exhibit of the same. Sheet
# 1 shows the details of the filter beds and the ar-
rangement of the septic tanks, sludge beds, the aer-
ator and dosing tank and the sand filters, the sheet
being a plan of the entire disposal plant.
Sheet # 2 is a plan and section of the septic tank,
showing the general arrangement of the tanks, the
various in lets and outlets and the form of Con-
struction.
Sheet # 3 is an elevation through the tank, show-
ing the general arrangement of the inlet and outlet
therefrom and the method provided and the means
thereof of removing the sludge from the tank to
adjoining sludge beds for drying out purposes.
310
311
312
3|8
314
64
315
316
317
318
3.19
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Sheet # 4 is a plan and elevation in detail of the
inlet end of the septic tank for one of its compart-
ments.
Sheet # 5 is a plan and elevation of the details of
the Outlet end of the Septic tank for One of its com-
partments.
Sheet # 6 is a plan and elevation of the aerator
and dosing tank and sheet # 7 is a plan and ele-
vation, showing details of the gates, chambers and
surface distributing troughs for conveying the sew-
age from the dosing tank to the surface of the sew-
age filters.
Sheet # 8 shows detailed plans and elevations
of the under drainage system and means of aerating
the filter beds.
Q. 8. Referring to these plans, please describe
in detail, the construction and mode of operation
of the system therein disclosed and I would sug-
gest that you use reference letters or numerals to
indicate the various parts? A. The septic tanks
or tank is divided into four units, each 91% feet
long, by 51% feet wide, and separated from the ad-
joining tank by a division wall, as shown in sheet
# 2. The tanks are covered by an arched roof,
supported on piers and the walls, and over this
roof is an 18 inch covering of earth. The entire
structure is built of cement concrete, and is water
tight.
The sewage enters the septic tanks at the end of
the sewer at a point marked “A” on sheet # 2,
from which a vitrified pipe, marked A, is carried
across the inner end of the tank, connecting with an
inlet chamber at the center of each one of the four
compartments, or tanks, said inlet chambers being
65
F. HERBERT SNOW.
marked respectively on sheet # 2, B, B1, B2 and
B3. These inlet chambers are provided with gates
permitting the shutting off of any tank as desired.
From these inlet chambers a vitrified pipe extends
to inside of each tank, the said pipe inlet dividing
at the center and extending both ways across the
end of the tank.
The depth of the sewage at the inlet end of each
tank is 7% feet. The said inlet pipes admit the sew-
age to the tanks at an elevation 31% feet below the
high water line in each tank and there are four
Openings in the inner pipe in each tank as shown
on sheet # 2, and more fully exhibited on sheet
# 4, being marked C, C1, C2 and C3. The arrange-
ment for the entrance of the sewage from the end
of the sewer or force main into the tanks, and the
arrangement of the vitrified pipe extending there-
from to the inlet chamber, the inlet chamber, gate
and the inlet pipe into the tank therefrom, are
shown in complete detail on sheet 4, the various
parts being lettered, as previously stated.
The sewage is discharged at the opposite end of
each tank from the inlet end through 96 two inch
pipes, arranged in horizontal rows, 3% feet below
the water line, the depth of the sewage at this end
of each tank being 81/4 feet, whence it flows into a
narrow chamber extending the width of each tank,
which chamber is marked D, on sheet # 2, and from
which it flows over a weir, located in a weir cham-
ber, of which there are two, each weir chamber be-
ing located between the first and second tank and
between the third and fourth tank, as shown on
sheet 2, the weirs being lettered respectively, E and
E1. From the weir chamber, the sewage flows into
320
321
322
323
324
66
325
326
327
328
329
F. HERBERT SNOW.
an outlet chamber lettered F on sheet # 2. On
sheet # 5, a plan and elevation are shown, giving in
detail the dimensions and arrangements of the two
inch outlet pipes lettered F and the collecting
chamber D and the Weir E and the Outlet, chamber
F. The elevation of the Weir is such that it seals
the inlets and outlets into the tanks, the said inlets
and outlets thus forming traps hermetically sealing
the tanks.
Provision for emptying the tanks of accumulated
solids is made by means of sloping the bottom of the
tanks towards the outlet ends thereof, whence, from
a depression in the bottom of each tank, a large
pipe, 24 inches in diameter, is arranged to convey
the said solids, termed sludge, onto sludge beds,
located directly in front of the tank and provided
specificially for drying out the said sludge and dis-
posing of it, there being two of these sludge beds,
each being arranged to receive the sludge of two of
the tanks.
The 24 inch sludge pipes, are shown on sheet # 2,
and lettered G. The details of this mode of dispos-
ing of the sludge is shown on sheet # 3.
A 12 inch gate and pipe marked H., on sheets # 2,
# 3 and # 5, located at a higher elevation than the
sludge outlet pipe, make it possible to draw off the
clear liquid from each tank between the scum and
the bottom and apply it to any filter, previous to the
removal of the sludge.
From the outlet chamber the sewage flows to an
aerator, distant about 150 fet from the said outlet
chamber and connected therewith by a 16 inch iron
pipe. This aerator is made of sheet iron plates
placed in three layers in umbrella form, around a
67
F. HERBERT SNOW.
central rising pipe. The sewage rises through this
central pipe and flows over the said plates in a thin
sheet, and thence the sewage goes to the adjoining
dosing tank. The aerator may be cut out of opera-
tion if desired, the sewage flowing directly from the
outlet chamber of the tanks to the said dosing tank,
Recess until 2 o’clock.
The sewage from this dosing tank is automati-
cally delivered to the filter beds by a siphon,
actuated by a float, both being located within
the dosing tank. A detail plan and elevation of
the aerator, dosing tank, etc., is shown on sheet
No. 6, the aerator being lettered i and the dosing
tank j.
The sewage from the dosing tank is distrib-
uted onto the filter beds, which comprise 18 beds
each an acre in size, through pipes generally 24
inches in diameter laid in the embankments di-
viding the filters, said pipes being above the Sur-
face of the filters and connecting with the filters
by means of gate chambers located in the em-
bankments between the beds and opposite their
centers. The outlets from these chambers are 15
inch pipes extending on either side through the
embankment to the beds and protected at their
outer ends by concrete abutments. From each of
these abutments a carrier, for the purpose of dis-
tributing the sewage uniformly over the surface
of each bed, extends 180 feet across the bed. The
details of these gates, chambers, distributing
pipes and carriers, are shown on sheet No. 7. They
are similar to those used by me at the Brockton
Disposal works designed in 1892.
The system of under drainage of the filter beds
330
331
332
333
334
68
335
336
337
338
339
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in its general arrangement is shown on sheet No.
1. One line of under drainage only was laid in
each bed about 6% feet deep and a main line of
10 to 15-inch drainage was placed at a depth of
about 11 feet, the smaller drainage being con-
nected with it. Manholes were placed at the
junction of the mains and smaller drainage, and
the upper ends of all drains were turned up and
carried to the surface in order to sº cure aeration
and reduce to a minimum the accumulation of
carbonic acid gas in the body of the filters. The
ventilation of the under drainage had been pre-
viously accomplished at the Brockton filter beds,
designed in 1892. The details of the under drain-
age System and appliances for promoting aera-
tion are shown on sheet No. 6.
Q. 9. Please compare the plans of the Saratoga
plant with the drawings of the patent in suit
and point out the mechanical differences between
the two systems? A. In the drawings of the
patent in suit, referring to figures 1, 2 and 3, the
Sewage coming through the sewer is delivered
into a well where grit and other solid matters are
allowed to settle. This element is dispensed with
in the Saratoga plant. All matters contained in
the sewage being delivered from the sewer into
the Saratoga Tanks. In figure 1 of the patent in
suit there are two inlet pipes shown located
above the level of the sewage in the tank being
brought into the tank at this level and turned
down, discharging beneath the surface of the
water in the tank. In the Saratoga plant each
tank has one inlet pipe which is located about
three feet below the level of the water in the
69
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tank, Said pipe entering in the center of the tank
and branching both ways with open ends and
tee openings provided at 1-3rd distance from said
end, making in all four openings out of said pipe
inlet into the tank.
Figure No. 3 of the patent in suit shows a tank
arched over resting upon the side walls and free
from any pillar or other obstructions to the pas-
Sage of the flowing sewage in said tank. In the
Saratoga plant each compartment or tank is pro-
vided with many obstructions to the passage of.
the Sewage through the tank, being the pillars
used to support the roof over the tank.
In the patent in suit the sewage passes out of
the tank through a pipe or conduit located in
the tank at the opposite end from the inlet, said
pipe being provided with slots or apertures,
which the patent states may be placed in any
position along the said pipe or conduits, so as to
admit liquid into the same in a downward, up-
ward, horizontal or oblique direction and if found
desirable, the slots or apertures may be protected
by a deflecting surface or surfaces, so placed as
to ward off solids or liquids coming from any par-
ticular direction, and the slots and apertures may
also be provided with a strainer for the exclusion
of solid matter and the pipe or conduit may be
fixed or movable. In the Saratoga plant there
is no structure of this kind, or for this purpose,
disposed within the tank.
There are ninety-six two-inch pipes laid in two
horizontal rows in the wall at the outlet end of
each tank opposite the inner tank at a level about
half way between the top and bottom of said wall,
340
341
342
343
344
70
345
346
347
348
349
F. HERBERT SNOW.
through which the sewage passes from the tank
to a chamber outside of it. In the patent in suit,
figures Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, only two such
pipes, 17, are shown in the wall at the outlet end
of the tank, thereby concentrating the flow of the
tank at two points, whereas in the Saratoga plant
the flow is not concentrated out of the tank, but
is divided and passes out through 96 pipes.
In the patent in suit, figures 1 and 2, after the
Sewage has passed out of the tank through, the
two pipes, above described, the Sewage enters a
chamber extending the whole width of the tank,
the wall of the tank comprising one wall of Said
chamber and the other wall of said chamber com-
prising a weir for its entire width, said width be-
ing the entire width of the tank, over which the
Sewage flows. In the Saratoga plant the sewage
also passes into a chamber extending the whole
width of the tank, the wall of the tank compris-
ing one wall of said chamber, but instead of the
other wall of said chamber comprising a weir
the sewage is conducted lengthwise of Said cham-
ber where, at the end, there is a weir over which
the sewage flows.
This weir, in both the patent in suit and de-
fendants’ plant, maintains the level of the Sew-
age in the tank.
In the patent in suit, figures 1, 2 and 3, a slotted
pipe is disposed in the bottom of the tank for the
purpose of removing from the bottom of the tank
mud or deposited material, and to aid in dis-
lodging or breaking up such material other pipes
are provided to be laid on or near the floor of
the tank and connected with a water main or
71
F. HERBERT SNOW.
other Source, so that a stream or streams of fluid
may be impelled against such deposited material.
In the Saratoga plant there is no such pipe dis-
posed on the bottom of the tank and further no
arrangements are provided to break up or dis-
lodge deposited material by the force of a stream.
Such arrangements as in the patent in suit would
be totally inadequate for the purpose of remov-
ing the accumulated solids for whose removal the
apparatus, provided for in the plant as con-
structed, was designed. It is expected that in de-
fendants’ plant these accumulated solids will be
very considerable.
An essential element of the Saratoga tank is
adequate provision for the removal of large
Quantities of deposited solids from the tank to
large sludge beds, so called, specially provided for
and set apart for the reception of and the dis-
posal of Said sludge. I made a similar provision
for the adequate removal of deposited solids in
the settling tank at Brockton, Massachusetts.
There is nothing novel in this arrangement, how-
ever, as it has been used in sewage disposal works
for 50 years or more. In this respect defendants’
plant very materially differs from the patent in
suit.
Another distinct element of the Saratoga plant
is the outlet pipe from each tank by which, when
it is desired to empty each tank of the deposited
Solids, the liquid above the solids may be drawn
off from each tank. The drawing off of this
liquid and its purification Cn the regular sewage
filters is amply provided for as heretofore de-
scribed.
350
351
352
354
72
355
357
358
359
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Another distinct feature of defendants’ plant
is the outlet chamber.
In the patent in suit the aerator is shown lo-
cated adjacent to the tank. In defendants’ plant
the aeration is obtained at the dosing tank,
which is removed some distance from the tank,
after the sewage has passed over the weir at the
tank and through the outlet pipe a distance of
over 150 feet.
In the patent in suit, as previously described,
in passing out of the tank the sewage enters into
the first compartment of the aerator, passing out
through an opening at the top into a slightly
sloping surface down which it flows in thin films
until it falls into the next compartment. This
operation being repeated until it arrives at the
last compartment, whence it may, if desired, be
conveyed through a pipe to a filter or filters. In-
stead of employing the form of aerator above de-
Scribed an overhanging lip, or lips, may be pro-
vided, over which the effluent falls in a thin film,
or films, exposed on both sides to the air. In the
Saratoga plant this form of aeration or this par-
ticular arrangement is not used. Aeration in the
Saratoga plant is intentionally secured at several
points in the process of purification. First over
the weir chamber, second in the specially ar-
ranged aerator at the dosing tank, third, in the
specially provided distributing carrier located on
the surface of the beds, fourth in the body of the
filter, fifth in the under drainage and sixth on its
final discharge from the main under drain to the
brook.
The patent in suit provides for aeration only
73
F. HERBERT SNOW.
at the weir outlet of the tank. The Saratoga
plant provides for it here at the weir, and also
at a secondary point, before the sewage is con-
ducted through a pipe to the filter or filters.
Q. 10. When did the bacterial era in the art of
sewage purification begin? A. The bacterial era
in the art of sewage purification dates from about
1882, when the agency of micro-organism in re-
ducing organic matter in soil to mineral com-
pounds first began to be generally recognized.
Q. 11. What generally was the condition of
the art prior to this time? A. Frankland’s ex-
periments for the Rivers Pollution commission
of England paved the way for this era. They
were the first experiments of their kind. Their
object was to determine the effect of downward
filtration of sewage through various Soils. They
extended over the years 1868 and 1869 and showed
the filter action to be two-fold, first mechanical
and second chemical. That the action therein
was also bacterial, was not then known, but cer-
tain cardinal principles were announced which
prevail today in the art. Principal among them
was the fact that the first essential of filtration
is aeration, and second, to this end the Operation
must be intermittent to cause air to follow the
Sewage in the filter.
This was a discovery. It proved vegetation to
be unessential to sewage purification.
It was shown that the new idea called “Inter-
mittent Filtration” differed not from the much
practiced “Land treatment” or sewage farming
in these respects, that in both the suspended sol-
ids were first removed and the matters in Solu-
360
361
362
363
364
74
366
367
368
369
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tion was next purified by chemical action in the
pores of the soil through absorption of atmos-
pheric oxygen, yet intermittent filtration did
more—it controlled, modified and intensified the
natural land operation thereby permitting higher
rates and requiring less area.
Adjourned until Friday, June 9, 1905, at 10.30
3. IIl.
New York, June 9, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Counsel as before.
Direct examination of Mr. Snow continued:
Q. 12. Please define what is meant by “land
treatment ’’ or “sewage farming ” and “Intermit-
tent filtration?” A. By land treatment, was
meant the spreading of the sewage broadcast over
natural ground for the purpose of fertilizing crops.
By “Intermittent filtration,” was meant the filter-
ing of sewage down through soil, the soil being
either in natural position or artificially placed, the
application of the sewage therto being intermittent
and in such maximum quantity as the particular
filtering material would purify. This purification
was not dependent upon the agency of vegetation.
Q. 13. What was the first practical demonstra-
tion of the idea of “intermittent, filtration”? A.
The first practical demonstration of this new idea
was made by Mr. Bailey Denton at Merthyr, Tidvil,
in 1870 and '71. It was vigorously combatted by
numerous staunch adherents of sewage farming,
who maintained that vegetation was essential to
sewage purification.
Q. 14. How was filtration regarded in America
at this time? A. In the fourth annual report of
75
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the Massachusetts State Board of Health for the
year 1872, the possibilities of disposing of the sew-
age of the City of Worcester by “Intermittent
filtration” were outlined.
Again in the Special Report of the Board, 1876,
it was stated that details of the proposed disposal
of Worcester sewage should be determined by ex-
periments.
Up to this time, it should be remembered, the
process of purifying sewage in a specially prepared
filter Was thought to be one of oxidation only. It
Was thought to be chemical in its character, and not
bacterial. Such was the state of the art of purify-
ing sewage during the transitory period between
the beginning of the decline of old methods and the
advent Of the bacterial era.
Q. 15. How was the bacterial era ushered in? A.
The bacterial era in sewage purification may be
said to have been ushered in in 1877. For a long
time previous, chemists generally knew that where
ammonia and nitrogen of organic bodies were
oxidied in the soil, nitric acid was produced. But
the manner in which this oxidation occurred re-
mained unknown until about 1873. Early in 1877
the French chemists, Schloesing and Muntz, pub-
lished some preliminary experiments conducted
at the Paris Sewage Farm, proving that the puri-
fication—the nitrification in the soil—is due to the
action of a living ferment existing in soils and im-
pure waters.
Robert Warrington, an English chemist, pursued
similar researches, and in 1882 published a paper
entitled, “Some Practical Aspects of Recent Inves-
tigations on Nitrification,” in which he declared
370
371
372
373
374
76
375
376
377
378
379
F. HERBERT SNOW.
that the purifying action of soil is due to, first, the
simple separation of suspended matters; second, re-
tention by soil of ammonia and organic substances
in Solution; and third, oxidation of both by the
agency of living organisms.
The first he showed to be mechanical, the second
a chemical action, and the third, one depending on
the first two and the biological condition.
Further, he showed that a (porous) medium,
like sand, is not necessary, that nitrification (com-
plete purification) may occur in a bottle, but soil
and perosity are favorable to rapidity of the pro-
cess. Aeration was shown to be an important func-
tion of speed of the process. It was also shown that
sewage supplies the nourishment for the oxidizing
bacteria, that these organisms are present in sur-
face soils in proportion to the presence of organic
matter, and that it is possible to construct artificial
beds of greater oxidizing power than a natural soil.
It is important for one wishing to understand
the history of the art to fully grasp the force of
Warrington’s declarations. They shed a new and
great light upon the whole sewage disposal prob-
lem.
It was partly with a view of calling the attention
of English and American chemists to the import-
ance of the matter, that Mr. Warrington was in-
duced to bring up the subject again in 1884. He
then made public further important researches in
which he complained that in spite of the fact that it
could not be conceived how the evidence for the fer-
ment theory of nitrification could be further
strengthened, and although nearly the whole of
this evidence has been before the scientific public,
7
7
F. HERBERT SNOW.
for seven years, yet the ferment theory of nitrifica-
tion could hardly be said to have obtained a gen-
eral. acceptance. It had not been seriously con-
troverted, but it had neither been embraced.
In this last classical effort of Mr. Warrington
Was brought out, among other things, the point that
nitrification commenced first in the weakest sew-
age, proceeds more rapidly in Summer, and in a
thin layer of sewage, owing to greater supply of
oxygen. It was shown that a solution seeded with
a small amount of the nitrifying organisms would
take a long time to purify, but one receiving an
abundant supply would be speedily purified. It
was shown that the speedy purification of sewage in
soil is owing to the great mass of nitrifying organ-
isms contained therein, and to the thinness of the
liquid layer which covers the sand particles.
Q. 16. Will you kindly give your authority for
the statements made in the answer to the last ques-
tion, with reference to the writings of Warrington?
A. I refer to Journal of the Society of Arts. Pub-
lished for the Society by George Bell & Sons, 4, 5
and 6 York Street, Covent Garden, London, 1882,
same being Vol. 30, from Nov. 18, 1881, to Nov. 10,
1882, Page 532.
Article entitled “Some Practical Aspects of Re-
cent Investigations on Nitrification by Robert War-
rington.” Also, I refer to a publication, entitled:
“Report of the Fifty-fourth meeting of the Brit-
ish Association for the Advancement of Science,
held at Montreal in August and September, 1884,
London, John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1885.”
The article referred to, beginning on page 682
380
381
38.2
383
384
78
385
386
387
388
389
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
and being entitled, “On nitrification, by R. War-
rington.”
Q. 17. Please give a history or summary of the
State of the art as to sewage purification and dis-
posal in England at the time of which you have
just been speaking? A. In summing up the art at
this time in England it is well to bear in mind that
during the previous quarter of a century, the field
of investigation had been apparently exhausted.
Earth, air, fire and water had all been resorted to,
the resources of chemistry had been ransacked, and
prevailing practices were unsatisfactory.
It was recognized that no chemical process per
se, could effeciently deal with sewage, but must be
assisted by subsequent land treatment.
Where land could be reasonably acquired, irri-
gation was the most satisfactory known system of
Sewage disposal, but it was not a money making
matter.
“Intermittent filtration,” as expounded by
Frankland, was taken to mean no more than the
production by deep drainage of results frequently
obtained in irrigation.
Towns situated upon the seacoast, or within the
tidal range of rivers were thus afforded by crude
sewage disposal therein, the most economical and
efficient means of dealing with their sewage, pro-
vided due care was exercised in selecting the best
position for the outlet.
Turning to America, the early bacterial era wit-
nessed in the 1882 report of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health, the recommendation of a definite
plan of disposal of Worcester sewage by “Inter-
mittent filtration.” Four years later the Legisla-
79
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ture conferred power upon the said Board to ad-
vise cities and towns, and in 1887, on application
by the City of Brockton for advice as to the best
practical method of disposal of that city's sewage,
the Board recommended “Intermittent filtration.”
In 1886, the Massachusetts Drainage Commission
recommended the filtration of Mystic Valley sew-
age on the Saugus Marches, also for the upper
Charles and Nefonset, and the Sudbury and Co-
chituate basins, twelve (12) independent intermit-
tent filtration and irrigation systems. This scheme
was not adopted, but about this time, “intermittent
filtration ” began to be practiced at various places
in Massachusetts and elsewhere. In this country,
it first took the form of intermittent doses upon cul-
tivated land and also by sub-surfaced irrigation, a
few inches under the surface, especially used in
small plants; and finally upon beds of sand or
gravel, etc., specially prepared for the purpose. All
act upon the same principle of bacterial action and
all require intermittent dosing and aeration.
Q. 18. What was the next important step or
phase of development? A. The next great and
important move was made in 1887 in connection
with the disposal of the sewage of London. Mr.
W. J. Dibdin, chemist to the Metropolitan Board
of Works, was called upon in 1884 to devise some
means of purifying the River Thames. Early in
his experiments he found that as soon as the
dilute action of the river water was sufficient to
nullify the antiseptic action of certain sterilizing
agents, the putrefactive organisms introduced
from the river multiplied enormously and the
whole mass of sewage underwent putrescent fer-
390
391
392
398
394
80
395
3)6
397
398
399
F. HERBERT SNOW.
mentation, bringing about the original foul con-
dition, but where pernamgenate of soda was em-
ployed the oridation of the sewage could be af-
fected in the river without putrefaction because
this chemical prevented the increase of the putre-
factive organisms, whilst producing the con-
ditions necessary for the well being of those or-
ganisms through whose agency the organic mat-
ters were Oasidised.
Thus stirilization of sewage was found to be
a mistake and the principle of Warrington fur-
ther enunciated that efforts should be made to-
wards fostering the class of organisms by whose
aid purification is finally accomplished.
In Mr. Dibdin's paper, read before the Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers, in 1887, he said:
“The lesson to be learned from the numerous
experiments published by various authorities, both
in this Country and on the Continent, is that bac-
teria and other low forms of organic life are most
potent in the destruction of all objectionable
refuse. Modern experiments show that, when the
subject is better understood and thoroughly
worked out, in all probability the true way of
purifying sewage where suitable land is unavail-
able will be first to separate the sludge and then
turn into the neutral effluent a charge of the
proper organisms whatever that may be, Specially
cultivated for the purpose, retain it for a suf-
ficient period, during which time it should be
fully aerated and finally discharge it into the
stream in a really purified condition. This
is indeed only what it aimed at and imperfectly
accomplished on a sewage farm. It is true that
knowledge on the subject is not yet sufficiently ad-
vanced to put such a system into practical Opera-
tion, but sufficient is known to show that the anti-
septic treatment of sewage is the reverse of nature’s
method.”
81
F. HERBERT SNOW.
With his future possibility in mind he recom-
mended, and the City of London adopted in 1887,
the plan of treating the sewage by chemicals and
turning the clarified effluent into the Thames,
wherein oxidation and complete purification by
bacterial action would be accomplished.
This was an important action. Mr. Dibdin's
views of filtration at this time were antagonistic.
In reference thereto in the same paper he said:
“As regards the question of sludge, it is generally
admitted by practical sanitarians that filtration is
out of the question. As affecting the future puri-
fication of a clarified sewage, filtration is without
doubt a rational process in all respects save one,
and that is expense. If further purification is de-
sirable, and suitable land can be obtained, filtration
in the form of effluent farming is to be commended
beyond all other proposals. But land must be suit-
able and not over dosed with the liquid to be puri-
fied, otherwise ultimate failure is a foregone con-
clusion.”
The adoption of the chemical precipitation pro-
cess by the English, Metropolis in the face of re-
peated failures of the method throughout the
Kingdom, coupled with Mr. Dibdin's adverse po-
sition towards filtration, put a quietus for the
time being on progress in sewage filtration in
England. So the time was ripe for the new world
renowned classical researches of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health.
Q. 19. Please state what these researches of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health were
and what they proved. A. These experiments
were begun the latter part of 1887 and have been
continued to date. The first report was made in
1890. The object sought was to find out the way
400
401
402
403
404
S2
405
406
407
408
409
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in which the organic matter in sewage can be
Completely oxidized and to learn what could be
accomplished by filters composed of various Mas-
Sachusetts soils.
As Sewage cannot be purified without being
nitrified, the conditions most favorable to the
action of the nitrifying organisms were regarded
as essential.
As would be expected, the old facts mentioned
by Frankland and Warrington were demon-
strated again, that flowing sewage over porous
Sand strains out a large quantity of the sus-
pended matters and finally clogs the strainer and
the effluent will then be as impure as the applied
sewage; but it was further found that if only so
much sewage be applied as will pass through
the sand and allow the screened matter to dry up
or become oxidized, the operation may be car-
ried on indefinitely.
A filter five feet deep of wash gravel stone,
dosed nine times a day with crude sewage at the
rate of 126,000 gallons per acre daily, removed
ninety-eight per cent. of the organic matter repre-
sented by the ammonias and destroyed ninety-
nine per cent. of the bacteria.
These results conclusively showed the essential
character of intermittent filtration, so called, to
be bacterial. It was not a straining process.
Small quantities of sewage hourly applied over
the whole filter surface, covered each stone with
thin films of liquid, exposed it to contact with
air held in the spaces between the stones within
the filter, and within twenty-four hours, the time
required for the liquid to pass through the filter,
83
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the organic matter was oxidized. The stones
were as clear after a year's use as in the begin-
ning. The action was noi, mechanical, but chemi-
cal and bacterial, by which the organic substances
were reduced to mineral products, the effluent in
every respect comparing with the water in wells
and for drinking purposes.
An intermittent sand filter, which removed
ninety-nine per cent. of the applied organic mat-
ter, was later operated continuously like a sand
water filter. The surface was covered with sew-
age excluding air and filling the spaces with
liquid. When so operated, purification ceased.
The essential difference between the intermittent
and the continuous filter was exclusion of air in
the latter.
Instead of Mr. Dibdin's forecast, that the time
would come when it would be found practical to
cultivate a special organism and introduce it into
the Sewage coming true, the Massachusetts ex-
periment proved Warrington’s position to be cor-
rect, that the bacteria effective for the purpose
are found to be freely present in the sewage and
merely required the necessary conditions to
enable them to accompish their work.
Recess until 2 o’cloëk.
After recess.
Q. 20. What followed the publication of the ex-
periments of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health? A. The publication of the Massachu-
setts experiments was at once followed by ef-
forts on the part of the London County Counsel
to obtain along the same lines reliable working
410
411
412
413
414
84
415
416
417
4 18
419
F. HERBERT SNOW.
data on filtration based upon something more
than mere laboratory trials.
In March, 1891, Mr. Dibdin was directed to
conduct a series of experiments as to the best
methods of filtering the sewage effluent of the
northern outfall precipitation works at Barking.
Preliminary tests during 1892 proved coke-
breeze to be the most suitable material for the
trial on a large scale. This next experiment was
made with a one-acre filter. It began in 1893
and was continued through the autumn of 1895,
when Mr. Dibdin made his report.
The chemically clarified sewage treated was
passed on to the acre filter at the rate of 1,000,-
000 gallons daily. The method of operation was
novel. The liquid was allowed to fill the filter
as quickly as possible to just level with the sur-
face, then allowed to remain standing in the filter
for one hour, when it was drawn off with the
least possible delay. The filter so worked was
given a period of one day’s rest each week. The
conclusions were, that clarified sewage may be puri-
fied to any degree, the amount of purification de-
pending upon, first, the length of time sewage is
held in contact in the filter, and, second, the
length of time allowed for aeration.
“In no way did these principles differ from those
ennunciated in the Massachusetts Reports, but
Dibdin's methods of obtaining contact—by means
of gates instead of frictional resistance of the fil-
ter material—was new, and later gave to the
structure the term “Contact beds,” although Mr.
Dibdin designated them “Bacterial filters.”
From the experiments with clarified sewage Mr.
85
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
Didbin reasoned that if the organisms had been able
to accomplish SO great a destruction of the fine sus-
pended matters in the clarified sewage, why should
they not be equally potent for the destruction of the
larger particles in crude sewage, which in the aggre-
gate from what is known as “sludge.” It was
known that if these coarse matters were placed
On the fine beds they might speedily accumulate
on the surface thereof and form a deposit of
putrifying matter. By making the bed of coarse
material the sludge would be able to penetrate
into the filter, settle on or be attached thereto
and there be subjected to aerobic bacterial action.
These considerations led to the construction of
the first coarse sludge bacterial filter of the Dib-
din type. It was brought into use November 20,
1896, at Sutton, England. The effluent there-
from was treated in a secondary bed of fine ma-
terial.
Mr. Dibdin's report to the London County
Council was dated from 40 Craven Street, W. C.,
October, 1895, and was entitled “Report by the
Chemist on the Experiments on the Filtration of
Sewage Effluent During the Years 1892-3-4-5.” It
was ordered printed by the Main Drainage Com-
mittee and has been very widely circulated in
various countries.
Q 21. What was generally known about the
art of purifying sewage by bacterial processes at
the close of the year 1895? A. In answering this
question I wish to have it understood that the
term “purification” embraces all processes in-
volved in the reduction of the impurities, solid or
liquid, in sewage from their organic form to the
420
421
422
423
424
86
425
426
427
428
429
F. HERBERT SNOW.
simplest or mineral form, which, mineralization
cannot be accomplished without the agency of
nitrifying organisms.
At the close of 1895 it was generally known in
respect to slow filtration by those best qualified
and practicing the art, or following the Massa-
chusetts Reports, that fresh Sewage contains sus-
pended organic matter of coarse character which
are readily strained out, remain on the surface,
clog the filter, retard the flow of the sewage into
the filter, prevent proper aeration, and interfere
with purification.
In Stale Sewage the suspended organic matters
are more finely divided—mechanically, chemi-
cally and bacterially—so that less surface clog-
ging occurs, the larger percentage of the Solids
passing into the filter where they are changed
into inorganic form and pass away in the effluent
or into the air as gas.
Further, that clogging is always in proportion
to the sludge, that the amount of sludge and
sewage varies, that sewage will in time clog a
filter unless great care is used, that a greater per-
centage of sludge is stored at a high rate than
a low rate, that the same quantity stored causes
more trouble at a high rate, that a clog sand fil-
ter will become slowly oxidized when rested and
that permanency is independent of size and ma-
terial, but depends on the treatment.
It was generally known, apart from the Dibdin
Experiments and before them, in respect to rapid
filtration by sand of sewage from which the
sludge had been removed, that a rate of from
160,000 to 240,000 gallons per acre daily of Set-
87
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tled sewage, from 200,000 to 360,000 gallons per
acre daily of chemically subsided sewage, that
300,000 per acre daily of coke-strained sewage,
and that 650,000 gallons per acre daily through
Sand and 700,000 gallons per acre daily through
coke of Sewage first treated by rapid filtration
through coarse gravel aided by a current of air
drawn downward, could be indefinitely main-
tained.
It will be noticed that the indispensible element
of all these accellerated processes was the prelimi-
mary removal of the sludge.
Mr. Dibdin's departure in 1896 from this prin-
ciple was radical. His sludge contact filter was
considered a doubtful experiment by many. Even
in the Massachusetts rapid and forced aeration
filters not all the organic matters was destroyed.
Some remained in the filters and some came off in
the effluent and went onto the surface of the fine
secondary bed, limiting it to an extent.
As was expected, the Sutton “contact filter’’
Overshot the mark, accumulated organic matter
and had to be subsequently overhauled, but it did
draw attention to possibilities of this form of filter
hitherto unattempted in practice. Consequently
it comprised one of the progressive steps in the bac-
terial treatment of sewage. Especially did this ex-
periment call attention in England to the necessity
for preliminary removal of suspended solids from
sewage in connection with the bacterial purification
of sewage by filtration. Thus during the last le.
cade of the century, the old problem of the early
fifties of sludge disposal once again demanded all
absorbing attention.
430
431
432
433
434
88
435
436
437
438
439
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Q. 22. Please state what you know, or what in-
formation you have about the use of tanks in con-
nection with the disposal of sewage? A. The use
of tanks in connection with the disposal of sewage.
especially on a large scale, is closely connected
with the history of sewers in England. The period
in which sewage disposal has been in process of
lmarked evolution is divided into three distinct
epochs, each marked by a dominant opinion as to
the essential object of the disposal.
In the first period, from 1847 to 1857, it was
thought of first importance to secure prompt re-
moval of sewage from the neighborhood of dwel-
lings and to dispose of it into rivers or onto land in
which latter case in consequence of doubts as to the
effect upon public health of sewage irrigation, its
delivery onto land was thought best accomplished
by underground pipes and distribution by hose or
jets, thus affecting aeration.
The second period, between the years 1858 and
1870, witnessed the abandonment of the idea of in-
jury to health by sewage irrigation, and the growth
of the belief that ideal sewage disposal should aim
at the profitable utilization of sewage, while at the
same time protecting the rivers from contamina-
tion.
In the third period, from 1870 to the present time,
the dominant idea, as expressed in official publica-
tions and by legislation, has been that the preven-
tion of stream pollution is the in dispensible re-
Quisite and prime object of every efficient sewage
disposal system.
Q. 23. What was the practice in the use of tanks
during the period from 1847 to 1857. A. In 1847
89
F. HERBERT SNOW.
it was made compulsory in England to abolish all
cesspools, tanks or middens and priveys, and to use
sewers in their stead. Cesspools were then very
numerous in thickly settled communities and the
periodical cleaning out of the Offensive matters
therein was a nuisance so great as to cause the en-
actment of the law of 1847, which was followed
about 1850 by a general adoption of sewer systems.
These sewers removed the nuisance from the
vicinity of dwellings to their outlets. Then began
in consequence on a large scale the pollution of the
rivers of England. g
The Town’s Improvement Act, of 1847, provided
for the method of getting rid of sewage without
any profitable return—the local authorities being
empowered to discharge sewers into the sea or any
public river—and also provided for a profitable
method of disposal by conveying sewage to a con-
venient site and irrigating for agricultural or other
purposes.
Under the profitable method the local authorities
were required to make such reservoirs, sluices, and
Other works as should be necessary for cleansing
the sewers, and the filth so collected was to be the
property of the local authorities who could sell or
dispose of it as thought advisable.
So tanks and deposit sewers and receiving reser-
voirs were built and plain subsidence was used or
the separation of solids from liquids was hastened
by the use of chemicals. The profit from the sale or
utilization of these solids was the main object
sought.
The first official statement of importance with
respect to tanks was made by Mr. Henry Austin in
440
441
442
443
444
90
445
446
447
448
449
F. HERBERT SNOW.
March, 1857, in a report to the General Board of
Health, on “The Means of Deoderizing and Utiliz-
ing the Sewage of Towns.”
The object of this report was to present the best
practical mode of rendering outfalls of drainage in-
nocuous and of realizing from sewage the highest
possible value. Mr. Austin divided the methods of
fertilizing land by sewage manure into two classes,
which he designated the solid method and the liquid
method respectively. The solid method he divided
into three parts, first, the precipitation of solid mat-
ters held in mechanical suspension by the use of
various chemicals; second, the separation of solid
matters by straining or filters and their subsequent
admixture with deoderizing material, and third,
simple deposition and draining off of liquids from
the solid mass.
I have a copy of Mr. Austin’s report before me. It
is addressed to the Right Honorable, The President
of the General Board of Health, by Henry Austin,
C. E., Chief Superintending Inspector of the Board,
London. Printed by George E. Eyre and William
Spottiswoode, printers to the Queen’s most execel-
lent majesty, 1857.
Speaking of the first class, Mr. Austin states on
page 19, that by the number of patents granted for
the general treatment of night soil for the manu-
facture of solid manure, he judges that the subject
has engaged considerable attention since 1835. He
gives a plan, marked No. 1, entitled, “Clifton Union.
Sketch showing deoderizing apparatus.” For con-
venience in handling, and for purposes of reproduc-
tion, I have had a tracing made of this plan, which
I now produce.
91
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Mr. Austin describes the Clifton Union Works
which comprise mixing cisterns, the contents of
which were alternately run off into one of two tanks
for settlement. These tanks are shown in duplicate
of masonry, arched over and made air and water
tight, having a non-disturbing inlet, submerged, and
consisting of a conduit extending the entire width
of the tank and having throughout its entire length
a series of slots or apertures delivering the sewage
therefrom to the tank. This conduit as shown by
the plan, was on the outside of the tank.
In reference to the second class, Mr. Austin pre-
sented a plan marked # 2, entitled “Cheltenham
Sewage Works.” For convenience in handling and
for purposes of reproduction, I have had a tracing
made of this plan, which I now produce.
On page 32 he describes the works at Cheltenham.
They consisted of a series of tanks in duplicate
below ground, and covered over by a building. The
Sewage passed out of the first and second tanks,
through outlets comprising chambers located within
the tanks and extending nearly the whole width
of the tanks and from the top to the bottom thereof,
built of two-inch boards, two feet apart, perforated,
and enclosing coarse gravel. These outlet cham-
bers, or conduits, acted as strainers. By their use,
it is stated on page 32:
“The great bulk of the matters in suspension is
separated and retained. * * * * the heavier
matters of the Sewage deposit themselves at the bot-
tom of the tanks, but a large proportion of the solids
forms itself into a floating body, and accumulates
to about eighteen inches thick on the surface. The
liquid is conveyed from the angular filters in the
upper tanks by a line of pipes in each division.”
450
451
452
453
454
455
457
458
459
F. HERBERT SNOW.
The effluent from these tanks received lime in the
third tank and passed out of it through outlets (filt-
ers) extending the entire width of the tank and to
about one-half its depth. The plant is in duplicate,
as shown on the plans and was Operated on the con-
tinuous principle. The tanks are stated to have been
emptied of their solid accumulations after about
every eight weeks of continuous use. These solids
were raised up from the tanks and removed from
the building to beds outside in the adjoining yard,
where they were mixed with ashes to facilitate fur-
ther handling. g
Mr. Austin also presented a plan, # 3, entitled,
“Sewage Works Ely.” For convenience in hand-
ling, and for purposes of reproduction, I have had a
tracing made of this plan, which I now produce.
Mr. Austin describes these works on page 35.
These works comprise masonry tanks in duplicate,
being arched over and made tight, having a sub-
merged inlet and an outlet, consisting of a filter of
charcoal and sand, extending the whole length and
breadth of the tank and disposed horizontally in
the tanks at the springing line of the arch, the same
being always submerged. The deposits, I under-
stand, were daily removed and utilized for manure.
I will now quote from the conclusions of his report,
page 89:
“That in order to avoid all further risk of injury
to health, whether from discharge of the sewage
into the rivers and streams, or from its application
to the land, it appears desirable that the solid mat-
ter should in every case be separated from liquid
sewage at the outfall, and that a cheap portable
manure should be manufactured therefrom for use
in the immediate neighborhood. * * * That
the liquid portion of the sewage, thus cleared of its
93
F. HERBERT SNOW.
solid matter, but still retaining its chief value as
manure, might then be applied with benefit to the
neighboring lands in any quantity; * * * *
That the distribution of manures in a liquid state
by the hose and jet from a system of underground
pipes on the land, has been found by the experience
of several years, upon farms in England and Scot-
land most advantageous, * * * * That in
any neighborhoods, however, where no opportu-
nity exists for this beneficial irrigation, the liquid
sewage, before being discharged into rivers or
streams, should, after separation of the solid mat-
ter, be treated with lime or other deoderizing and
precipitating agents.’’
Mr. Austin made recommendations and sub-
mitted a plan, which he proposed for general adop-
tion in England. The plan is numbered 6, entitled
“Proposed sewage works.” For convenience in
handling, and for purposes of reproducion, I have
had a tracing made of this plan, which I now pro-
duce.
I will now quote from page 79 of Mr. Austin’s
report what he said about the proposed arrange-
ment for separating the solid portion of sewage
from the water in which it is conveyed:
“The great bulk of the solid matter, when the
sewage comes to comparative rest in the reservoir,
divides itself into two bodies; the heavier particles
at Once deposit themselves at the bottom, and the
Tighter portions collect, in a solid floating mass, on
the surface. It appears to me that the chief propor-
tion of these matters may be intercepted in the first
tank A, (Drawing No. 6) both above and below,
without a filter, by a simple division, B, with bas-
ketwork and perforated boards in the middle, allow-
ing the water to pass through only at a certain
depth beneath the surface.
The second tank or reservoir, C, need not then be
so deep or so large as the first. At the end of
it filtering materials of different kinds should be
460
461
462
463
464
94
465
466
4.67
468
469
F. HERBERT SNOW.
arranged, through which the sewage would pass
laterally: 1st, coarse screened gravel, beach, or
broken stone; 2nd, gravel of medium coarseness;
and, third, some finer material. And there would
be much advantage in having this filter, D, shallow
and broad, rather than deep and narrow; the sur-
face-water only would pass away, and thus allow a
further deposit from the main body before filtra-
tion, * * * * a very small area of filters so
placed would be found sufficient for all practical
purposes.
The reservoir for deposition after the addition of
the lime should be considerably larger than that at
Cheltenham. There is not time, in that case, for
the precipitation to take place. The lime and
remaining sewage flow off in suspension to the
stream, and have an unsightly effect “ ” The
admixture being made as the sewage flows into the
reservoir at each end, I propose that it should be
intercepted by a fender, that it may not disturb
the main body of water, and that the discharge to
the outfall should take place over a weir, allowing
only a surface film of the water, from which the
lime has descended, to pass over.”
Q. 24. Did Mr. Austin’s proposed tank system
embrace principles which have been present in
tanks since that time? A. Yes, the elements of his
typical tank system, variously modified to meet lo-
cal requirements, have been followed out in prac-
tice, even up to the present time.
Q. 25. State what are the essential elements
recognized in the Austin Tank System and what ar-
rangements were provided to accomplish the pur-
poses? A. His system recognized that in a sub-
sidence tank there may be:
1st. A deposit of solid matter on the bottom.
2nd. An accumulation of a solid floating mass
On the surface.
95
F. HERBERT SNOW.
3rd. The necessity for drawing off the liquid be-
tween the top and the bottom.
4th. Provision for a submerged non-disturb-
ing outlet across the entire width of the tank below
the top, and above the bottom.
5th. Desirability of drawing off upper layers of
liquid from some of the compartments through
strainers.
6th. Placing of strainers at the end of the tank,
forming thereby an outlet chamber, extending
across the entire width of the tank and to and
depth desired. º
7th. Necessity for both a non-disturbing inlet
and outlet in some tanks.
8th. Use of baffle board or fenders at the inlet
and a weir at the outlet end to accomplish non-dis-
turbance and promote separation of the solids from
the liquid sewage.
9th. Provision for removal of the accumulated
solids from the tanks.
Adjourned to Saturday June 10, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 10th, 1905, 10:30.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
Direct Examination of Mr. Snow, continued:
Q. 25. What was the practice in the design and
use of tanks in the second period, being the years
1858 to 1870? A. During this period, British
patent, No. 232, January, 1860, was granted to
Thomas Walker for an apparatus to promote plain
subsidence, in which the sewage is conducted to a
small flowing pool or conduit, whose object is to
470
471
472
473
474
96
475
476
477
478
479
F. HERBERT SNOW.
break up or moderate the velocity and let it flow
into the large subsiding pool of flowing sewage,
as quietly as possible, which is done by providing a
partition wall between the two pools with a pas-
sage or long, narrow and horizontal opening from
the inlet pool or conduit into the lower part of the
subsiding pool, said opening extending the whole
width of the bottom of said pool; the subsiding
pool being formed with an inclined bottom, serving
to intercept the suspended matters in the water,
while on its way from the entrance to the exit, and
increasing the facility for emptying the pool of the
solids, the overflow being over an extended line
the width of the pool, this outlet overflow being
a weir and affording natural aeration. The ap-
paratus is arranged in duplicate.
Again, in 1864, British patent, No. 2329 was
granted to Thomas Walker and Thomas Ferdinand
Walker, for improvements in apparatus where sew-
age matters are collected in reservoirs in order that
the fluid portion thereof may be separated from the
more solid by subsidence, the object of the inven-
tion being to separate the heavier solid matters
by causing them in passing into the subsiding res-
ervoir to pass through a trough, chamber or con-
duit, extending the whole width of the tank by
which the heavier solid matters may be arrested,
whilst like bodies in suspension, such as paper, rags,
and fibrous matters, will pass over the wall form-
ing one side of the trough, chamber or conduit, and
will be intercepted by a grating provided for that
purpose. The sewer or delivery conduit is sub-
merged and has several openings into the collect-
ing trough, chamber or conduit, said openings be-
97
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ing below the top and above the bottom thereof,
forming non-disturbing inlets and serving to trap
the drains and prevent the return of foul Smells up
the drain or sewer. The heavier Solid matters of
the sewage are designed to be arrested in the said
trough, chamber or conduit, and sink to the bot-
tom thereof, while the lighter matters pass with
the more liquid portion of the sewage over the
wall, forming one side of the said chamber and be
intercepted by the grating, baffle-board or partition
extending downward from the top into the water,
serving as a submerged outlet, extending the entire
width of the tank. In going into the larger settling
tank, the sewage passes down in a conduit in the
tank and extending the entire width of the tank,
and having an opening for its entire width in the
bottom thereof, which opening is below the top and
above the bottom of said tank, said inlet conduit
in the tank serving as a submerged non-disturbing
inlet in which the light suspended matters in the
sewage are intercepted by a horizontal screen laid
over or in the said opening in the bottom. The
tanks are in duplicate, operate on the continuous
principle and the effluent flows over a weir at the
opposite end of said tank, said weir extending the
entire width of the tank and serving to aerate the
effluent naturally.
British patent, No. 3203 was granted in 1868 to
Gavin Chapman for improvements in treating sew-
age in order to obtain valuable products therefrom,
in which it was desirable that the portion of the
ordinary sewage comprising the excreta from water
closets, urinals and the like, be kept separate from
the bulk of drainage water which enters ordinary
480
481
482
483
484
98
485
486
487
488
489
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Sewers, either by means of separate sewers or other-
Wise. The richer sewage thus obtained was then
collected in large tanks or reservoirs whose object
was to retain the sewage during three or four days,
or until it became decomposed, the decomposition be.
ing hastened by always leaving in the tanks a
quantity of previously decomposed sewage and by
maintaining the sewage at a temperature of from
70 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
British patent, No. 3562, was granted in 1868 to
Thomas Smith and John Van Norden, Balalgette,
for improvements in deodorizing and manufactur-
ing manures from sewage, according to which in-
vention the sewage or other fluid is introduced into
a settling tank through openings in the wall of the
tank at different heights, so as to obviate the dis-
turbance caused in the process of precipitating the
Solid matter by the falling of the sewage stream
from the upper surface of the tank wall. The said
several openings for the admission of the fluids
are closed and opened by sliding traps actuated by
floats. The sewage from the sewer, after being
mixed with deodorizing material, falls into a tumb-
ling bay or inlet chamber, extending the entire
width of the tank, from which it enters the tank
through the said series of non-disturbing openings
in the side of said chamber, said openings being
below the top and above the bottom of said tank.
When the semi-fluid deposit has accumulated in
the tank, it is drawn off by a pipe and run on to
drying beds outside. The liquid escapes on the op-
posite side of the tank from the inlet through a
submerged outlet comprising a chamber or con-
duit, having a slot or opening extending the entire
99
F. HERBERT SNOW.
width of the tank and being disposed below the top
and above the bottom thereof, through which the
sewage flows out and up and over a weir into a
second tumbling bay or chamber, from which it
enters into a second settling chamber in like man-
ner as the first. *
British patent, No. 364, was granted in 1870 to
George William Wigner, for improvements in the
mode of and apparatus for treating and purifying
sewage, consisting, first, in the use of a pit or tank,
termed “catch-pit,” through which the sewage is
caused to pass slowly On its way from the main
sewer or other source to the mixing pit. After
the sewage is mixed with chemicals, it is caused to
flow to the precipitating apparatus, consisting of
a series of settling tanks having sloping bottoms
and channels for the ready conveyance away of the
mud which settles from the sewage. These tanks are
in duplicate, and built of masonry and are arched
over. The inlet thereof, consists of a conduit,
extending across the whole width of the tank on
the outside and communicating with the tank
through a series of openings in the wall, dividing
the inlet conduit from the said tank, these series
of openings extending throughout the entire length
of the said conduit and the entire width of the said
tank, said openings being below the top and above
the bottom of the tank, being always submerged
and non-disturbing in their action. As the sewage
flows from one set of tanks to another, it passes
over transverse partition walls, and the effluent
passes out of the tanks over a weir, thus coming
in contact with air and light and falls into a col.
lecting conduit over the opposite wall of which it
490
491
492
493
494
100
495
496
497
498
499
F. HERBERT SNOW.
flows to a filter. This wall acting as a weir aut:
aerating the sewage effluent and after being filter-
ed, in its purified state, the effluent passes over
another Weir into the river or other outlet.
I will cite two instances of the use of tanks.
At the Croydon Sewage Farm, since 1861, there
have been in use two small settling tanks into
which the sewage flows before going on to the land.
These tanks are in duplicate, provided with screens
and scum-boards and are used On the continuous
method.
At Aldershot Camp Farm, built in 1864, there
are three sets of tanks, Worked on the continuous
principle and in pairs, each pair of tanks being
provided with a fixed bar screen, through which
the sewage passes prior to entering the tank. The
tanks are provided with scum boards and the sew -
age flows out over a weir or tank sill and is aer-
ated, whence it goes to the irrigation beds. A
plan of the tanks at this farm and at Croydon is
exhibited in the Royal Commission on Sewage
Disposal Report, Volume 4, 1904.
Q. 26. State what was the practice in the design
and use of tanks in the third period, namely, from
1870 to the date of the patent in suit, or to the
present time. In answering this question, please
refer to any patents or publications of which you
may have knowledge? A. I will refer first to an
innovation established by Dr. Alexander Muller.
He made some experiments in 1869, which he pub-
lished in 1873 in “Landwirth Schaftliche Versuch-
stationen,” Vol. 16. I have a translation of this
article, or parts of it, before me, in the Journal of
the Society of Arts, Vol. XLVI, from November 19,
101
F. HERBERT SNOW.
1897, to November 11, 1898, London, published for
the Society by George Bell & Sons, 4, 5 and 6 York
Street, Covent Garden, 1898. The article from
which I wish to quote, appears on page 165 of the
said Journal, and is signed by H. Alfred Roechling.
“On page 263 of this publication, Muller re-
marks as follows:
“‘The contents of sewage are chiefly of organic
Origin, and in consequence of this an active process
of decomposition takes place in sewage, through
which the organic matters are gradually dissolved
into mineral matters, or, in short, are mineralized
and thus become fit to serve as food for plants. To
the Superficial observer this process appears to be a
chemical self-reduction; in reality, however, it is
chiefly a process of digestion, in which the various
—mostly microscopically small—animal ad vege-
table organisms utilize the organically fixed power
for their life purposes.”
“And again :
“‘The decomposition of sewage in its various
stages is characterized by the appearance of enor-
mous numbers of spirillae then of vibrios (Swarm-
ing spores) and finally of moulds. At this stage
commences the reformation of organic substance
with the appearance of the chlorophyl holding Pro-
tococcus, &c.’”
In 1878 Dr. Muller took out a German patent,
No. 9792, entitled, “A Process of Disinfecting,
Purification, and Utilization of Putrescent Waste
Liquid (or Liquid Sewage) by the Rational Cul-
tivation of Fermenting (leaven-like) Organisms,”
patented in the German Empire from December
11, 1878.
At this time the adoption of flush sewers in
towns was becoming quite general, but at the same
time the demand for the water required for flush-
ing the sewers was also increasing, and this re-use
bj00
5()1
502
503
504
102
505
506
f)07
508
F. HERBERT SNOW.
of the water required that it be first purified; but
the difficulty lay in the organic matter in the sew-
ers and the putrefaction involved. Up to this time
attempts at removing the nuisance by dilution or
chemical precipitation or filtration or irrigation,
had proven more or less failures, and investgators
had concluded that on purely mechanical or chemi-
cal lines the object aimed at could not be obtained.
I will now quote a few lines from the specifica-
tion of the Muller patent, to show the object sought
and the method of securing it by the said inven-
tion : *
“Now whereas the former disinfecting methods
had for their essential object to obviate as far as
practicable any phenomena of putrefaction corrup-
tion or decomposition) the process herein described,
On the contrary, aims at the methodical cultivation
of those small “leaven-like” organisms to the via-
bility of which modern science has traced the so-
called ‘self-unmixing’ processes, namely, acidifica-
tion, fermentation, putrefaction, decay or the like,
in accordance with the rules of physiology, with a
view to bringing them into requisition in the task
of precipitating out the liquid waste-substances or
bringing about their complete mineraliztion (i. e.
reduction to simple inorganic compounds).”
3% * * * * * 3: * * * * * * *
“The mechanical and structural arrangement re-
Quired in carrying out this process are extremely
simple. They consist of three or four basins (or
baths) of at least one metre’s depth for the diges-
tion and defecation of the waste-liquid. Altogether
they should have a sufficient capacity for receiving
a full day’s output in waste liquid, and be provided
with means for its continuous admission and dis-
charge. They are lifted out of the ground and
receive a floating top-cover of porous material
(such as straw, chaff, froth, scum, &c.), so as to
retard cooling and evaporation.
103
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“Any effluvia from putrefying matter likely to
prove objectionable, as noxious gases and vapors
generally, are got rid of by being sent through a
System of drain-pipes which are so laid down in a
field that normally they remain dry, or at all events
are never entirely filled with water.
“To the said basis or baths at any desired dis-
tance there are joined (or connected) filters of
COke-dust, coal, Sand, or ground mould, which
should be properly ventilated by means of drains
open on both sides, and should in capacity repre-
sent about fifty times the volume of a day’s dis-
charge of waste liquid. * * * * * * *
“This process is mainly intended for disembar-
rassing beat-sugar works from the liquid waste
which, in their case, is particularly objectionable.
Its application to the treatment of the liquid
waste of starch factories, paper mills, breweries,
distilleries, malt works, dye-works, cleansing
works, laundries, leather dressing works, and even
to the treatment of city household waste, is af-
fected substantially in the same manner and in-
volves but slight modifications according to the
nature of the particular liquid to be treated.”
The Muller process was a combination of What
is now known as septic action, with aeration and
filtration.
Another innovation was introduced in 1881 by
Louis Mouras of France, who patented an improv-
ed cess-pool, both in that country and in England,
in 1881, and on November 28, 1882, he was granted
a patent in the United States.
Recess.
This apparatus was fully described in the
“Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers,” London, 1882, Vol. XLVIII, page
350. This volume was edited by James Forrest,
Assoc. Inst. C. E., Secretary, published by the In-
stitution, 25 Great George Street, Westminster, S.
510
512
513
t;14
104
515
§17
518
519
F. HERBERT SNOW.
W. The article which I wish to quote in full, be-
ginning on page 350, is as follows:
“Mouras’ Automatic Scavenger.
By Abbe F. Moigno.
(Cosmos, Dec., 1881, p. 622, Jan., 1882, p. 97.)
“The author describes the dangers to public
health caused by a concentration of large popula-
tions in cities, and calls attention to the want of
success which had attended all the known sys-
tems of sewage purification and utilisation. He
quotes the opinion of M. Allain Targe to the ef-
fect that all the plans hitherto investigated by the
authorities of the City of Paris had utterly failed,
and announces the invention of M. Mouras as ‘a
complete solution of the problem which for cen-
turies had been an insolent menace hurled in the
face of all humanity.’ He says that the apparatus
which has been in use by the inventor for twenty
years is ‘the most simple, the most beautiful, and,
perhaps, the grandest of modern inventions, and
that, in speaking of it in these terms he is under
—rather than over—stating his case, for each
day reveals a new cause of perfection in this mys-
terious contrivance. The description has been de-
layed for some months owing to certain techni-
cal errors in the applications for patents in France
and in other countries, but these difficulties have
now been removed, and he is at liberty to publish
the nature of the invention. Before doing so he
alludes to a fact which, though little known, is
extremely instructive, Naturalists have intro-
duced aquariums, containing either fresh or Salt-
water, filled with animals, for the purpose of
study, and the curator of the Zoological Gardens
of London, who first employed them, was Sur-
prised to see that his cherished fishes Speedily
died, and that his aquarium was in reality only a
tomb. It was an aggregation of living animals
in which the functions of the scavenger were not
provided for, and the fish died, poisoned by their
own unhealthy dejections. What was to be done?
It was found that by invoking the aid of molluscs,
105
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Zoophites, and aquatic plants, which live upon
and decompose animal dejections, the necessary
Scavengers were obtained and the mortality
ceased. Here then was a fine example to follow.
Eliminate the human dejections by disinfecting
them and rendering them fertile. Let everything
be transformed on the spot, let everything be
emptied away without any loss—the whole made
useful, and thus turn death into life All this the
automatic Scavenger of M. Louis Mouras effects
for human populations, however numerous and
however dense they may be. The scavenger is in
fact—1st. Hermetically sealed and closed by the
most inviolable of Seals—the hydraulic seal; its
contents are therefore shut off from all possible
contact with the surrounding atmosphere. 2nd.
It is absolutely inodorous, and renders every kind
of infection impossible. 3rd. By a mysterious
operation, and one which reveals an entirely novel
principle, it rapidly transforms all it receives into
a homogeneous fluid, only slightly turbid, and
which holds all the solid matters in suspension
in the form of scarcely visible filaments. There
is moreover no deposit of any kind, either in the
discharge-pipe or the sewer. 4th. It is self-
emptying and continuous in its working, that is
to say, for each new addition from the soil-pipe
an equal volume of the contents, duly transformed
and prepared, passes away into the sewer. 5th.
The liquid which escapes, while it contains all the
organic and inorganic elements of the foeces, is
almost devoid of Smell, and can be received into
a watering-cart for horticultural purposes, or may
pass away into the sewers for use in irrigation.
The Author refers to the great advantages result-
ing from the foregoing facts, and states that they
are obtained by means of an inexpensive and very
simple addition to the appliances already in use
(in France). All that is needed is to render the
cesspool water-tight, to slightly prolong the soil-
pipe so as to dip a few inches into the liquid con-
tents of the cesspool, which are kept at a uniform
level, and to add a discharge-pipe, which shall
fi20
521
522
523
524
106
525
526
527
528
529
F. HERBERT SNOW. .
also have its upper extremity beneath the surface
of the liquid, but so contrived that it dips slightly
downwards, the other end being carried into the
Sewer, Or into a receptacle for liquid manure. Hay-
ing thus fitted up the apparatus, a constant and
automatic Scavenging process is the necessary re-
Sult of the impenetrability and irresistible incom-
pressibility of the liquid contents.
“In a subsequent number M. Moigno describes
the action of the cesspool by reference to a wood-
cut. He states that almost any material may be
employed in the construction of the tank, the only
condition being that the receptacle must be ab-
Solutely impervious to water and to air, and he
States that arrangements are being made to sup-
ply them either in zinc or in galvanized iron of
every size and shape. A vessel capable of con-
taining 1 cubic metre (about 220 gallons) is suf-
ficient for a household of from 20 to 25 persons.
Passing on to the theory of the action, which is
at present obscure, the Author states that it is
well known that few things are more insoluble
in water than foecal matters, which is due to the
fact that they are encased in a species of mucous
or fatty envelope, which preserves them from con-
tact with fluids, but he believes that in the air-
tight cesspool the solvent action of sulphuretted
hydrogen is called into play, and that a species
of putrid fermentation is set up which effects the
liquefaction of the solid foeces. The liquid flow-
ing from the cesspool has a faint odour of this gas,
suggestive slightly of the Smell of vulcanized in-
dia-rubber. But this is but a hasty conclusion,
and the whole matter is well worthy of the con-
sideration of chemists. May not the unseen agents
be those vibrions of anaerobies, which, according
to Pasteur, are destroyed by oxygen, and only
manifest their activity in vessels from which the
air is excluded?
‘‘Daily observations conducted with a glass
laboratory-scavenger have been made, and from
these it results that foecal matters introduced on
the 29th of August were entirely dissolved on the
107
F. HERBERT SNOW.
16th of September. Even kitchen refuse, onion
peelings, &c., which at first floated on the sur-
face, descended after a time to the bottom of the
vessel to await decomposition. Everything ca-
pable of being dissolved acted in a similar way,
and even paper wholly disappeared. To test the
evolution of gas an india-rubber tube was in-
Serted in the lid of the glass model, but was so
adjusted as not to dip into the liquid; to the other
end was attached an empty bladder. Not only
did this bladder continue without signs of infla-
tion, but it became, if anything, more exhausted
Consequent upon the absorption of oxygen. This
experiment is of great importance, and is a com-
plete answer to the fears expressed by Messrs.
Alphand and Durand-Claye (engineers to the
City of Paris), that gases might be given off
which would exert an injurious pressure on the
structure. On the free admission of the atmos-
phere a speedy change was observed; at first
Small bubbles began to form, and on closing up
the aparatus the bladder became about one-third
full of noxious gases. The exclusion of the at-
mosphere is therefore a necessary condition of
Success. It has been also noticed that the more
water is passed into the cesspool the more rapid
and complete is the destruction of the suspended
matters, and it remains to be seen what quantity
of water can most advantageously be used to give
the best results on a large scale. The Author con-
cludes with an estimate of the cost of applying
the system to the whole of Paris. There are 80,-
000 cesspools of all sizes in the city, and he sug-
gests that the municipal authorities should
acquire the right to use the invention for the
whole term of the patent for £2 per cesspool, and
charge an annual license fee to each householder
of £1. By this means, after the end of the second
year, the city would have recouped itself for the
first outlay, and would receive for the future an
annual payment of £80,000. The work of Scav-
enging would be far better performed than at
present, the householders would be saved a vast
§30
531
532
533
108
535
536
537
538
Ö39
F. HERBERT SNOW.
amount of trouble and expense, and the foecal
matters of the population would become at once
available for irrigation. G. R. R.?”
Mouras French Patent, of which the above ar-
ticle is a description, was No. 144,904, dated Sep-
tember 22nd, 1881. The process sought in Mouras’
tank is now known as the septic process. It was an
intentional utlization of the natural liquefaction in
tanks caused by bacterial action.
As further describing Mouras’ tank, I will now
Quote from Volume LXXII of the Minutes or Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, pub-
lished 1883, page 359.
“THE THEORY AND ACCURATE WORKING
OF THE AUTOMATIC SCAVENGER.
By the Abbe F. Moigno.
(Cosmos-les-Mondes, January, 1883, p. 110.)
“The author states that the only serious objec-
tion made to this invention is the following one:
Is it not possible to determine beforehand what
dimensions should be given to the scavenger in
Order that, as its name implies, it should continue
to work without interruption for an indefinite pe-
riod? Mr. Mouras, the inventor, has carefully
studied this question, and has prepared a com-
plete solution by the facts now brought forward.
A table has been constructed for all sizes of tanks,
from an area covered of 4/2 square metre (5.38
Square feet), to 20 square metres (23.9 square
yards), and for each number of persons contribut-
ing to it, from one to two hundred. This table
indicates at the same time, (1) the depth the tank
should contain of liquid matters; (2) the thick-
ness of the upper stratum of solids undergoing
decomposition (desagregation); (3) the depth to
which, the overflow-pipe must be submerged, and
(4) the capacity of the tank in cubic metres. A
constant depth of one metre for every size of tank
would be all that would be necessary, if nothing
but excreta could enter the tank. A Small cor-
109
F. HERBERT SNOW.
rection has, however, to be made for detritus and
foreign matters. The calculations have been
based on an assumed depth of 1 metre, and it
has been found (1) that each member of an av-
erage population adds daily a volume of foecal
matters equal to 2–10,000 of a cubic metre (0.35
pint); (2) that for the complete solution of the
floating solid matters a period of thirty days is
required, if the Superficial area is such that the
thickness of this top layer does not exceed 0.075
metre (2.95 inches). With these facts established,
the necessary proportion can be calculated with
mathematical accuracy. The Author recapitu-
lates the advantages previously claimed for this
invention, and states it to be the only one which
renders it possible to send all the dejections, liquid
and solid, to the sewers. The Table, which gives
the dimensions for tanks of all sizes, calculated
from the formulas which follow, is not suitable
for an abstract.
“Assuming the daily volume of excreta per head
to be 0.000250 cubic metre (0.44 pint), which is
excessive, and taking the base of the tank as equal
to one-tenth part in Square metres of the number
of the contributory population, the depth of the
tank p can be ascertained from the following for-
mula p = 1.00 metre X (N x 0.02), N being equal
to the number of persons, and 0.02 a constant to
allow for detritus. The depth of undecomposed
solids may be found from the following formula,
E being the thickness of the layer, E = 0.00025
metre a N a 30.
S
Here S is the area of the base of the tank in metres,
and N the number of persons using it. Finally,
the length of the submerged portion of the over-
flow-pipe is ascertained by the addition of 10 centi-
metres (3.93 inches) to the above thickness, or a
constant depth, in round numbers, of 0.175 metre,
say 19 centi-metres (7.08 inches).
G. R. R.”
Adjourned to Monday, June 12, 1905, 10:30 A.M.
540
541
542
543
544
110
545
546
547
548
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 12th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Livingston Gifford, Esq., for Complain-
ant; C. L. Sturtevant, Esq., for Defendant.
Direct Examination of Mr. Snow Continued:
(Witness continues his answer to Q. 26).
As an instance of the practical use of Mouras’
apparatus, I will now quote from Volume
LXXVIII of the Minutes of Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, published 1884,
page 502, as follows:
“Mouras’s Automatic Scavenger.”
By E. Thierry-Mied.
(Annales Industrielles, August 24, 1884, p. 253.)
“The Author has presented to the Industrial So-
ciety of Mulhausen a statement respecting the
automatic scavenger, which has been in opera-
tion since the middle of the year 1883, at the
works of Mr. Herzog at Logelbach, and which
has fulfilled all the promises of the inventor.
The cesspool with which the experiments were
conducted was a cube constructed of brickwork
in cement of 4 metres (about 14,000 gallons). It
was used for three water-closets, frequented by
one hundred and fifty workpeople. When first
employed it was three parts filled with water,
and has since received a daily inflow of 10 litres
of water per head, or a total volume of 1,500
litres of water (330 gallons) per diem, plus the
dejections, liquid and solid, of the workpeople.
The daily inflow was fairly constant in volume,
and an exactly similar quantity of the contents
was allowed to escape, maintaining the liquid in
the cesspool at a uniforn, level.
“The arrangement of the inlet and outlay-
pipes was in the form prescribed by the inventor.f
The liquid issuing from the cesspool was received
into a second tank, from which, it was distributed
over a large meadow and a vineyard. It was
quite limpid, of a greenish color, and emitted a
111
F. HERBERT SNOW.
faint odor of Sulphuretted hydrogen, which, how-
ever, disappeared at a distance of from 80 to 100
metres; that is to say, at the point where the
liquid issued into the open air. At this point
the sewage-water assumed a milky hue. The
action of the scavenger has been so perfect that
the Author is tempted to accept the theory ad-
vanced in Cosmos, that a complete putrefaction
takes place, by which all fecal matters, solid and
liquid, textile fabrics, paper, etc., are dissolved
in the space of thirty days.
“The chemical changes which go on in the
cess-pool may be summed up as follows: Owing
to the vessel being hermetically sealed, the phe-
nomena of oxidation are practically prevented,
the only available oxygen is that dissolved in the
water added daily. The phenomena are simply
due to hydrogen.
‘‘Sulphur derived from organic matters and
biliary secretions, and nitrogen obtained from the
urea and uric acid, give rise to the formation of
hydro-sulphate of ammonia. The fatty matters
are evidently converted by the free ammonia and
the alkaline earths into ammonical and other
soaps. The phosphates undergo no change wha"-
ever, and the manurial value is undiminished, be-
cause the nitrogen remains in compounds easy of
assimilation by plants. The Author sums up the
advantages of the system in the following
terms:–The power of emptying into the cesspool
domestic slops, greasy liquids, &c.; the suppres-
sion of all ventilators discharging mephitic gases
into the atmosphere; permanent Scavenging,
without manipulation of any kind, and without
soiling the premises and the courtyards; the re-
covery of a liquid product, of the density of pure
water, having a smell greatly changed in char-
acter, and which liquid may be at once discharged
into a water-course or employed for irrigation.
G. E. R.”
# Minutes of Proceedings Inst. C. E., vol. laviii,
p. 350; and vol. la’aii., p. 359.
550
551
553
554
112
555
556
557
558
559
F. HERBERT SNOW.
The above installation was a practical applica-
tion of the method of sludge treatment as the “sep-
tic process,” combined with aeration and filtration.
Mouras's apparatus was fully illustrated and
described in “The Engineering News,” of April
15, 1882, published in New York, being an article
entitled “An Automatic Vault Cleaner.” This
article was, so far as I know, the first one pub-
lished in America describing the Mouras putre-
factive liquefying process, now called the septic
process. I will now quote from this article, page
117:
‘‘AN AUTOMATIC VAULT CLEANER.”
(Translated for Engineering News.)
“The principles on which M. Mouras bases the
action of this machine is that the animal dejecta
contain within themselves all the principles of .
fermentation or dissolution necessary and suf-
ficient to liquefy them, and to render them im-
mediately useful in their return to the soil and
without appreciable loss.
“In the figure A is the vault, B the soil pipe
from the house, C the siphon discharge pipe, T)
concrete foundation, E walls, F plastering in
cement, G. flagstone curbs, H man-hole to the
vault, I plug for inspection, J drain-pipe to the
street sewer, M. box of sand to catch any solids
which, may accidentally enter through the soil-
pipe, N chain holding this box and by which it
may readily be turned up to the man-hole and
cleaned out, O street sewer with house-drain, P
trapped by the sewer water.
“The vault may be constructed of any mate-
rial which can be made water and air-tight, of a
capacity of one cubic meter to suffice for the ser-
vice of a house of from 20 to 25 persons. The
vault being filled with water, the tightness of the
construction and the traps cut off all emanations
or escape of gas from the interior into the
house.
113
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“After the fecal matters enter the vault in suf-
ficient quantities, the liquid becomes turbid and
of a brown color, but however long continued it
may be used, providing that the urine and waste
waters enter with it, a fermentation takes place
which dissolves all the fecal matters, even the
most solid, into particles or filaments so Small as
scarcely to be discernible, without any deposit
adhering to the walls or sides of the pipes. Noth-
ing is more insoluble in itself than fecal matter,
as it is covered by an animal grease or mucus,
which prevents the water from acting upon it.
Experiments were made by means of a vault with
glass sides, like an aquarium, perfectly sealed.
There being discharged into this aquarium but
fecal matters and a very small percentage of
water, yet the liquefaction of the excrements was
complete, without any deposition—all remained
in suspension. Introduced August 19, the Solid
dejecta were completely liquefied by Sept. 16,
with the exception of the undigested matter, such
as seeds and skins of grapes, and some kitchen
refuse of vegetables, such as carrot and onion
peelings. These floated for a time and then fell
to the bottom to await decompisition. Paper dis-
appeared in a like manner. About a liter in bulk
of the urine fecal matter and a little water, taken
from the aquarium, exhaled but little odor; di-
luted with 100 times its bulk of water, it was limip
and inodorous. Twenty days in succession there
was thrown into the aquarium, with the ordinary
fecal matter, about 10 liters of a mixture of
urine and soapsuds, so as to render the condition
as near as may be that of an ordinary cess-pool,
and the result was that the fecal matters al-
ways swam upon the surface, forming a sort of
Scum, never exceeding 5 centimeters in thickness,
owing apparently to the constant dissolution go-
ing on below. On adding 10 liters of water, the
matters not digested, such as vegetables or fruit
skins, disposed themselves on the top in the order
of their specific gravity, and then, after a time,
fell to the bottom to wait their decomposition,
561
562
{563
564
114
565
566
567
bj69
F. HERBERT SNOW.
which, operated insensibly, but efficiently, the de-
posit not being sedimentary, but gradually mix-
ing with that above, was discharged with the
liquid of the aquarium without any foreign mat-
ters appearing in suspension. No pressure from
gas is apparent, as was shown by a pipe fixed
in the top of the aquarium with a bladder at-
tached, not being distended. On taking off the
cover H, no bad odor was given out, until the air
had time to act, when gas began to rise, and, on
closing the opening, the bladder became extended.
The operation, to be complete, it would seem the
apparatus must be air as well as water-tight. The
dissolution of matter seemed more active the
greater the quantity of water supplied, which
admits therefore of the introduction of house and
rain water—but they are not indispensable.’’
In the published report of the “Seventh Inter-
national Congress of Hygiene and Demography,”
held in London, in 1891, Professor L. Pagliani, Di-
rector of Public Health at Rome, Italy, read a pa-
per describing his application of a reservoir inter-
septor made on the Mouras type, and connected
with a peat filter. I have a copy of this paper be-
fore me, stamped with a rubber stamp, “American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Aug. 25,
1891,” in which he describes the methods pursued
by him. The first question with him was to apply
Some simple apparatus to get a sufficient dilution
of the soluble or emulsionable materials from the
privy to separate them from the solid and heavy
parts; and the second question was to apply a filter
which would be sanitary in its operation. I will
Quote from page 1:
“To solve the first point I had proposed long
since and of late tried practically with good re-
Sults a type of Mouras’ reservoir somewhat modi-
fied.”
And on page 2:
115
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“As in every Mouras’ reservoir, mine has for
Overflowing liquid an opening, but provided with
a grate, through which can not pass directly
those bodies that are floating on the liquid gath-
ered in the reservoir. This opening has the diam-
eter a little less than 5 centn., that is to say,
narrower than that of the tube which begins
from it, and continues in other still larger ones,
So that what passes through it will surely pass
through the next tube. * * * * *
“Experience has proved that such a reservoir
can work properly without any inconvenience for
a very long period, and perhaps indefinitely when
to it is supplied an abundant flowing of water;
but if the water be in want, it may happen that
the floating layer thickens so in the course of a
few months as to make difficult the further flow-
ing of the successive sewage. In this case, how-
ever, to put the apparatus to work again is suf-
ficient to draw off the reservoir some liquid at 1/4
its height from the bottom by means of a pipe;
the surface of the liquid with its floating solid
layer is thus lowered, and by filling again the
reservoir with water through the privy pipe a
great dilution of the sewage and its flowing is
easily obtained. This operation, even in worst
cases, is not to be repeated more than once every
three or four months, and it is then of no diffi-
culty in its use.”
“To filter the dissolved sewage that is drawn
from the said reservoir, Professor Pagliani resort-
ed to peat which seemed to give the best results.
These filters were made in masonry compartments.
On page 3 he states as follows:
“To get an active filtration I had to set a drain
to work in the bottom, as I found it necessary
for the peat to be never completely imbued, but
to have always a free access of air.
He further mentions three instances of the use
on a large scale of the tanks and filters. One at the
public health laboratories, one at the School for
570
57.1
573
574
116
575
676
578
§79
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Student Doctors in Hygiene, having a population
Of about 150, and One in an educational institution
having about 300 girls.
These instances are another example of the prac-
tical application of the method of sludge disposal
now known as septic treatment, combined with
aeration and filtration.
Mr. W. D. Scott Moncrieff, C. E., of Ashtead,
Surry, England, used the liquefying process in
in 1891. He installed a simple upward filter plant
at his country home. This installation was in the
main, similar to the old-time upward filter. He
did not anticipate results which followed. Instead
of a mechanical action, he discovered that the ap-
paratus provided a favorable condition for the de-
velopment of organisms which changed the organic
matter into a clear, inoffensive effluent. Straight-
way, he improved the apparatus, termed it a “cul-
tivating filter’’ and exploited the discovery of con-
tinuous purification of sewage by bacteriological
action through aerobic liquefaction.
In the Autumn of 1892, through the assistance of
Dr. Sims Woodhead, he secured the services of Dr.
Houston, and together they set to work to find out
what was going on. A laboratory was established
at Ashtead and the various bacteria, were identi-
fied. In 1894. Mr. Scott-Moncrieff was enabled to
positively name certain liquefying organisms, some
aerobic and others anaerobic, whose cultivation it
is the object of his invention to accomplish.
At that time the system was at work at various
country houses in England. -
Mr. Scott-Moncrieff was granted a United States
patent in 1894, No. 530,622, dated December 11,
117
F. HERBERT SNOW.
1894, application filed November 21, 1892, for ap-
paratus in which liquefying organisms are inten-
tionally utilized, it being a practical application of
What is now known as septic treatment of solids
combined with aeration and filtration.
In support of these statements, I wish to quote
from extracts of various British press publica-
tions:
“Pall Mall Gazette, Sept. 24, 1892.
“The advantages of sewage treatment on this
system are, on the face of it, very great. It
would get rid of the heavy expense of chemicals
and the nuisance arising from the treatment of
sewage sludge, as in the case of Mr. Moncrieff’s
filter there is no sludge, besides which there is
no appearance of Sewage.”
“Suffolk Times, Sept. 30, 1892.
“Mr. W. D. Scott-Moncrieff, C. E., built for
himself a mansion at Ashtead, in Suffolk, de-
termining to dispense with the ordinary cess-pit,
as being at once unsanitary and objectionable in
many ways. Instead he laid down a filter bed,
longitudinal in shape, about 3 ft. deep, 2 ft. 6 in.
wide and 15 ft. long, and designed for upward
filtration on an entirely novel plan. Into one end
of this bed the sewage and waste water of the
establishment are discharged without the inter-
vention of any trap, grating, or other mechanical
appliance whatever. Both solids and liquids find
their way upwards through a false bottom by the
natural flow of the water into the filter bed, and
nothing more is seen of them—the surface being
perfectly dry and pure—until, at the opposite
end, a stream of water, more or less, clear, dis-
charges itself into a second and subsidiary filter
bed, from which an effluent, as unlike an ordi-
nary cesspit overflow as could be well imagined,
is discharged into a neighboring ditch.
“Mr. Moncrief did not anticipate the result
which actually followed. Instead of the inde-
580
581
582
583
584
118
585
586
§88
589
F. HERBERT SNOW.
scribable nastiness of sewage matter, the effluent
was almost pure. This could not be due to me-
chanical means.- What had happened? There is
every reason to believe that the change was due
to the destruction of sewage matter by the life
processes of micro-organisms contained in the
filter bed.”
“Engineer, Oct. 14, 1892.
“Cultivation Filters for Sewage Disposal.
“Mr. Scott-Moncrieff has for some time been
carrying out a practical investigation on what
may be hereafter known as the system of “Culti-
vation Filters.” For some time past the theory
has gradually obtained credence that the natural
destruction of the organic matter in Sewage and
its consequent nitrification, as obtained in the
action of aerated soil, is due to a bacteriological
fermentation, and the results of the Massachu-
setts experiments prove conclusively that this
action takes place only in the upper strata of
highly porous soils. The investigations of biolo-
gists have proved that this fermentation is due to
the action of a micro-organism which they have
named ‘bacterium termo M. Pasteur has fur-
ther shown that this organism depends for its
existence on oxygen, and he therefore describes
it as an ‘aerobian.” Mr. Scott-Moncrieff has dis-
covered, by a series of experimental investiga-
tions, the conditions necessary to develop and cul-
tivate this germ, and, as a natural Sequence, a
system of sewage purification which promises to
dispose of the problem, so far as isolated houses
are concerned, and will bring the reign of the
cesspool to a speedy termination.’’
“Hanpshire Advertiser, July 26, 1893.
“The Sewage of Lyndhurst.
“13 Victoria Street,
Westminster, S. W.,
* July 1st, 1893.
‘‘Dear Sir:
‘‘I have pleasure in giving you the following
information regarding the bacteriological puri-
119
F. HERBERT SNOW.
fication of Sewage by means of the Scott-Mon-
crieff system of ‘cultivation filter beds,” which is,
in my opinion, the only natural process extant by
which Sewage can be purified without chemicals
and without the production of sludge.
‘‘The process is purely biological, and is based
on the well-known facts that sewage contains or-
ganisms which are capable of liquefying effete
organic Solids by a process of peptonization and
that under favorable conditions of temperature,
added to an ample supply of oxygen, that organ-
isms (which are non-pathogenic) are capable of
indefinite multiplication, and can be so cultivated
as to fulfill their life-function, which is the pro-
cess of peptonization aforesaid.
“In the filter beds, the crude sewage is first
concentrated, and then allowed to filter upwards
through a thin layer or flints, proper provision
being made for rest and aeration; the organisms
are thus provided with an unlimited supply of
nutritive material, and 'at the same time their
Self-injurious products ale being continually
swept away, while the layer of flints provides
them with a basis of operation, and the principle
of 'upward filtration maintains the temperature
of the bed at that of the sewers, which is, as a
rule, some ten or twelve degrees Fahrenheit
above that of the atmosphere.
:}; #: :}; #: * :: #:
‘‘I am, dear sir,
Yours faithfully
G. MAXWELL LAWFORD,
Assoc. M. Inst. C. E.”
(Recess.)
“Pall Mall Gazette, June 21, 1893.
“NATUREPS SOAVENGERS.
“The Purification of Sewage by Micro-Organisms.
“It may be remembered by those who are in-
terested in this problem that Mr. Scott-Moncrieff
was able to show an excellent effluent without
sludge and without the use of chemicals. In
these respects he can claim that he has attained
590
591
592
{}93
594
120
595
596
597
598
599
F. HERBERT SNOW.
what has never so much as been attempted be-
fore. In all other systems, even where the aid
of micro-organic life is an important factor, as
in the case of the filtration experiments of the
Massachusetts Board, some removal of the solid
matters in suspension is looked upon as a neces-
Sary preliminary. What is being done by the
London County Council in their latest develop-
ments in downward filtration presupposes and in-
cludes the preliminary removal of solid matters,
partly by chemical and partly by mechanical
agency, while by the system we are now describ-
ing the Solid organic matter is disposed of by the
agency of micro-organisms alone. The theory, in
brief, is that the organic matter in the raw sew-
age furnishes the necessary food for the micro-
organisms, and that the latter encroach, upon the
food supplies to the point of complete consump-
tion, so that no slush remains in the filter bed
after they have done their work.
“Since the appearance of our previous article,
Mr. Scott-Moncrieff has established a chemical
and bacteriological laboratory at Ashtead, in or—
der to scientifically test the process which goes
on in the filter bed designed by him. The labora-
tory work has been carried on by Mr. A. C.
Houston, M. B., D. Sc., who has made bacteriology
his especial study, and it has been conclusively
demonstrated by him that the disappearance of
the organic matters is due to the action of the
micro-organisms. These organisms have been
separately identified and counted, and there is
no longer any reason to doubt that they are in
reality ‘nature’s scavengers.’ They are already
well known to bacteriologists, being classed as
non-pathogenic or harmless bacteria, but it was
little suspected that they could carry on the vast
and beneficent work of which they are capable
when cultivated under proper conditions. What
chemistry and elaborate mechanism have failed
to do, these organisms accomplish. By their
action they peptonize the complex organic Sub-
stances existing, and directly and indirectly ef-
121
F. HERBERT SNOW.
fect its purification. Within certain limits,
which are chiefly of a mechanical nature, the con-
centration of the sewage is an important factor
in the process, since it favors the rapid multiplica-
tion of the bacteria by furnishing them with a
continuous Supply of nutritive material, while at
the same time their products, which would effect
deleteriously their life history, are washed away.
Generally speaking, the rate of flow of the crude
sewage regulates the multiplication of the bac-
teria. The time occupied in liquefying the sew-
age varies to some extent according to the tem-
perature, but it is noteworthy that during the
long period of frost which was experienced at
the early part of the year, the temperature of
the contents of the filter bed, in consequence of
the vital activity of the organisms, was always
sufficiently high to permit the process to be car-
ried on satisfactorily.”
“Builder, August 12, 1893.
“Mr. Moncrieff, in treating sewage, uses filter
beds in which he is able to peptonize large quan-
tities of solid organic matter. He passes the
sewage through a filter composed of coke, which
he has Saturated with almost pure culture of pep-
tonizing organisms, that is, organisms which
liquefy gelatine. By means of this biological fil-
ter, faeces, paper, and other animal and vegetable
substances are rapidly broken down and brought
into solution, this process corresponding almost
exactly with what is taking place, though slowly,
in the bed of a river, and rapidly near the sur-
face of humid, porous, well-aerated soil or mould.
:*: #: #: :}; 3& :}; #: #: #: 3&
“It is evident that the Moncrief sewage filter
may be found useful in connection with the sew-
age farms, in reducing the whole of the solid
matter into solution, and thus rendering the pro-
cess of sewage manuring more regular, and,
therefore, less disagreeable, especially in those
instances where it is impossible to keep the solid
sewage separate from the liquid.”
600
601
6()2
603
604
122
605
6()6
607
608
609
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“Industries and Iron, October 6, 1893.
“The Bacteriological Purification of Sewage.
“The system is at work at various country
houses in England, including Westbrook Hall,
Sussex; Oaklands Oxshott, Surrey; Joldwyands,
near Guilford; Eastwell Park, Kent, &c.; and also
at the town of Towcester, in Northamptonshire,
where it can be seen in operation, and where the
result is most satisfactory, not to say startling.
#: $ #: :}; :*: :}; % :* :}; ** :}; :}; $:
‘‘We may refer those who are interested to Dr.
Houston’s report, which has been published by
Messrs. Waterlow Bros. and Layton, Limited,
London.
On the 5th of October, 1893, Mr. Moncrieff read
a paper before the South Midland Branch of the
British Medical Association, held at Towcester,
which was printed in “Industries and Iron,
October 13, 1893, a copy of which I have before me,
in which Mr. Moncrieff Stated:
“There is no attempt at anything approaching
mechanical filtration in this process. At first I
applied coke, because it was supposed that the
interstices would afford a good nidus, or form a
good place for the colonies of these organisms.
Well, it was true that the interstices provided a
nidus, but they also provided catch-pits for the
products of the life history of these organisms. I
found, therefore, that there was nothing better
than the smooth surface of large flints on which
the organisms could flourish, while the sewage
coming in at the bottom of these gratings passes
through the interstices of these large flints,
washes past the colonies of these organisms, and
the effect is that there is an immediate liquefac-
tion of the solid organic matter that goes on at
an extremely rapid rate, and goes on apparently
indefinitely. Thus after a time you get a con-
dition of things in which there is apparently a
failure of organisms to act so well from the per-
sistance absence of oxygen and also that there
123
F. HERBERT SNOW.
are, to a certain extent, exposed to these products
of their own life history. The means to get over
that difficulty are simply the duplicating of these
filter beds to allow one to be at rest by a thorough
process of aeration. Then these organisms throw
out fresh spores, and you start de novo. There
has not been any sign of clogging taking place,
and even in the case of a house discharge, where
the faecal matter is small but comparatively solid,
these organisms at Once take it up and deal with
it.”
Mr. Scott-Moncrieff’s tank combines septic ac-
tion, aeration and filtration. His American patent
clearly sets forth the international use of “aerobic
and anaerobic bacterial agencies for the liquefac.
tion of solid sewage matter.
I will now refer to some practical installations
of ordinary settling tanks and give current opin-
ions in respect thereto. To begin with, I wish to
refer to an article in the “Journal of the Society of
Arts,” Vol. 25, 1876, ’77, page 662, a publication
hereinbefore described, the said page of Volume
25 of Said journal containing an account by
Charles Wollanstan, entitled “Hurstpierpoint
(Sussex) Sewage, in which a method patented by
One Mr. Leopard is described which method corri-
prised a tank in which the sewage was strained
through a straw and subsequently aerated by an
exposure upon a “series of four steps or stages,
each 12 feet by 60; the sewage after straining, be-
ing caused to flow in a thin film over each step
successively, and then run direct into a brook
COurse.”
The tanks at Mewton are described by W. Santo
Crimp, in his book entitled “Sewage Disposal
Works; A Guide to the Construction of Works for
610
611
612
613
614
124
615
616
617
618
619
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the Prevention of the Pollution by Sewage of Riv-
ers and Estuaries,” London, Charles Griffen &
Company, 1890.
The Merton sewage disposal works are described
on page 151 of said book. The sewage is received
into two tanks, valves admitting the use of one tank
only, whilst the other is being cleaned. After sepa-
ration of the solids in these tanks, the clarified efflu-
ent is conveyed to intermittent downward filters.
The mode of construction of these tanks is shown
upon a plate marked (Plate 12). A wall of coke
is placed across each tank to filter out the grosser
solids. The sewage enters the tank below the sur-
face, passes under a partition extending from the
top down nearly to the bottom of the tank into the
second compartment of the tank out of which it
passes over a wall, and thence into the third com-
partment, out of which it flows through an opening
in the bottom of the wall to the next compartment,
out of which it flows Over a partition wall into the
next compartment. This compartment is separated
from the outer chamber by two walls parallel and
extending the whole width of the tank at the outlet
end, said walls having a series of openings through
which the sewage passes to the outlet chamber. Be-
tween these walls the coke is placed, acting as a
Strainer. These Works were built in 1878-80.
The tanks at Chiswick, England, are described
on page 164 (with an accompanying plan) of said
Santo Crimp book. These works were built in 1878.
They comprise large settling tanks in which the Sedi-
mentation is assisted by chemicals, the use of float-
ing scum boards placed mid-way in the length of the
tank, and provided at the outlet with a wooden
125
F. HERBERT SNOW.
channel built like a weir and extending Out above
the lower coke filters, by means of which a large
amount of aeration of the effluent can be obtained,
said aerating wier being designated on the plan,
“wooden channel for cascade.” After passing
through the coke filter, the effluent goes to the river.
These works, therefore, provide for sedimentation,
aeration and filtration.
In 1877 Professor H. Tanner, in Vol. 49, pages
180 to 182 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the In-
stitute of Civil Engineers, a publication hereinbe-
fore mentioned, described the requisite elements of
subsidence tanks, as understood at that time. He
said, in drawing attention to the importance of
constructing sewage tanks so as to facilitate the
subsidence of the solid matter, that
‘‘Tanks constructed for subsidence purposes
should provide for the Sewage passing through
with the least possible agitation to the bulk of
sewage which was there depositing its solid mat-
ter. By constructing a barrier across the tank,
at the same level as the overflow at the opposite
end, thereby forming a small preliminary com-
partment, the force of the current was kept with-
in that portion of the tank, and the passage over
such barrier displaced an equal volume quietly
at the overflow outlet. This might be assisted
by additional barriers, some raised from the bot-
toms of the tanks, some pendant and sinking into
the water for a depth of from six to ten inches.
Tanks thus constructed at the sewage works at
Barking were fully equal to three times as much
work as they had previously done. By these and
similar arrangements which enabled the sewage
to remain tranquil whilst subsidence was pro-
ceeding, it was possible, by mechanical arrange-
ments, to accomplish much which would other-
wise devolve upon the land.”
620
621
622
623
624
126
625
626
627
628
629
F. HERBERT SNOW.
In 1884, Santo Crimp described the “Wandle-
Valley Main Drainage,” in Volume 76 of the
Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, and his paper was accompanied by
charts, showing a plan and elevation of the sewage
tanks. The bulk of the sewage liquid is separated
from the Solids in the tanks and then is filtered on
artificially prepared filter beds. The deposited
sludge is swept out of the tank, mixed witih chemi-
cals and pressed into manure cakes. I will quote
from page 322:
“In flowing through the tanks the sewage is
deprived of the floating matters by means of the
planks on edge at A. The deposition of the sol-
ids is aided by the cross walls, over and under
which, the sewage passes before finally being fil-
tered through a bed of coke, 4 feet thick, at B,
after which it passes to the filtration area for final
purification. The tanks are situated in the main
building; they are cleansed twice weekly, the de-
posited sludge being swepi, into the sludge pit on
opening the pen-stocks. The bottom of each tank
slopes towards the sludge outlet, which greatly
facilitates the operation of cleansing.”
The plan and elevation of these tanks show the
outlet to consist of a conduit or chamber, extending
the whole width of the tank and having a series
of openings in its walls; said series of openings or
apertures extending the whole width thereof and
at different depths below the top and bottom, some
of them being above the bottom and below the top,
said outlet chamber or conduit acting as a non-dis-
turbing outlet, and also as a strainer, coke being
placed between the containing walls of said chani
ber for the purpose of preventing the passage out
from the tank of suspended matters.
127
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in Vol. LXXIX, page 351, of the Minutes of the
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
for 1885, there is an abstract of a paper by Alfred
Barton Brady, entitled, “The Burnham Sewerage
Works.” I will quote from page 353:
“The outfall works consist of screening and
filter tanks in duplicate, to allow for the removal
of the deposited sludge, and the cleansing or re-
newal of the filtering materials. * * * * *
* The sewage is first received into a small
intercepting chamber, fitted with two oak
sluices, by means of which it is directed into
either set of tanks. In flowing through the tanks,
the sewage is deprived of the grosser matters by
means of two rows of removable wire screens, sup-
ported on dwarf walls, and made to slide in
grooved piers. e
“The further deposition of the solids is aided
by a wier, over which, the sewage flows in a thin
sheet to a filter bed of sand and assorted gravel.
Through this it gravitates and passes through a
dwarf wall, built with 11/4-inch open vertical
joints. The sewage then flows in a thin sheet
over a second wier, through a second similar
filter bed, and another open-jointed dwarf wall,
finally passing along a channel in a clarified
state to the marsh dyke.”
The tanks in this instance were used in conjunc-
tion with aeration and filtration. The sand Was OC-
casionally removed from the filters and washed.
The Works at Friern Barnet were built in 1887.
They are described in Santo-Crimps book, hereinbe-
fore mentioned, on page 194 thereof. The sewage is
mixed with chemicals, is then conducted to three set-
tling tanks, and after depositing the solids, passes
downward and upward through coke filters and
thence out of the tanks on to the artificially prepar-
ed intermittent filters. The sludge is pressed and
630
631
(332
633
634
128
635
636
637
638
639
F. HERBERT SNOW.
used for fertilizing soil. I will quote from page
200 :
‘‘The three settling tanks are each 97 feet long
by 21 feet wide, and the depth of the sewage
when flowing full varies from six feet at the in-
let end to 4 feet 9 inches at the outlet end. * *
3% :}; # 3 3
“The tanks are provided with scum boards and
also with two cross walls, over which the sew-
age has to flow in a thin film. The sewage on
leaving the tanks is discharged over a small wier,
arranged so as to obtain as much aeration as
possible.”
The tanks at Wimbledon Were built in 1876. A
description of them is given on page 216 of Santo-
Crimp’s book hereinbefore mentioned, and there is a
plan of them designated Plate 25. The sewage
passes into a chamber from whence it is directed in-
to one or the other of the screen chambers, located
on each side of the said entrance chamber. These
screen chambers are provided with double bottoms
upon the upper of which rest the filters or strain-
ers, formed of coarse hard-burned clay. In passing
upward through these strainers the sewage i sãe-
prived of nearly all the solid matters in suspension.
Those which settle at the bottom are periodically re-
moved, at which time the filters are also washed Out.
The separation of the solids is the sole object sought
to be obtained. In passing out of the chambers, the
sewage falls over a weir and is aerated, whence it
is conducted to the sewage farm.
In my opinion, such a tank, if not cleaned out too
frequently, must operate effectively as a septic filt-
ering tank, and I find I am confirmed in this opin-
ion by Mr. Santo-Crimp in his testimony before the
“Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal,” July 28,
129
F. HERBERT SNOW.
1898, appearing in Volume 2, Evidence of the In-
terim Report of said Commission.
In answer to question No. 1674, on page 93, of
said Report, Mr. Crimp, states:
“In the tank I place a bed of gravel, and I
cause the Sewage to flow upwards through that
bed, of gravel. In that way the mineral matters
themselves are deposited upon the floor of the
tank, and the organic matters, the floating or-
ganic matters, such as grease and bits of excre-
ment, and so on, that will not settle, are car-
ried up into the body of the filter, and there they
disappear; they do not come out in the end, and
they do not remain in the bed of gravel, they dis-
appear.’’
This is Mr. Crimp’s own description of the tank
action at Wimbledon. The tanks at Frankfort,
Germany, are described by W. H. Lindley in Volume
XCVI of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers, 1889, page 392-3. I will
Quote from the latter page:
“The tanks are arranged parallel to the river,
and the works will ultimately consist of two sets
of six tanks each, or twelve in all. The sewage
enters the tanks at their eastern end, and the
clarified effluent passes out at the western ex-
tremity into a channel discharging into the river.
:k: #: #: :#: :*: :#: #:
“The whole treatment may be subdivided into
four stages. The sewage enters at its normal
rate of flow into the sand-intercepting chamber,
and the speed is then retarded to 1-10 of the ve-
locity in the main sewer. In this tank the heavier
suspended impurities are deposited, and the
water, after passing under scum-boards, which
retain the floating matters, and through strainers
which remove the more bulky matters, passes
into the mixing chamber, where the requisite pro-
portions of precipitants are added. It passes
next along a conducting channel into the separate
640
641
642
643
644
130
645
646
647
648
649
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tanks, where the velocity is further reduced to
1-100 of the original velocity. In the four tanks
of the first group at present completed, the capac-
ity has been so calculated that the sewage takes
six hours to pass through them. They are 80
metres long, and 2 metres deep at the inlet end,
While they gradually slope down to 3 metres deep
at the outlet. * * * * * * * As a rule,
all the four tanks are in work at once, but the
inlet channels are so furnished with sluices that
any one tank at will may be stopped off for the
purpose of emptying out the sludge. To effect
this, the Supernatant water can be drawn off at
three different levels, and the sludge may then
be pumped out.”
I will not refer to British patents involving the
use of tanks.
British patent, No. 1706 was granted in 1870 to
Bevan G. Sloper for Improvements in Treating Sew-
age. The invention relates to the favoring of the
fermentatoin of sewage for the purpose of rapidly
converting the nitrogenous matters into carbonate
of ammonia, also the employment of chemicals to
precipitate the valuable ingredients in the sewage.
The treatment is accomplished in tanks in which
the fresh sewage is first mixed with an equal quan-
tity of putrefied sewage already fermented and con-
taining an abundant quantity of sewage ferment
which acts very rapidly on the urea contained in
the sewage and converts it into carbonate of am-
monia. When sufficiently decomposed, the upper
half contents of the reservoir is pumped off, mixed
with chemicals and led to a settling tank.
This process was an early example of the recog-
nition of the first stages of septic action.
British patent, No. 2760 was granted in 1871 to
James Brough Pow for the invention of “Improv-
131
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ed Arrangements for Filtering and Purifying, Also
for Collecting for Utilization the Solid Matters in
Suspension in Sewage.” By subjecting the sewage
to triple treatment, first subsidence; second, use of
chemicals; third, filtration, aeration and oxidation.
The apparatus consists of a series of tanks or com-
municating ascension filters, the first tank being
the largest, the sewage passing from it to the sec-
ond tank through a vertical filter, which is disposed
on the inside of the outlet end, forming a chamber
With the sides tight, the sewage passing up into it
through its bottom, the point of entry being below
the top and above the bottom of the tank, forming
thereby a submerged non-disturbing outlet, extend-
ing the whole or a part of the width of the outlet
end of said tank. Before entering the second tank,
the sewage is thoroughly aerated by passing over a
wier designed for this purpose, said wier control-
ling the height of the sewage in the first tank and
sealing the same. The matters in solution in the
sewage passing over this weir are claimed to be
oxidized by three successive falls of the sewage in
the form of spray. This treatment is repeated in
every tank in succession.
British patent, No. 7134 to Wilhelm Gurtler,
was granted in 1887 for structures formed of as-
phalt and metal framework in combination. It
shows a plan of a tank of this construction intend-
ed to be used for water closet pits, which plan shows
a submerged non-disturbing inlet, consisting of a
chamber within the tank, extending nearly to the
bottom thereof, and a submerged non-disturbing
outlet chamber at the opposite end of the tank from
the inlet, said outlet chamber being located within
650
651
652
653
654
132
655
656
657
658
659
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the tank and having a series of apertures in its side
and bottom, disposed above the bottom and below
the top of the tank. The tank is hermetically sealed
and provision is made for pumping out the settled
solids without taking off the tank cover,
British patent, No. 3312, was granted in 1890 to
Walter Ernest Adeney and William Kaye Parrey,
for improvements in the purification of sewage in
which the sewage is kept under conditions favor-
able for the rapid multiplication of micro-organ-
isms contained in the sewage, a soluble inorganic
oxygen compound being added to assist the organic
development and the purification of the sewage.
The sewage flows first to a subsidence tank where
the heavier suspended particles are deposited,
thence the effluent flows to a second tank containing
horizontal filters or strainers which remove the
lighter suspended particles.
This preliminary treated effluent may be further
treated in three ways:
First: By being neutralized, if necessary, and
mixed with an oxidizing compound and thence con-
ducted to a subsidence and incubation tank, the
contents of which are maintained throughout the
year at such a temperature as insures the greatest
development and multiplication of the micro-or-
ganism. This incubation tank being large enough
so that the effluent entering it becomes diffused in-
to the contents thereof and remains in it SOme time
before flowing away to the filter tank.
Second : By being first thoroughly aerated in a
form of spray and then mixed with oxygen com-
pounds and conducted to the subsidence and incuba-
tion tank, as above described.
133
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Third: The same as the second way, excluding
the use of all chemicals.
The effluent from the subsidence and incubation
tank flows into the last tank of the system, being a
horizontal filter, the effluent of which is suitable to
go into a river.
This patent clearly describes in the third method,
especially, the intentional use of the natural
liquefying bacterial process in combination with
aeration and filtration. The patent states:
“The liquors may be filtered and aerated at
any of the stages of the process.”
And it gives the period in which the sewage
should remain in the subsidence and incubation
tank as from two to twenty-four hours, according
to the nature of the sewage to be treated. In the
first two ways of treatment comprising the use of
chemicals, the object is to promote the activities of
those liquefying organisms of the aerobic kind; but
in the third way, in which chemicals are excluded,
the destruction of organic matter in the said sub-
sidence and incubation chamber could only be
through the agency of what is now called the more
distinctly anaerobic species. Clearly, in this case,
the tank would be what is now called a “septic
tank.”
British patent, No. 22747, granted in 1891 to
Joseph Tertius Wood, for Improved Methods of
Purifying Sewage, accomplished by introducing air
into the sewage in such a manner as to split up or
finely divide the solid particles so the Sewage may
dissolve a sufficient quantity of oxygen to effect
purification. The invention provides, first, for the
settling of the solids by means of chemicals and
660
66 1
662
663
654
134
665
666
667
668
669
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tanks; and, Second, the purifying of the matters in
Solution by various means of oxidation. In the
first case, a tank is used in which the chemicals and
Sewage are mixed by the aid of a blast of air. From
this tank the sewage passes to large settling tanks
in duplicate, where a period of quiescence is obtain-
ed. In the second stage, purification is accomplish-
ed by Soil filtration, or irrigation of crops, or intro-
duction of air into the sewage in various ways.
Claim 2, of the patent, reads as follows:
“The construction substantially as herein de-
Scribed in reference to figures 1 and 2, whereby
the Sewage is first subjected to the oxidizing and
deodorizing process and to precipitation during
a period of quiescence, then to pass on to the ox-
idizing stairs and again subjected to a secondary
Oxidating process.”
British patent, No. 8671 was granted in 1894, to
Frank Pullen Candy, for Improvements in Upward
Flow Precipitation Tanks and Filters for the Puri-
fication of Sewage, consisting first of causing the
sewage to enter from the side of the tank at one or
more points at the required depth, in such a manner
whereby the flow of the sewage is equalized and di-
vided over the whole of the tank as much as p0S-
sible; second, of spreading and equalizing the flow
of sewage upon the top of aerating filters, in con-
stradistinction to “water-logged filters,” by show-
ering the sewage from Overflowing conduits upon
spreaders placed upon the surface of the bed, or by
perforated pipes placed on the surface of the bed
and pivoted in the center thereof and made to re-
volve horizontally, or by traveling perforated pipe
or other suitable means of showering the filters.
The tanks are provided with an inlet chamber
135
F. HERBERT SNOW.
located on the outside of the tanks and connecting
with the inside by a series of pipes entering the
tanks below the top and above the bottom. The
outlet chamber is situated on the outside of the
tank connecting therewith by a series of pipes or
openings through the wall of the tank and at the
top thereof.
I will now refer in chronological order to several
United States patents.
Adjourned to Tuesday, June 13th, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 13th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
Direct Examination of Mr. SnOW Continued:
(Witness continues his answer to .Q. 26).
United States patent, No. 138, 250, April 29,
1870, to Fritz Hille, for treating sewage by a system
of depositing tanks, the claim of the patent being
for a combination of the deposit tank and filter, and
self-acting floating outlet to draw off the liquid at
or near the surface of the tank. Also the COmbina-
tion of an agitating chamber with two sets of de-
posit tanks and filters, so that one series may be
cleaned without the necessity of stopping the flow
of sewage. The tanks are divided by a transverse
partition into three compartments so as to impede
and obstruct the flow of the sewage and allow the
almost complete settlement of the solid matters held
in suspension. The final purification of the sewage
is effected on artificial downward filters.
United States patent, No. 108,664, October 25,
1870, to George William Wigner, is for sewage dis-
posal apparatus in which the sewage or other
670
671
672
674
136
675
676
677
678
679
F. HERBERT SNOW.
liquid coming through the sewer is delivered into a
Well Where grit and other solid matters are allowed
to Settle. It then passes through pipes into the set-
tling tank or tanks, through a culvert, having open-
ings in the brickwork, which openings are below
the surface of the sewage in the tank, and extend
across the entire end of the tank, forming a non-
disturbing inflow into the tank. The bottom of the
tanks slope to mud channels where the sediment is
passed into other channels leading to a pit. There
are two sets of tanks, each having three compart-
ments. As the sewage flows from one compartment
to another, it passes over a transverse partition
wall. The effluent leaves the tank over a wier,
where it is aerated naturally, falling into a collect-
ing culvert from which it is delivered by a wier to
the filter. The tanks are arched over, operated on
the continuous principle, and provided with a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow and combine sedimen-
tation, aeration and filtration. The first claim of
the patent is for the use of a catch pit. The fourth
claim is for tanks having sloping bottoms and mud
channels for collecting the precipitated sediment.
United States patent, No. 184, 0.99, November 7,
1876, to George R. Moore, for an improvement in
odorless closets, provides for an improved recep-
tacle or vault for sewage. It provides a non-dis-
turbing inflow B below the surface of the liquid in
the vault and a non-disturbing outflow, E. This
tank would operate as a septic tank. It is her-
metically sealed, the inflow and outflow being below
the surface of the water, for the purpose of prevent-
ing the escape of gases and retaining all floating
matter. While designed for the individual house,
137
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the patent states that while the pipe, B, connecting
the closet with the vault, is shown in the sketch as
straight and vertical,
“Any shape, direction, or distance is practic-
able as long as the privy-seat is high enough to
afford a descent to the vault; also, any number
of pipes from other seats may be conducted either
directly to the vault or iridirectly by branching
into B.’’
“E is division-plate or kind of strainer, to keep
floating paper or other like materials from Ob-
structing the passage of fluid matter out through
the cock F.”
United States patent, No. 258,744, to Amasa, S.
Glover, May 30, 1882, for apparatus for the dis-
posal of sewage, comprises a combination of tanks
covered over and ventilated. The sewage is dis-
charged into the first of a series of tanks, F, from
which it overflows into the succeeding tank, deposit-
ing in each a portion of the suspended matter, until
it is comparatively free from such matter, and
passes out of the last tank over a wier, over which
the sewage flows in a thin film and is aerated. The
gases being conducted to the chimney. The ex-
press object of the invention is to prevent con-
tamination of the air by gases and Odors.
I was very intimately acquainted with Mr. Glov-
er from the date of this patent to his death, in 1897,
and I know from conversations with him that the
idea for this patent was obtained from the cess-
pools located in the yard of his residence on School
Street, in Brockton, Mass. I had my attention call-
ed to these tanks in 1882. I have drawn a sketch
which I have entitled, “Sketch of Glover’s Cess.
pool, drawn by F. Herbert Snow.” I made this
sketch from my recollection of the tanks, as they
680
681
682
683
(584
138
685
686
687
688
689
F. HERBERT SNOW.
were when I examined them during the eighties.
The first tank was provided with a submerged non-
disturbing inlet, marked A, and a submerged non-
disturbing outlet, marked B; also a ventilation
pipe. From this apparatus, Mr. Glover conceived
the idea of a series of cess-pools covered over and
Ventilated into one chimney, which idea took the
form of the apparatus embodied in the above pat-
ent. Mr. Glover knew that solid matters disappear-
ed in his cess-pool, and I have known him to claim
that a similar action would be accomplished by his
1882 patent. -
United States patent, No. 280,545, July 3rd,
1883, to Silas Wilcox for a grease trap, comprises a
tank divided at one end, the outlet end, by a verti-
cal partition, c.
“that forms a small compartment, d, which is
closed at the top, and communicates with the
main part of the box by a slit or space at the bot-
tom of the partition c.”
The compartment, d comprises an outlet cham-
ber or conduit, located in the tank, A, and extend-
ing the whole width thereof, connecting with the
tank by a slot or opening in the side of the chamber,
said opening extending the whole width of the tank
and acting as a submerged non-disturbing Outlet.
United States patent, 315,912, April 14, 1885, to
Robert Corscaden, for collecting and drying sedi-
mentary matter of sewage, provides for the use of
two or more deep catch basins for the collection and
removal of the sediment of sewage. There is a
float placed at the outlet opening of the catch
basins and adapted to prevent substances in Suspen-
sion from passing off with the overflow.
Recess.
139
F. HERBERT SNOW.
United States patent, 366,333, July 12, 1887, to
Albert T. Marble and George W. Knapp, for a puri-
fying and aerating plant for the filtration and treat-
ment of sewage, provides for large settling tanks,
A1, from out of the bottom of which the sewage is
conducted to an outlet chamber, A2, connecting
with a Wier chamber in which there are strainers,
up through which the sewage flows and thence
over the wier, S. The sewage flows in a thin film
and continues thus down a succession of steps and
is aerated. The function of the settling tank is
plain subsidence, operated on a continuous prin-
ciple.
United States patent, No. 367,576, August 2nd,
1887, to George A. Allen, for an improved water
cistern, the improvement being adapted to reser-
voirs of any size—to insure a discharge of water
from a level below the surface thereof and above
the bottom of the tank to avoid the passage of either
surface scum, impurities, or sedimentary deposits,
into the discharge pipe. The outlet thereof consists
of a floating conduit or compartment having a
series of slots or openings in its walls, h, these open-
ings delivering the water from the tank into the
said chamber and thence through the outlet pipe G.
The float I, attached to the outlet chamber G, keeps
the said chamber in suspension, and hence assures
the position of the slots or openings h always being
a certain distance below the surface of the water in
the tank.
The reservoir may be either square, rectangular,
oval or other shape, and of any size, and the float-
ing outlet conduit and the discharge pipe would
therefore be aranged in size, &c., to meet all re-
quirements.
690
691 .
692
693
694
140
695
696
697
698
699
F. HERBERT SNOW.
United States patent, No. 368,079, August 9,
1887, to Loring Coes, is for an apparatus whereby
Sewage is separated into spray or finely divided par-
ticles within the chamber of a chimney or stack by
a forced current of air. The patent states:
“I am aware that heretofore air has been forced
through water and sewage for the purpose of
aeration and purification, and I do not, therefore,
herein bodily claim the use of air blasts for such
purpose. My invention refers to the method
whereby the purification is effected in connection
with a chimney or stack.”
The invention provides for the use of a tank or
conduit through which the sewage is always flow-
ing, along the greater length of which there are
placed revolving screens for the interseption of
suspended maſters, and at the outlet end of which is
the aerating chamber in the base of the stack. The
process is purely mechanical, the tank serving the
office of a conveyer of flowing sewage.
United States patent, No. 403,946, May 28, 1889,
to Oluf E. Meyer and Charles H. Weck, for appa-
ratus for treating sewage, provides for the use of
plain subsidence tanks in pairs, with an inlet at the
top, a submerged outlet above the bottom, said out-
let containing screens and strainers and discharg-
ing into a secondary settling Lank, out of which the
sewage flows through a submerged horizontal filter,
said filter being situated at the bottom of the tank.
United States patent, No. 424,838, April 1, 1890,
to Frank L. Union, for an improved cess-pool for
the complete separation of the solid and semi-solid
portions of the sewage from the liquid, retaining
the former in the receiving pool and delivering the
latter to the discharging pool, provides for a Sub-
l 141
F. HERBERT SNOW.
merged non-disturbing inlet f into the first com-
partment, in which the solids are intentionally re-
tained. A dividing wall separates the inlet from
the outlet compartment, the top of said wall c being
below the surface of the sewage. The outlet g from
the tank is submerged and non-disturbing. The
reservoir is arched over and made air-tight. In op-
eration, the heavy solid matters will settle in the
first compartment, the water flowing over the par-
tition into the next compartment, from whence it
will be taken by the outlet pipe and conveyed
to a second reservoir which thus receives only the
liquids. The sides of this second reservoir, b, may
be porous.
A good many of these tanks have been built in the
vicinity of Boston, Mass. This tank system was
installed at the Danvers State Lunatic Hospital.
The same tank system is now in use at the end of
the main sewer at Milford, Mass. It is operated
on the septic principle.
United States patent, No. 478,654, July 12, 1892,
to Elmer F. St. John, for an improved catch basin
for grease and sewage, provides for an inlet and
outlet submerged. The inlet pipe, H, passes into the
basin and extends down, projecting below the water
line, so the water will enter quietly beneath the
water already in said basin so as not to disturb
the grease on top of the water, as in the old style
basin, thereby allowing the water to flow out of the
basin without sediment or grease.
The outlet pipe is connected with the bottom of
the basin and extends up On the outside of it to a
point as high as the water line of the basin, thus
trapping the basin. The bottom of the basin is pro-
700
701
702
703
704
142
705
706
707
708
709
F. HERBERT SNOW.
vided with a discharge opening by which the basin
is cleaned out. This pipe is usually closed by a
plug. -
This device or apparatus is simple. Defendant’s
plant is similar in these respects, that each tank is
a large grease trap, having a submerged inlet and a
submerged outlet, the object of the tank being to re-
move the solids from the liquids, and to discharge
the liquid into an outlet pipe from the tank, minus
Such matter.
The novelty of this patent consists of the cylin-
drical adjustable sections comprising the basin.
United States patent, No. 484,823, October 25,
1892, to Ernest Edgar Scruby, for apparatus for
purifying sewage effluents, shows in the drawing, a
tank, B, connected by pipe, C, to an aerating cham-
ber, which chamber is airtight, into the upper part
of which the sewage is led by the pipe, C, and then
showered or broken up into spray as much as pos-
sible by means of a showering plate which may be
coned or semi-spherical, or of other suitable form.
Below this sprayer, D, is fixed a perforated basin,
E, bowl-shaped, for further showering the liquid
and intercepting any solids. An oxygen main with
necessary branch blow pipes, with suitable nozzles,
is placed between the showering plate, D, and the
basin, E.
United States patent, No. 505,166, September 19,
1893, to Oluf E. Meyer for sewage apparatus, com-
prises a series of tanks, containing division walls,
baffle boards and a submerged outlet, combined
with filters and aeration. The conduit through
which the sewage is admitted to the settling tank
is divided into two or more branches, which lead in-
143
IT. HERBERT SNOW.
to a corresponding number of separate settling
tanks. A gate is provided at the junction of the
branches whereby either branch may be closed and
the sewage turned into the other. The discharging
ends of the branches are expanded laterally so as
to spread the sewage and check its flow as it en.
ters settling tank. Each of these tanks is prefer.
ably divided into three or more compartments by
partition's extending from the bottom thereof up.
ward to about the level at which it is designed to
maintain the sewage therein.
Between and parallel with the said partition,
each tank is provided with a partition, b2, project-
ing at its lower and below the upper edges of the
other partitions, and extending therefrom upward.
ly a sufficient distance to catch and retain greasy
Scum and light refuse floating on the surface of the
sewage. These tanks are provided. With a close cov-
ering, having openings and doors to afford, access
thereto, for the purpose of removing the siudge
therefrom.
At the ends opposite the inlet there is an outlet
conduit, extending the width of the tank, but rap-
idly converging as it extends away from the tank
and uniting with the outlet of the other series of
tanks in one common conduit, leading to the filter.
The opening, c, into this outlet conduit is located
below the level of the sewage in the tank so as to
prevent any greasy scum or like refuse which may
pass the partitions in the tank from passing out of
the same. The Outlet from these tanks is the lefore
a submerged conduit the entire width of the tank
having a slot or aperture, extending the whole of
said width, said slot or aperture being above the
710
711
712
718
714
144
715
716
717
718,
719
F. HERBERT SNOW.
bottom of the tank and below the level of the sew-
age in the tank.
The effluent from these tanks is conducted to a
filter where it is thoroughly aerated and passed
through the filter and purified. - -
United States patent, No. 530,662, December 11,
1894, to W. D. Scott-Moncrieff, for the treatment
of Sewage and apparatus therefor, has for its object
to purify sewage and discharge a clear, inoffensive
effluent, which is accomplished by the action of
microbes which liquefy and break up the organic
matter in the sewage. I will quote from the patent:
‘‘Hitherto it has been believed that the bene-
ficient action of these organisms in the purifica-
tion of efete matter could only be carried out in
the presence of oxygen, and with this aim in view
experiments have been carried out almost ex-
clusively in the direction of downward filtration,
the object being to secure the largest amount of
oxygen available by atmospheric contact during
the Óperation. One obvious objection to this pro-
cess is the necessity for preliminary straining or
deposition of the coarser particles of the sewage
to prevent clogging the filter. This straining or
deposition, as a matter of fact, amounts to noth-
ing more nor less than depriving the organisms
of the greater proportion of their food supply,
leaving a mass of filth which never enters the
filter and consequently is never broken up or
nitrified, and so constitutes a nuisance in itself.
I have discovered that the total solid matter in
ordinary sewage can be dealt with as the actual
food supply of the organisms if it is properly
conveyed to them. All that is required for this
purpose is to concentrate the Sewage in a com-
paratively small space, and to have a constant
movement occurring. When this is done, there
is no need for the same amount of oxygen as has
hitherto been believed to be necessary.
“It is also an essential part of the process that
145
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the enzymes of the saprophytic species which
perform the work should be removed as soon as
formed from that portion of the filter bed where-
in it is believed that the production of micro-or-
ganisms is most active.
“The following, among others, are the organ-
isms which it is the especial object of the ap-
paratus to cultivate, namely: bacillus, flour-
rescens, liquefaciens, bacillus subtilis, protean
forms (particularly the proteus vulgaris), bacil-
lus figurans, &c.
“According to my invention, no preliminary
straining of the sewage is necessary, the ap-
paratus being so arranged that the bacteria mul-
tiply and increasingly perform their functions.
Any previous removal of organic matter from or-
dinary sewage being detrimental to their action.
“My invention comprises also special means
for maintaining them healthy and vigorous. I
also provide means for the further purification of
the effluent obtained from the cultivation of the
filtering bed. The apparatus I employ includes
a tank, the lower part of which is below the level
of the intake pipe (also filtering material carried
upon a perforated diaphragm), beneath which
there is a space or chamber, into which the crude
sewage is led by a suitable pipe E, the Superficial
area of said chamber D being considerably less
than the full base of the tank A. Provision is
also made for the removal of inorganic detritus
by means of suitable valves H. The apparatus
is such that by simple adaptation of its dimen-
sions it is capable of dealing with any required
volume of sewage, and is therefore applicable
equally to public and private Sanitation.
“My invention includes also means for insur-
ing the most favorable conditions in the filtering
material for the development of the micro-organ-
isms contained in the sewage. Suitable inlet, out-
let, flushing, and cleaning appliances are pro-
vided, and my invention includes also special
means of resting and aerating the filtering ma-
terial without interfering with the continuity of
the treatment,”
720
721
722
724
146
725
726
727
728
729
F. HERBERT SNOW.
This invention provides for the treatment of sew-
age by what is now called septic action, combined
With filtration and aeration.
United States patent, No. 556,596, March 17,
1896, to Frank L. Union for the aeration and filtra-
tion of sewage after the solids and semi-solids have
been separated therefrom, provides for a tight filter
bed tank with the bottom thereof sloping uniform-
ly to one end where the effluent is siphoned off by a
number of pipes. The sewage is delivered on to the
surface of the filter tank to a series of parallel pipes
or troughs, the object being to distribute the sew-
age evenly over the surface of the beds, thereby
aerating the sewage and filtering it after the solids
and semi-solids have been separated from the sew-
age. This therefore combines aeration and filtra-
tion with any previous treatment of sewage for the
removal of solids therefrom.
I will now refer to the use of ordinary tanks in
the United States.
Adjourned to Wednesday, June 14, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 14th, 1905, 10.30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
(Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.)
(Witness continues his answer to Q. 26.)
I find that Waring, in his book entitled. “The
Sanitary Drainage of Houses and Towns, pub-
lished in 1876, says that at Newport, Rhode Isl-
and, he had used a cemented brick grease trap
four feet in diameter, and he shows a sketch of
it which I have made and herewith present.
147
F. HERBERT SNOW.
I understand from this published account that
the tank was built absolutely water-tight and
Worked on a continuous principle, with a vent,
Submerged outlet pipe, at least one foot below
the surface of the grease, and that there was am-
ple Opportunity for any solid matter to collect at
the bottom below the outlet, and that it was found
unnecessary to clean out this particular trap or
tank more often than once a year, and that the
explanation of this in Mr. Waring's own words
WàS :
“The Solid deposit being organic matter de-
composes in the form of ammonia which helps to
dissolve the grease and make it soluble, so that
both the deposit and the scum are constantly be-
ing washed away.”
This was septic action.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Waring at that time
considered and so stated that no form of grease
vat or tight cesspool could serve for the final
disposal of house slops, he taking the stand that
it was only an intermediate step in the process
whose further course it was very important to
direct, and I further understand that he con-
structed a tight cesspool working on the con-
tinuous principle with the entering pipe near its
top, the cesspool being arched over and closed by
a cap and thoroughly ventilated, with the outlet
pipe starting from a point one foot below the Sur-
face of the water and connecting with open-
jointed tile drains laid a few inches below the
ground and operated intermittently, the advan-
tage of the intermittent action being that the tank
fills the ground with sewage for a short time in
730
731
732
733
734
148
735
736
737
738
739
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the immediate vicinity of the pipes, and then as
the liquid subsides fresh air enters the soil and
assists by its oxidizing action in the work of
purification. At that time Mr. Waring said in
his book:
“Whether the irrigation be on the surface or
by means of underground pipes, the copious in-
termittent discharge is in every way preferable
to the steady small flow.”
I have before me a copy of a book entitled
“Sewerage and Land-Drainage,” by George E.
Waring, Jr., 3rd edition, New York. D. Van Nos-
trand Company. London, E. & F. N. Spon, 1891.
On page 287 of this book there is an article on
“The Disposal of House Wastes.” I will quote
from this article:
“All competent authorities are in full accord
as to the pernicious character and absolute in-
admissibility of cesspools, or of any form of re-
which are not subject to constant or frequent re-
newal.
“Wherever there is a considerable amount of
land available, not too near océupied buildings,
the safest and best means of disposal is by Sur-
face-irrigation, * * * * * * Where this
means is adopted it is important to collect the
sewage in a vessel from which it may be inter-
mittently discharged in volume sufficient to cover
a considerable area of land. The ordinary set-
tling basin and flush-tank, described below, ac-
complish this purpose in a satisfactory manner.
“Where less land is available, or where for
any reason the discharge of the sewage over the
surface of the ground is objectionable, a per-
fectly good result may be obtained by the use of
what is known as the sub-surface irrigation sys-
tem. The essential element of this system is a
line or lines of ordinary agricultural drain-tile
149
F. HERBERT SNOW.
properly laid near to the surface of the ground
and having uncemented and rather wide joints
between their ends. * * * * * * * * *
It is as important in this case as in the other
that the Sewage should be accumulated in a
proper vessel until the volume is sufficient to fill
the whole or a large part of the series of drains,
and especially to prevent a constant flow, which
would give no intermission for aeration.
(On page 288.)
“A few years later Mr. Rogers Field made use
of the same system * * * * * * supple-
menting the drains with a flush-tank arranged
to hold back the flow until it became full, and
then to discharge it with one rush into the tiles,
affecting thereby a long period of intermission,
during which the soil was exposed to aeration
and consequent purification, * * * * * *
#: :}; :#;
‘‘In this form the apparatus was somewhat ex-
tensively used in England and elsewhere. At my
own house in Newport, * * * * * * I in-
terposed a settling basin * * * * * * in
the course of the drain leading from the flush
tank to the absorption area. This held back
coarse matters and a large proportion of the
grease. There was, however, always some dif-
ficulty resulting from the adhesion of grease to
the outlet of the flush tank requiring frequent
cleaning of the siphon, and, later such a disturb-
ance of the accumulated matters in the settling
basin as caused ſluent and greasy particles to
flow forward and in time choke the drains.
‘‘The next improvement was to place the set-
tling basin between the flush tank and the house,
serving as a grease trap, protecting the siphon
of the flush tank against the gradual accretion
of grease, and leaving only a relatively clear
liquid to be discharged into the pipes. This was
a great improvement, and practically effected
all that was necessary where only the small flow
of the kitchen-sink was to be taken care of. It
was found, however, when it became a question
740
74.1
742
743
744
150
745
'746
747
748
T49
F. HERBERT SNOW.
of disposing of the entire waste of a house, in-
cluding water-closets, baths, &c., that the flow
into the settling basin had at times sufficient
force so to disturb its deposits as to cause a con-
siderable amount of Semi-solid matter to pass
over into the flush tank, leading in time to the
obstruction of the drains. This has been reme-
died by constructing in the settling basin, a di-
vision wall at right-angles to the line of flow, and
built to about the height of the ordinary water
level. This wall, dividing the basin into two
chambers, confines the disturbance caused by the
inflow to the first chamber. The flow from this
into the other chamber, being in a thin stream
over the top of the wall, does not disturb the de-
posits, and only the liquid passes into the flush
tank.
:}; :}; :}; #: #: :}; :}; :};
“It is, in fact, a perfect system for the dis-
posal of liquid household waste, practically and
theoretically, with a single limitation—viz.: it
still involves the retention of a cesspool of incon-
siderable size. It is impracticable to allow the
discharge of kitchen and water-closet matter, in-
cluding paper, to flow directly into the flush
tank; it would soon obstruct the siphon, and so
much of it as passed on into the drains would
soon obstruct these. It is imperative that such
matters should be withheld until by maceration
or by decomposition they will pass on in solution
or in suspension in the liquid flow. Insofar as
decomposition is necessary, the Settling basin is,
in a less degree, subject to the theoretical objec-
tions that are made to the cesspool. It is, how-
ever, to be considered that this settling basin,
which is perfectly tight as to its walls, is so small
that the volume of water passing through it takes
up the products of decomposition, and carries
them on to the drains before they assume a con-
dition at all comparable to that of the perma-
nent cesspool. It is found, practically, that the
arrangement is inoffensive and Safe.
#: :}; #: :}; :}; :}; # #:
151
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“It may be worth while to say a further word
concerning the atmosphere of the settling cham-
ber, which is, in a certain sense, a permanent
cesspool. This air cannot fail to be made foul
by the decomposition of the sewage there re-
tained, but the frequent renewal of the small vol-
ume of Sewage reduces this difficulty to the mini-
mum. It is desirable to remove the deposits of
the settling chamber from time to time—as ob-
Servation may show to be necessary. No rule can
be fixed as to this. In some cases the decompo-
sition is so complete that the chamber never ac-
cumulates much deposit. In others it should be
cleaned out monthly. The proper relation be-
tween size of chamber, amount of water dis-
charge, and proportion of foreign matter in the
water, can not be fixed in the present state of ex-
perience with the apparatus.”
On page 291 is given a plan and Section of the
Settling tank and flush tank which shows a sub-
merged inlet and outlet to the settling chamber.
I will quote from page 292:
‘‘I introduced this system for the disposal of
the entire sewage of the village of Lenox, Mass.,
about 1876. * * * * * * * * * I con-
structed the same system for the disposal of sew-
age at the Women’s Prison at Sherborn, Mass.,
in 1879. * * * * * * * * * The same
system constructed for the disposal of the Sew-
age of the hotel at Bryn Mawr, Pa., was entirely
successful from the date of its construction in
1881 until the hotel was burned, five or six years
later. I should not hesitate to adopt this sys-
tem wherever needed for an institution or even
a village of considerable size. At the same time,
my confidence in the efficiency and inoffensive-
ness of surface-irrigation disposal is now so great
that I should prefer it wherevel the circum-
stances were suitable.”
I have before me a catalogue entitled “Flush
Tank Company, Chicago, Manufacturers of Au-
750
751
752
753
754
152
755
756
757
768.
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tomatic Siphons for Intermittent Flush Tanks,”
169 La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill., 1892. On page
24 there is a diagram of an intercepting chamber
and flush tank, the inlet and outlet to the said
chamber being submerged. I will quote from
page 24:
“For a number of years past sub-surface irri-
gation—the disposal of foul liquids by open-
jointed drain tiles laid near the surface of the
ground within reach of the roots of vegetation—
has to a considerable extent taken the place of
the pernicious cesspool for the disposal of the
Sewage of isolated houses, and even for a cluster
of houses and small villages.
‘‘This method, when combined with an inter-
mittent discharge of the sewage into the tiles by
flush-tanks, is not only a very great improvement
On the cesspool, but it is probably as nearly per-
fect as the conditions of the case will allow. *
* * * * * * * * * The best form of
flush tank and intercepting basin is also illus-
trated by cut No. 1. 2
‘‘The sewage is allowed to flow into the inter-
cepting chamber, where the solid matter is held,
until by decomposition it is so thoroughly mac-
erated that it will pass off in solution or, in the
form of small particles, in suspension with the
liquid. It has been found that unless the par-
tition wall in the intercepting chamber is used,
the disturbing effect of the inflow from the sewer
is sufficient to cause considerable semi-solid mat-
ter to reach the flush tank, and hence the drains.
This wall confines the disturbance to the first
part of the chamber. The flow over the wall be-
ing in a thin stream does not seriously disturb
the deposits, and only what is mainly liquid
passes into the flush tank. * * * * * *
“It is practically and theoretically a perfect sys-
tem of disposing of household wastes, except that
it involves the retention of a cesspool of limited
size, which the intercepting chamber amounts to
153
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in effect. By ventilation the air of this chamber
is far less foul than that of the ordinary cesspool,
and as it is water-tight the unpurified Sewage is
not allowed to find its way into the Subsoil. De-
posits should occasionally be removed from this
chamber, though in Some cases the decomposition
is so complete that it does not accumulate much
deposit.”
This describes septic action combined with
aeration and filtration. The intercepting cham-
ber with its submerged inlet and outlet corre-
sponds to the septic tank of defendant’s plant.
The flush tank, with its ventilation and aeration,
corresponds to the flush tank of defendant’s
plant, which tank also contains an aerating de-
vice, but of specific design. The filtration may
be either surface or sub-soil in character. In de-
fendant’s plant surface filtration is used.
On page 26 of said catalogue there is a cut
showing the system applied to “intermittent sur-
face irrigation.” I will quote from this page:
‘‘If the main discharge pipe be carried to the
surface, the Sewage may be allowed to spread
over the ground without offense or injury " "
:k: 3& :}; :}; #: :};
“This company owns patents covering not only
the various forms of flush tanks used for inter-
mittent sub-surface and surface irrigation, as de-
scribed, but it also owns the patents of Col.
George E. Waring, Jr., covering the use of a
grease trap or intercepting chamber between the
flush tank and the house, to hold back the solid
matter until dissolved or macerated; and the use
of a dividing wall in the intercepting chamber,
allowing the liquid to flow in a thin sheet over its
top for the purpose of more fully detaining the
solid matter until sufficiently macerated.”
On page 216 of Mr. Waring’s book on “Modern
Methods of Sewage Disposal,’’ published in 1894,
760
761
762
763
764
154
766
767
768
769
F. HERBERT SNOW.
he calls attention in respect to his double cham-
bered flush tank arrangement for the disposal of
the sewage of isolated houses, and states that the
first chamber holds the solid matters and scum
and thereby has some of the worst characteristics
of a cesspool, for while the free movement of
liquid through it prevents a high degree of foul
putrefaction of any kind of its liquid portion,
and indeed carries off the gases or the putrefying
Sediment, the scum with which the contents of
the tank are always covered is in a constant state
of decomposition, and is consequently producing
foul and objectionable vapors. Mr. Waring says
in reference to this:
“No way has yet been discovered in which this
foul deposit chamber can be dispensed with, in
the case of sub-surface disposal, with the absorp-
tion drain generally used.”
On page 218 of this same book, in speaking of
the action in the settling chamber, Mr. Waring
used these significant words:
“Under some circumstances, perhaps due to a
higher temperature in the sewage, and this to a
larger amount, the decomposition of the Sediment
and of the scum is sufficiently active to prevent
accumulation to an injurious amount. In such
cases, the settling chamber may never be
cleaned. This is not to be depended upon with-
out occasional inspection. In the majority of
cases, it is necessary every few months to bale
out the chamber and get rid of its accumulation,
which should be buried or dug into the ground
at once.” This is a description of septic action.
Mr. Waring, who was afterwards Street Com-
missioner of New York City, and is now dead,
was an eminent authority in matters pertaining
to sanitary engineering. In his 1876 book, re-
155
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ferred to from pages 315 to 320 he re-
ferred to Bailey-Denton’s Downward Filtration
Plant at Merthyr Tydvil in Wales, and also to
the Denton and Field Flush Tank Apparatus to
be used “in agricultural irrigation of the Sewage
of small communities where the constant stream
is too slight to secure the flooding of a sufficient
area for an economical use and for intermittent
application to successive fields.”
British Patent No. 742, granted in 1872 to
John Bailey Denton and Rogers Field for this
apparatus, comprises another use of Sewage
tanks not hereinbefore specially mentioned by
me. This principle is brought into use in de-
fendant’s plant at Saratoga.
The Waring tanks were septic tanks. The sol-
vent action of putrefaction was known and inten-
tionally utilized. It was not called septic action
then, but this term is now applied to it. I was
acquainted with Mr. Waring and in the latter
eighties he observed in my presence that the
Solvent action and decomposition agencies in his
tank were of a bacterial character. He spoke of
Pasteur and the application of Pasteur’s theories
to the art of Sewage purification as practiced in
Berlin and in France, England and America.
Most especially did he commend his tanks and
filtration system. He was an apostle of fresh
Sewage treatment and deprecated the necessity of
the putrefactive chamber in his system. He rec-
ommended at that time for the City of Brockton
the disposal of the sewage, Solids and all, upon
the surface of the ground in as fresh a condition
as possible.
770
771
772
773
774
156
775
776
777
778
779
F. HERBERT SNOW.
A few years after Waring’s first book above
referred to was published, Mr. Edward S. Phil-
brick, C. E., another high authority upon these
Subjects and who is also dead, published in the
“Sanitary Engineer” of May 10, and May 17,
1883, the same being published in New York
City, a serial article describing the system of
Sewage disposal by an apparatus of his own de-
sign. My understanding of the drawings in
these articles, assisted by the description there-
in is, that they show, first, a tank cesspool work-
ing continuously upon the septic principle, that
is, with a submerged inlet and outlet pipe, and
flowing into, second, a collecting chamber; third,
a siphon in a separate chamber which automati-
cally empties the collecting chamber periodically
when it becomes full. The interposition of this
collecting tank or chamber prevented the con-
tents of the septic cesspool being disturbed by
the action of the siphon, and thus prevented the
contents of the septic cesspool being disturbed.
The sewage is discharged from the collecting
chamber into the pipe a few inches under the Sur-
face of the ground, this discharge being intermit-
tent.
Recess.
Philbrick’s collecting tank and automatic si-
phon thus connected the constantly flowing and
active putrefaction or septic tank with the dis-
posal pipe and soil, so as to give to the latter the
intermittent doses required for their proper ac-
tion. I will quote from the article as follows:
“If house sewage is allowed to flow directly into
157
F. HERBERT SNOW.
a system of porous tiles laid under the surface, the
fluid parts escape at every point and soak into the
soil; but the solid matter which may not have
become finely divided is apt to linger in the pipes
and soon fill them up so that they become practi-
cally useless until taken up and cleaned. In order
to avoid this result, it has been found necessary to
provide a tank or tank cesspool in which the solid
particles of the sewage may become macerated and
finely divided by fermentation before entering the
distributing pipes. * * * * * * * * *
If this siphon were to be applied directly as an out-
let for the tank which receives the sewage from
the house it will soon get choked by the Scum which
collects on the surface or by the sediment which
collects on the bottom. It is therefore found best
to construct a second tank between the first, which
I call the settling basin on the plan, and the siphon
itself. * * * * * * * This settling tank
being always full of the putrefying mass, should be .
made perfectly tight, and should be ventilated by
an air hole as shown. This vent should be extend-
ed to a suitable place on the roof of the barn or
stable or house, or upon a large tree where its gases
will not give offense.”
He further says:
“That the connection between the settling tank
and the flush tank should be by iron pipes built
into the Walls as shown, so that the air can pass
freely from one tank to the other at all times, and
So that the overflow of the settling tank may not
be from the surface or scum, nor from the bottom,
but from a point about a foot below the surface.”
I have made a copy of the drawings in said ar-
ticle entitled “Siphon Tank.” The Sanitary En-
gineer, page 554, May 17, 1883, which I now pre-
Sent.
Mr. Philbrick gives in the same article a sketch
of the apparatus as applied to the drainage of
the Bryn Mawr Hotel near Philadelphia.
780
781
782
783
784
158
785
786
787
788
789
F. HERBERT SNOW.
This apparatus of Philbrick’s was an interna-
tional regulation and provision for the septic
process of sewage disposal combined with aera-
tion and filtration, and many of these tanks, or
modifications of them, were constructed at va-
rious places in the Eastern states. Defendant’s
plant at Saratoga is one of them.
In the book entitled “Sewage Disposal in the
United States,” by George W. Rafter, M. A.M.
Soc. C. E., and M. N. Baker Ph. B., New Yor, D.
Van Nostrand & Company; London, Sampson,
Low, Marston & Company, Limited, 1894, the
same having been copyrighted 1893, and the first
edition published in January, 1894, on page 456,
there is a chapter devoted to “Broad Irrigation
at the Worcester, Massachusetts, State Hospital
for the Insane,” illustrated by sketches, said to
be the first successful irrigation works in this
country, having been designed in 1876, and pre-
viously described in the 47th Annual Report of
the Trustees of said Institution, for the year
ending September 30, 1879. I will quote from
page 458 of Rafter & Baker:
“The settling tank Fig. 69, is 30 feet long, 16 feet
wide, and covered by arches turned upon iron gird-
ers, with side walls and bottom of brick laid in
cement, and made water tight by a Portland
Cement plaster coating one-half inch in thickness.
The sewage enters the tank at the west end and
flows out at the east end, as indicated on the plan.
About two-thirds of the distance from the inlet to
the outlet a brick partition is built across the tank,
in which are placed 4 plates of brass perforated
with 60 holes. One-fourth of an inch in diameter.
The lower plates are 30 inches from the floor of the
tank; the entire partition is 4.5 feet high, and
159
F. HERBERT SNOW.
capped with a strong netting of galvanized wire of
1/2-inch mesh. As stated, the sewage is received
into the larger division, while the solids are de-
tained, the fluid portion straining through the
brass plates and wire netting and passing to the
main sewer to be used for irrigation.
“The published reports do not furnish any detail
as to just the method used for disposing of the
sludge from the settling tank and the frequency
with which the tank is cleansed. Definite state-
ments are also lacking in regard to the quantity of
sewage per day, quality of the soil of the irrigation
area, etc.”
From this description and the 'accompanying
plans I understand this tank to be a septic tank
used in combination with aeration and filtration
in natural soil. The tank contains the elements
of defendant’s plant. In both there is a sub-
merged inlet and a submerged outlet. In both
there is an outlet chamber connecting with the
main tank by a series of openings in the divid-
ing wall, said openings being below the top and
above the bottom of the tank and extending the
whole, or nearly the whole, length of the wall,
or width of the tank. In defendant’s plant there
are 96 holes in the said wall. Tm the Worcester
plant there are 60 such holes in the wall, said
wall comprising a brass plate. In both plants
the effluent from the tanks is exposed to air and
light and filtered through soil.
Tn the 19th Annual Report of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health for the year 1887,
there is a description illustrative of a sewage dis-
posal system in operation at Medfield, Mass.,
which works comprise the use of a settling basin
which I now call a septic tank, a cesspool and an
790
791
792
793
794
160
795
796
797
798
799
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
intermittent sand filter. I will quote from page
100 the following words:
“To exclude the spent dye-wood from the sewer
there was built adjacent to the dye-house a settling
basin with a filter, whose construction may be
understood by aid of the accompanying drawing
(Plate II). It is made in two parts, side by side,
exactly alike, in order that one-half may be in use,
if necessary, while the other is being cleaned out.
The discharge from the vats can be turned by a
wooden gate in the trough which brings it from
the dye-house into either side of the settling basin
separately. Entering by the 4-in. Openings the
liquid flows generally in both sides with a total
width of 10 ft. and a depth of 4 ft. less the thick-
ness of the deposit of sediment. The velocity of
flow is thus checked and the ground dye-wood has
a chance to settle. To get into the second pair of
compartments it has to pass over the brick divid-
ing wall whose elevation is the same as the bottom
of the inlet pipe. Here is another opportunity for
Scttlement to take place, but apparently very little
collects in these second 'compartments until the
first are pretty well filled. In the third compart-
ments by tight board partition the liquid is obliged
to pass downward and escape by upward filtration
through a mass of excelsior held between two sets
of wooden slats; as exhibited by the drawings, the
upward flow being preferred as a precaution
against choking the filter. The filter was in use
nearly a year before the excelsior was changed. It
worked very satisfactorily, but the excelsior had
by that time become so rotten that probably it
would soon after have gone to pieces and escaped
through the sewer. A new supply was accordingly
Substituted. The sediment needs to be shoveled
out and carted off once or twice a year; It has a
similar appearance to sawdust except for its black
Color.”
These words describe a tank operated in such
a Way as to promote substantial septic action.
The rotting out of the excelsior is evidence of
161
F. HERBERT SNOW.
anaerobic decomposition. I will now quote from
page 101 of the same Report:
“Near the lower end of the sewer the Sewage
passes through a cesspool arranged as shown on
the accompanying drawing (Plate III) so that the
outflow takes place from beneath the surface of the
sewage standing in the cesspool. The effect is
that objects which either float or sink are held back
until they are sufficiently changed by chemical or
other action to flow uniformly with the rest of the
liquid, and are prevented from being thrown out
upon the ground at the outlet, where lumps of
foecal matter, orange peel, and the like, might be
offensive or ill-adapted for percolating through the
ground. Very little sediment collects in the cess-
pool, only about one feet in depth in the course of
a year. When it fills up the sediment will have to
be taken Out.”
I understand these words to describe a tank
in which the septic action was intentionally
Sought and obtained. From this cesspool or Sep-
tic tank, which I understand received the sewage
of the town, the sewage was conducted to inter-
mittent filters where it was exposed to light and
air and purified. Since the septic action was in-
tended in the cesspool, it follows, although not
specifically mentioned in connection with the Set-
tling and filter tank above mentioned, that the
putrefactive process was probably contemplated
in the said filter tank. I have made a copy of
the said filter tank and cesspool accompanying
said report, and herewith present it. The draw-
ing is entitled “Page 100, State Board of Health,
1887.”
One of the first applications of the Philbrick
design for the intentional utilization of the putre-
factive process, insofar as it macerated and
800
801
802
803
8()4
162
805
806
807
808
809
F. HERBERT SNOW.
finely divided the solid matters, was at the Law-
renceville School, Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
The plans for the plant were designed by Mr. J.
J. R. Croes and were constructed in 1885. These
Works as designed and constructed were de-
Scribed and illustrated in a paper read before the
American Society of Civil Engineers, June 16,
1886, and published February, 1887, in the
Transactions of the Society. My understanding
of the works so described and illustrated is as
follows: The sewage was collected by cast iron
pipes to a sewage tank built of brick and arched
over and covered by soil, the tank being divided
into two sections; the first or retaining Section
being in duplicate and containing 6 compart-
ments, 3 in each set, each compartment being 60
feet long, about 3 feet wide, and 4 feet deep. The
Sewage entered at one end of the first compart-
ment, passed along its whole length, and thence
into the second compartment through a 'Sub-
merged quarter-bend pipe with the mouth turned
down below the level of the sewage to prevent
scum on the surface of the liquid from passing
over into the second compartment. In this com-
partment the liquid passed through to its further
end, and then in like manner through a Sub-
merged pipe into the third compartment, and
along its length, to the further end thereof,
where it passed over a wier into the receiving
reservoir. This receiving reservoir comprised
the second section of the tank, it being circular
in form, 25 feet in diameter and 8 feet deep, its
purpose being to collect the clarified sewage and
163
F. HERBERT SNOW.
hold it to facilitate pumping and the intermit-
tent dosing of the liquid on the connected irriga-
tion area. This reservoir was ventilated by a
pipe leading into the flue of the boiler house
chimney. The sewage pumped from this reser-
voir was delivered through, 2-inch agricultural
tile, laid about 8 inches below the ground in the
irrigation area, and thus supplied to the Soil in-
termittently. Septic action occurred in this tank,
or the first part thereof.
On page 507 of the said Rafter & Baker book, is a
chapter devoted to “Intermittent Filtration at the
Massachusetts School for the Feeble-Minded.”
This plant was completed in 1889 and was designed
to accommodate about 150 inmates. I will quote as
follows:
“From the Custodial Ward Building and the
Laundry just south of it the sewage is conducted
into a brick sludge-trap,shown in detail by Fig. 89,
where it halts until the grease has risen in a scum
to the surface, the insoluble matter settled to the
bottom, and the paper, etc., become broken up and
held in suspension. The 6-inch inlet enters about
a foot above the surface of the sewage. From the
sludge trap a 4-inch ventilating pipe runs into
the boiler-house chimney. The 5-inch iron overflow
from the sludge trap to the detaining tank is T.
shaped, and so placed as to allow the effluent to
pass over from below the scum of the grease on the
surface and from above the sediment at the bottom
of the sludge trap. An 8-inch iron pipe and gate
at the bottom of the sludge trap permits the grease
and sediment to be run off to a composite heap as
often as may be necessary—probably about once in
three months.”
This tank operated in this way would comprise
substantial septic action.
810
811
812
813
814
164
815
816
817
818
819
F. HERBERT SNOW.
From the sludge trap the sewage passes into a
brick collecting chamber acting as a dosing tank
and distributing the sewage over the surface of
intermittent filters where it would be exposed to
light and air.
The Brockton sewage tank was designed in 1892,
an I built in 1893 for the purpose of storing the
night flow of sewage to facilitate pumping and dis-
posal upon the sand filters. The tank was pro-
vided with facilities for the separation and subse-
Quent handling of the solids, apart from the liquid
portion of the sewage. The heavier portion of the
sewage, termed “sludge,” is pumped on to filter
beds devoted to that purpose and termed “sludge-
be ds” and the Supernatant liquid is pumped on to
beds receiving only this kind of sewage. The sew-
age enters the tank near the bottom thereof through
a pipe having three openings, one in the middle of
the tank and each other about two-thirds the dis-
tance, from the center to the end to the left and
right of the center. At the opposite end of the tank
the sewage enters through a pipe in the bottom of
the tank to the pump well, where it is forced upon
the filters. The bottom of the tank slopes to this
pump well, into which the sludge gravitates after
the lighter portions of the sewage have been drawn
off and pumped upon the filter. Defendant's plant
was an outgrowth of the Brockton plant. In both
a tank is used to separate the solids from the
liquids. In both large sludge-beds are provided
upon which to dispose of large quantities of solids
accumulated in the separating tank, and in both
the supernatant sewage is purified on beds devoted
to the clarified sewage. In defendant’s plant, how-
165
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
ever, the well known solvent action, as in the tanks
of Muller, Mouras, Waring and Philbrick is inten-
tionally taken advantage of, but this principle in
defendant's plant is incident to the process of sepa-
rating the solids from the liquids and not by any
means absolutely essential to the success of the
plant. Defendant’s tank, like the Brockton tank,
is primarily an apparatus for settling out the solids
from the liquid sewage. The Brockton plant was
described by me in a special report made and pub-
lished in 1893 and illustrated by plans.
These instances of tank use in the United States
are cited as a few of many types to be found in prac-
tice. The elements of defendant’s plant have all,
either singly, or in various combinations, been com-
monly practiced in the art of sewage disposal.
I will now refer to the Exeter Tanks, which were
designed to utilize the well known solvent action in
sewage, which tanks were first called “septic
tanks.” I will also refer to the patents taken out
in connection therewith.
Adjourned to Thursday, June 15, 1905, 10:30 A.
M.
New York, June 15th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Examintion of Mr. Snow continued:
(Witness continues his answer to Q. 26).
My information about the Exeter experiments
with the old-time process of arresting in a tank
the Solids in suspension in sewage for the purpose
of taking advantage of the solvent action going on
therein so as to make the filtration of the effluent
practicable, has been obtained chiefly from the
820
822
823
824
166
825
826
827
828
829
F. HERBERT SNOW.
report now before me entitled, “Interim Report of
the Commissioners appointed in 1898 to Inquire
and Report What Methods of Treating and Dis-
posing of Sewage (Including any Liquid from any
Factory or Manufacturing Process) May Properly
be Adopted. Vol. II. Evidence.” “Presented to
both Houses of Parliament by Command of His
Majesty.” “London: Printed for His Majesty's
Stationery Office by Wyman and Sons, Limited,
Fetter Lane, E. C. And to be purchased, either
directly or through any Bookseller, from Eyre and
Spottiswoode, East Harding Street, Fleet Street,
E. C., and 32, Abingdon Street, Westminster, S.
W.; or Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh; or E. Ponson-
by, 116, Grafton Street, Dublin, 1902.”
Beginning on page 101 of said report is a full
account of the examination by the said Commission
of Mr. Donald Cameron, City Surveyor of Exeter,
who conducted the experiments. This testimony
was begun on the 18th of October, 1898, and con-
cluded the following day.
The first experiment was tried with a small tank
covered over and 12 feet long by 15 feet wide by
2% feet deep, dealing with the sewage of about 30
houses. No filters were attached to it. In this
tank very little deposit was found in the bottom,
but a very large thickness of scum formed on the
surface of the water. The experiment was begun
on this small scale, on April 5th, 1895. On Novem-
ber 8, Mr. Cameron applied for a patent.
British patent No. 21, 142, A. D., 1895, was
accepted April 25, 1896. The application was by
Donald Cameron and Frederick James Commin, in
which it is stated that the invention relates to the
167
F. HERBERT SNOW.
treatment of sewage and to apparatus therefor,
and has for its principal object to deal with crude
sewage, bacteriologically, and bring it into such a
condition of solution and liquefaction that it can
be treated by filtration or irrigation or in any other
suitable way. On page 9 of the application it is
stated:
“By this invention further it is possible to get
rid of the sludge difficulty because the solid portion
of crude sewage is entirely thrown into solution.
“In the system now employed the crude sewage
is first treated chemically so that the solid matter
is to a great extent precipitated and it is only the
liquid part which is treated by filtration or other-
WISé.
“By this invention the chemical treatment is
entirely dispensed with and further the expense of
dealing with the precipitated matter is also obvi-
ated. In previous systems it has been considered
of advantage that there should be contact of sew-
age matter with the air. In the treatment of sew-
age according to our invention it is of the utmost
importance that the chamber in which the bacter-
iological action takes place should be dark and also
that means should be provided for preventing con-
tact with the air. This want of contact with the air
can be arranged by providing a closed cover to the
tank or vessel or in certain cases by having no
cover but by utilizing the formation of scum which
occurs when sewage is treated according to this
invention. In carrying out this invention we pro-
vide or construct a tank of concrete, brick or other
suitable material preferably shallow compared to
its other dimensions. In order to ensure exclusion
of air we make the cover air-tight and the man-
hole solid and air-tight. It may be found desir-
able to have a Valve in the man-hole to allow at
times of the escape of gas should the fermentation
bacteriological action take place too rapidly. The
inlet pipe and outlet pipe into the tank should be
preferably trapped. The inlet pipe should be so
830
831
832
833
834
168
835
836
837
838
839
F. HERBERT SNOW.
arranged that it discharges into the tank some
two or three inches below the normal Surface of
the water so as to avoid breaking the scum which
forms. For the same reason the outlet pipe should
be from the top of the tank, but trapped and carried
down below the surface so that the floating matter
is retained in the tank. The bottom of the tank
may be provided with a small channel or it may
be dished. So that the mineral or other insoluble
matter may be collected there and taken out as
required.
“We have found by experiment that the tank
should be of a capacity to hold about 20 gallons per
head of population but we do not bind ourselves
to this. After such a tank has been for 2 or 3 days
in Operation a brown scum forms at the top and
eventually becomes 2 or 3 inches in thickness. This
Scum is formed by bacteriological action and rises
in particles from the bottom of the tank; gas form-
ing at the bottom and carrying these small parti-
cles with it to the top of the tank. After such a
tank has been in operation for 2 or 3 days the
effluent is satisfactory and is in a condition to be
further treated by any other means such for
example as a coke-breeze filter.
“By this invention crude sewage can be treated
for long periods and there is at the end of such
time practically no sludge at all in the tank.
“We have also tried baffle plates in the tank
these plates being made of wood; but up to the
present we have not found that such baffle plates
add to the bacteriological action.”
I wish to point out the remarkable claim in this
specification that by this invention
“It is possible to get rid of the sludge difficulty
because the solid portion of crude sewage is en-
tirely thrown into solution.”
While this was claimed for the Mouras tank, it
is more than that claimed for the Waring and Phil-
brick liquefying tanks.
I wish also to point out that the patent specifies
169
F. HERBERT SNOW.
no particular class of bacteria by which the process
of the patent is brought about, the object of the
invention being:
“To deal with the sewage bacteriologically and
bring it into such a condition of solution and lique-
faction that it can be treated by filtration or irri-
gation, or in any other suitable way.”
In some of the other liquefying processes here-
inbefore described by me, the class of organisms
accomplishing the work is mentioned.
I wish to call attention that in the treatment of
sewage according to this invention, it is of the
utmost importance.
“that the chamber in which the bacteriological
action takes place should be dark and also that
means should be provided for preventing contact
With the air.”
I Wish also to call attention to the manner this
darkness and want of contact with the air can be
arranged. In line 33, page 2, it is stated:
“By providing a closed cover to the tank or ves-
sel Or in certain cases by having no cover but by
utilizing the formation of scum which occurs
When sewage is treated according to this inven-
tion.”
I understand this to mean that in cases where
there is no formation of scum the treatment could
not be considered the one and the same treatment
described in the said patent because the patent
States:
“By utilizing the formation of scum which occurs
When sewage is treated according to this inven-
tion.”
Later, as I will show, Mr. Cameron gave it as his
Opinion that fermentation would go on in open
tanks even if there were no formation of scum visi-
ble.
840
841
842
843
844
170
845
846
847
848
849
F. HERBERT SNOW.
I wish also to call attention to the statement
about the formation and thickness of the scum in
the treatment of sewage according to this inven-
tion. On page 3, line 2:
“After such a tank has been in operation for two
or three days a brownscum begins to form at the
top and eventually becomes two or three inches
thick. This scum is formed by bacteriological
action and rises in particles from the bottom of the
tank.”
So it is seen by this statement that the bacterial
action is evidenced in from two to three days after
the tank is put in operation by the brown scum
which begins to form. Again on line 5, page 3; I
wish to call attention to the time required for the
sufficient freeing of the sewage from suspended
matter to render it in a condition to be further
treated:
“After the tank has been in operation sufficiently
long for this scum to commence forming, the efflu-
ent is so free from matter in suspension that it is
in a condition to be further treated by any other
means such, for example, as coke-breeze filters, or
for irrigation or discharging into rivers and tidal
Watres.” ſ
Since the scum begins to form in two or three
days the bacterial action is complete enough for
the purposes of the said invention. I wish to call
special attention to this view of the practical opera-
tion of the invention as understood and intended
and described in the said patent.
In regard to the apparatus of said invention I
will quote from page 3 as follows:
“a is the tank constructed of any suitable mater-
ial, but we recommend cement-concrete. It is shal-
low in comparison with its other dimensions. b is
the tank cover which is made air-tight. c is the
171
F. HERBERT SNOW.
man-hole in this cover also made air-tight. d is
the inlet to the tank; it is shown as trapped and
provided with an inspection eye and cover at €. It
discharges into the tank some distance below the
normal Water level as shown so as to avoid break-
ing the scum which forms in the tank. f is the out-
let from the tank; it is at the upper part of the
tank but is carried down below the surface as
shown so that the floating matter or scum is re-
tained undisturbed in the tank. The outlet is rep-
resented as discharging on to a table g surrounded
by a low weir h; this ensures that the effluent will
spread in a thin film over the weir which is of great
assistance in purification. The bottom of the tank
is shown as inclined towards one and where there
is a sump j in which mineral or other insoluble mat-
ſter will collect and from which it can be removed
from time to time. It is not absolutely necessary
for the tank to have an air-tight cover as above
described because the dark Scum which forms
serves to keep both light and air from the sewage,
but we consider it important to provide the cover.”
ReceSS.
I will refer to line 41, page 2 as follows:
“The inlei pipe and outlet pipe into the tank
should be preferably trapped.”
This is shown in the drawing of the patent to be
accomplished by one pipe for the inlet, d, and by
one outlet pipe, f, and the weir, h.
I wish to call attention to line 27, page 3:
“The outlet is represented as discharging on to
a table g surrounded by a low weir h; this ensures
that the effluent will spread in a thin film over the
weir which is of great assistance in purification.”
This use of a weir for assisting in the purification
of tank effluent was common in the art prior to this
time some instances of its use of which I have here-
inbefore mentioned.
The second experiment at Exter was with a tank
about double the capacity of the first one. It was
850
851
852
853
854
172
855
856
857
858
859
F. HERBERT SNOW.
started in January, 1896, to show the Corporation
What could be done by this system of disposal. Two
Coke-breeze filters were attached and operated at a
rate of about 1,000,000 gallons per acre daily. As
the result of the working of this installation,
the Council decided to construct larger works to
show to the Local Government, Board the system on
a practical scale. This last experiment which is
the one referred to hereafter, unless otherwise stat-
ed, was started July 21, 1896. Dibdin contact beds
were attached and operated by automatic apparat-
us invented by Mr. Cameron. For the perfected
system and apparatus, the British patent, No. 23,
042, A. D., 1896, was granted to Donald Cameron,
Frederick James Commin and Arthur John Mar-
tin. The application was filed October 17, 1896.
Eight months after, on June 18, 1897, the complete
specification was filed. This patent relates to vari-
ous improvements in apparatus. One of these im-
provements relates to means for discharging the
contents of a vessel or tank along an extended line,
so as to avoid concentrating the flow to a point or
points. I will quote from line 27 of page 4:
“This consists of a pipe or conduit 10 following
the line along which it is desired that the contents
of the tank or vessel A shall be discharged, and
having throughout its length, or a part thereof, a
slot or aperture, or a series of apertures by which
liquid may enter the said pipe or conduit. Such
slot or apertures may diminish in size towards the
outlet Or outlets from the said pipe or conduit,
so as to avoid an excessive rate of flow thereinto
near such outlet or outlets, thus maintaining a
uniform flow into said pipe or conduit throughout
its length.
“The slot or apertures may be placed in any po-
sition along said pipe or conduit so as to admit
173
F. HERBERT SNOW.
liquid into the same in a downward, upward, hori-
zontal or oblique direction, as may be desired.
“If desired or found advisable the slot or aper-
tures may be protected by a deflecting surface or
surfaces so placed as to ward off solids or liquids
coming from any particular direction.
“The slot or apertures may also be provided with
a strainer for the exclusion of solid matter.
“The pipe or conduit may be fixed or movable.”
This improvement, the patent states, applies to
the discharging of the contents of an improvel
tank for the treatment of sewage or other liquid,
in which tank the sewage may be treated either
cluemically, bacteriologically, or otherwise as de-
sired, (See line 8, page 5).
Slotted pipes may be placed on the bottom of the
tank for the removal of mud or other deposited ma-
terial. This is another improvement over the first
patent. These or other pipes may be used to im-
pel a stream of fluid against deposited material to
dislodge it or break it up. º
And the patent provides for various other de-
vices for delivering the liquid from the tank onto
filters and for controlling filters. I will quote from
line 33, page 5:
“Transverse partitions or screens may be used,
extending through the whole or a part of the cross-
section of the tank, to arrest floating or suspended
matter.”
The patent also provides for a grit chamber out-
side of the tank, and also for a special arrangement
of tank.
On page 5, line 5, the course of the sewage
through the improved tank which may be used as
any kind of a tank, is described as follows:
“In the arrangement shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3,
the sewage or other liquid coming through the
860
861
862
863
8(54
174
865
866
867
868
869
F. HERBERT SNOW.
sewer 13 is delivered into a well 14, where grit and
other solid matters are allowed to settle. It then
passes through the pipes 15 and 16 into the tank A.
in which it may be treated either chemically, bac-
teriologically, or otherwise, as desired. After
treatment in the tank A it passes into the pipe or
conduit 10 through slots or apertures provided for
the purpose, the effect of which is that it is evenly
delivered all along the line of the Opening or open-
ings into the pipe or conduit, and concentration of
the flow to one or more points is avoided. From
pipe or conduit 10 the effluent passes through
pipes 17 (which may, if desired, be provided with
suitable valves) into the aerator 18, which is pro-
vided with a series of nearly level surfaces, over
which the effluent flows in thin films, or with an
overhanging lip or lips from which the effluent falls
in a thin film or films exposed on both sides to the
air. From the aerator the effluent may, if desired,
be conducted to a filter or filters for further treat-
ment.”
I Wish to call attention to the fact that all
these elements, with the exception of the particular
slot in the pipe of the patent, have been used in
tanks hereinbefore mentioned and described by me.
I wish to call attention also, to the fact, that no.
where in the patent is it specified what kind of
bacteria it is the object of the invention to utilize
when the sewage in the tank is treated bacteriologi-
cally.
It is in this patent that the term “septic tank "
is first used, it appearing in the application, dated
October 17, 1896.
|Mr. Cameron’s knowledge of the so-called septic
treatment is set forth in his testimony before the
said Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. I will
Quote some of the questions and answers appearing
in said report, beginning on page 101 thereof: First,
as to the object of the method:
175
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“1862. Would you give us a short description
of the objects of those methods of sewage disposal?
“The aim I had in view was to bring the sewage
into such a condition by arresting the solid in sus-
pension as to make the filtration on artificial filters
practicable; at the same time taking advantage of
the solvent action that goes on in the arrested
solids, so as to make the quantity of deposit or
sludge as small as possible.”
In reference to the amount of liquefaction of the
solids, (page 104):
“1891. Now one of your main principles is, I
believe, the complete or the almost complete lique-
faction of all solids in the sewage by fermentation
set up by the action of anaerobic bacteria, is it not?
“This last year’s estimation showed that 80 per
cent. of the suspended solids were got rid of in that
way.”
With respect to whether closed tanks are neces-
sary:
“1892. Do you believe that without your closed
tanks this anaerobic bacteria would either not
come into existence, or would cease to exist too
soon?
“I am not qualified to speak upon this question;
I am not a bacteriologist, and I can only give my
own uninformed opinion upon the matter.”
With respect to whether aerobic organisms are
able to work under the conditions in his tank:
“1893. Oh, yes, quite so?
“But I found a paper was read by Dr. Adney, of
Dublin, before the Congress of The Sanitary Insti-
tute at Birmingham, last month, and he defines in
it what anaerobic fermentation is. His definition
is: “We may take it, from what has already been
said, that a river becomes over-polluted when the
bacterial fermentation in its waters becomes so
rapid that the atmospheric oxygen dissolved in
them is consumed by the bacteria more quickly
than it can be replenished in the ordinary way, that
is, by ordinary solution and effusion through the
870
871
872
873
874
176
875
876
877
878
879
F. HERBERT SNOW.
water of fresh quantities of oxygen from the
atmosphere. When this state of things arises
anaerobic fermentation sets in, attended with all
the offense and dangers of putrefaction.”
“With regard to sewage, if this definition is cor-
rect, and I have no reason to doubt it is—because
I think Dr. Adney has contributed more to this
subject than any other who has taken it up—if
this definition is correct, then anaerobic conditions
exist in the sewage from the outset. Dr. Dupre
has shown that thirty times the volume of river
water will render sewage innocuous, it would be
necessary then to supply that quantity of water
under the conditions stated by Dr. Adney to pre-
vent or put a stop to putrefaction, or a supply of
oxygen must be given artificially. Again, the ex-
periments made and carried out by the Massachu-
setts Board of Health show that the organisms
isolated from the sewage, with very few exceptions,
thrive in the presence or in the absence of air
equally well. Whether the organisms coming in
with the sewage into this tank get their supply of
oxygen from the surrounding organic matter, they
certainly, I do not think, get it from the atmo-
sphere, but whether they are aerobic organisms
that are able to work under the conditions in the
tank I am not able to say.”
Mr. Cameron made this statement on October 18,
1898. Further, in respect to this matter:
“1894. You are not able to say whether they are
altogether aerobic or anaerobic?
“No, or whether they are able to exist under
these conditions. The only thing that I have been
able to notice has been that after putrefaction had
become Cvident, the number of microbes declined
and became very few, and again after putrefaction
was Over the number Seemed to increase. These
are from my own crude observations on the sub-
ject. But one thing I should like to say—I dare
say it will be put before you better than I can pos-
sibly do it—but my difficulty has always been to
realize how a visible particle of suspended matter
177
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in the sewage compares with the size of the organ-
isms, how the One can be seen by the eye, but the
other requires a twelfth eye-piece to be able to see
it, and that, therefore, if anaerobic conditions are
not to be allowed, I do not see how this sewage can
be broken down.”
As regards the nitrifying action in the filters,
(page 106):
“1927. Could you give us any description cor-
responding to the anaerobic treatment in the tank
Of the aerobic treatment in the filter?
“No, My Lord, further than so long as the efflu-
ent is in Such a condition that it could be filtered
Without mechanically clogging the filter, I do not
follow the subject, and the question of nitrification
is one of which I have no knowledge practically.
As regards the filters I adopted Mr. Diblin’s
method. The only thing I can say in addition to
this, that besides the chemical action that goes on
in the filter there is always an undoubted straining
action, and that the filters hold on their surfaces
the fine matters that come Out of the tank.”
With respect to whether anaerobic fermentation
ceases when the scum is destroyed:
“1935. (Professor Ramsey) I wish to ask
whether Mr. Cameron has noticed whether putre-
faction goes on equally well in a septic tank when
the sewage is exceedingly dilute?
“I have got the impression that the action is not
so rapid when the sewage is diluted.
“1937. Then another point I wish to ask about
is the anaerobic fermentation in the opert tanks. I
want to know if he has noticed whether anaerobic
fermentation will go in tanks?
“I think it will. My first idea was to use only
an open tank and not a covered tank, and so long
as the Scum is formed on the surface I think anae-
robic fermentation is going on.
“1938. Does anaerobic fermentation cease When
the scum is destroyed?
“I do not think it does; the production of gas
does not cease,
880
881
882
883
884
178
885
886
887
888
889
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“1939. Were your original tanks covered?
“All Of them.
“1940. From the very first?
“From the very first, yes.”
Mr. Cameron first found out that his so-called
septic tank would require cleaning out in Septem-
ber, 1896.
With respect to this, (page 107):
“1959. You anticipate, therefore, that it will be
necessary from time to time to remove the sludge,
this accumulation of sludge? f
“At first I gave particular attention to the ac-
cumulation of the sludge, and for the first two
months it increased at the rate of one inch per
month. Then I considered that we should have at
some period or other to clean out the body of the
tank.”
With respect to the speed of flow in the tank:
“1962. And up to what speed per minute do you
think you could go without interfering with the
efficiency of that tank?
“I propose that in the new works it should go up
to the speed of five inches per minute, but I think
we could go very much higher than that without at
all interfering with the action of the tank. When
Dr. Dupre was asked that question he said “He was
afraid,” without calculating the speed at which the
sewage passed through the tank, ‘it would wash the
living machine out of the tank.” But I afterwards
pointed out that such a speed, that is, five inches
per minute, could not possibly wash the deposit
from the bottom nor the scum from the top, con-
sequently the living machine still remained in the
tank.”
With respect to the main advantages of his tank:
“1964. Now, comparing the work of the tank
with the filter, you would claim, I suppose, that
the work of the tank was mainly to get rid of the
matters in suspension. You do not claim that the
tank would do much more, do you?
179
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“There is undoubtedly a change in the tank; the
organic 1: atter is undoubtedly changed greatly into
ammonia, and into gas, which of itself is a very
big change.
“1968. Then the main advantage you claim for
the use of the septic tank is the destruction of the
solid matter, and getting rid of the sludge diffi.
culty?
“There is, besides that, another advantage, that
it Smooths or equalizes inequalities in the sewage.
An example may be given of the chlorine. At night
the chlorine is found to be a little over 2.”
Mr. Cameron states, in answer to question 1971,
with respect to the filters, that
“Aeration is the secret of filtration, as far as I
Can understand it.”
With respect to aerobic liquefaction in the filt-
€I’S :
“1972. The effluent from the tank contains in
suspension very finely divided particles which you
yourself speak of as humus?
“Yes.”
“1973. Do I understand that you think that is
matter which will necessarily accumulate in the
filter—matter, that is, that can not be liquefied by
aerobic bacterial action?
“I think the particles of organic matter attached
to these particles will be dealt with on the filter.
The accumulation of these fine particles on the Sur-
face of the filter has necessitated in two years the
removal, on an average, of two inches over the
surface of the filter. I say an average, because the
greater part of the deposit took place in the imme-
diate vicinity of the channel where it had to be
taken a little deeper, but the average quantity
which has had to be removed in two years has been
two inches. * * * * * * * *
“1974. The removal, I suppose, was necessary,
because it stopped the passage downward of the
effluent from the tank?
“It stopped the passage downward, or the rate of
the passage downward, into the filter.”
890
891
892
893
894
180
895
896
897
898
899
F. HERBERT SNOW.
On October 18, 1898, Mr. Cameron did not know
how much, if any, the solvent action in the tank
helped the filters, except to reduce the solids going
to said filters. With respect to this, (page 109):
“2014. Are you at all inclined to think that
there are special changes taking place in your sep-
tic tank, not merely the general diffusion of several
parts of the sewage, and not simply the mere solu-
tion of the solid matters, but changes by which the
material of the sewage is made, so to speak, easier
to be worked upon by the organisms in the filter?
“My view is that the water between the two lay-
ers, the top layer and the bottom layer is undoubt-
edly acted upon in its passage through the tank.
“2015. Quite so; beyond mere solution of visible
particles, or are you speaking only of the solution?
“I am speaking now of the parts in solution.
“2017. Then the material in Solution is acted
upon? "
“Then the material in solution is acted upon.
‘‘2018. And that action is of such a character
as to facilitate the subsequent action of the fil-
ter?”
“Yes, undoubtedly the ammonias are in-
creased; an unstable condition is set up.
“2019. That is the general view you have.
Have you any special number of facts upon which
you base it, or is it merely a general conception
to which you have been led?
‘‘That is a conclusion to which I have been
led by the odor which arises at the outlet pipe.
“2048. Do you consider that the treatment in
the septic tank is incomplete without the Subse-
quent filtration?
‘‘I do.
‘‘2049. You would not advocate the provis-
ion of a septic tank and nothing else?
“Except on conditions, such as a sea outlet or
into an estuary.”
I wish to call attention to this answer.
With respect to aerobic and anaerobic action in
the filter elsewhere than at Exeter, (page 110):
181
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
“2059. I do not know whether this is within
your province to give an opinion about. How
do you account for the aerobic action in Dibdin's
filters being apparently sufficient to break up
the sewage without the previous anerobic action
in the septic tank? t
‘‘I do not know whether Mr. Diblin contends
that it is aerobic action or not, but Dr. Rideal
contends that it is an anaerobic action.
‘‘2060. In the filter?
“In the filter, in the roughing filter, and Dr.
Adeney’s definition of anaerobic fermentation
would also favor that view,” with respect to the
indefinite retention of the solids in the tank at
Exeter.
“2063. In fact, they remained for an indefi-
nite time?”
“That is so.
“2064. So that the tank is what you may call
a tank of deposit; it slows down the current of
the sewage and enables the suspended matter
to subside in or form a scum on top?
‘‘Yes.
‘‘2065. And thereafter continuously goes
through certain processes?
“Yes.”
With respect to the size of tanks to get septic ac-
tion so-called, (page 111) :
“2069. So that the best theoretical result that
you can hope for from your tank is that the speed
should be such as to permit of the subsidence
of this suspended matter, or at any rate, of its
stratification. You can work your tank at as high
a rate as you please, provided it allows the Sus-
pended matter to stratify itself?
‘‘That is so. From the observations that were
made of the tank at Exeter, I have come to the
conclusion that it is too large for the work it has
to do, and that is confirmed by Dr. Rideal’s analy-
sis, when he found traces of nitrates in the tank
effluent, that is, that the tank was doing work
which, should really be done by the filter. The
reason of its being so large is the attempt to deal
900
901
902
903
904
182
905
9()6
907
908
909
F. HERBERT SNOW.
with a certain amount of storm water as well as
the normal sewage.”
With respect to so-called septic action going on
in sewers:
“2070. These tanks are of historical interest
to my mind, because it reminds me of what was
called the ‘sewer of deposit,” and I suppose it
shows that there is some good really in a sewer
of deposit, or at any rate, some elements of good,
that can be followed up and worked out with suc-
cess in such a method as you have adopted?
“I always looked upon the smell arising from
a manhole as being caused by decomposing de-
posit in the immediate vicinity, and I have al-
ways looked upon that as objectionable, and pro-
vided fushing apparatus for removing it instead
of ventilating apparatus for diffusing the gas in
the town. In a trunk sewer there is a certain
amount of decomposition going on undoubtedly.”
“2071. So that it is simply owing to the
length of flow through a sewer. If the sewage
of a town happen to flow to works for a mile or
two—if you can imagine such a thing for the
present purpose—then the sewage would be
more nearly in the state which you aim at than
if it were taken immediately the intersepting
sewer began?
“I conclude that less stay in a tank would be
necessary under such conditions.”
I wish to call special attention to these questions
and answers, as a recognition of whai I have here-
before stated was the general knowledge of the so-
called septic action occuring in sewage:
Still further on this point:
“2079. * * * * Another historical point
of interest is that this particularly amounts to
making the sewage as stale as possible before
bringing it to the place of final treatment, where-
as, if I mistake not, we used to be told that the
fresher the sewage was brought to the place of
treatment, the better it was for agricultural pur-
poses?
183
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“Yes, but in Exeter the sewage is very fresh
as it comes to the tank; it is a short distance, with
rapid falls.
“2080. So that your tal:ks have to do really
all the work?
“All the work, practically.
“2081. Whereas in some places a good deal
of it would be done by intercepting sewers?
“Before it arrives at the works.”
With respect to odors and aeration, (page 114):
“2158. So that the effluent from the precipi-
tating tanks would not be so stable as the ef-
fluent from your septic tank?
“The effluent from the precipitating tanks is
stable to a certain extent; more stable than the
effluent from the septic tank, which is in a very
unstable condition—the Smell from the effluent
very quickly disappears. It has been observed by
several people that from the time it comes out
from the aerator here on plan to the furtherest
away filter the smell has almost entirely disap-
peared, and whatever is done to the effiuent, how-
ever it is treated, the tendency is to become pure
if allowed to absorb air.’’
Mr. Cameron states that his opinion about the
purification by aeration is based wholly upon his
observation from the senses, that he has had no
chemical examination made of the effluent after it
leaves the tank between that time and the time it
falls on to the filter. I wish to call especial atten-
tion to this statement. Speaking broadly, he says
that the two great changes of putrefaction and nitri-
fication divide at the tank, the nitrifying action ap-
pearing to begin directly after the effluent leaves
the tanks.
Adjourned to Friday, June 16, 1905, 16:30 A. M.
910
911
912
913
914
184
915
916
917
918
919
F. HERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 16th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
Examination of Mr. Snow Continued:
XQ. 27. Mr. Cameron referred to the Massachu-
setts Report, concerning organisms thriving in the
presence or in the absence of air equally well. What
was the attitude of the said authority on the septic
action in sewage as published in the said Report?
A. The earlier Massachusetts experiments were
not directed towards the exclusive putrefactive pro-
cesses, but towards the nitrifying ones. It was
sufficient at first to conclusively prove that oxidiz-
ing or aerobic agencies were ample to completely
break up and mineralize Organic matter, sludge
and all. In the State Board of Health, 1893 Re-
port, the first distinction between fresh and other
sewage was made by calling attention to the pres-
ence of dissolved oxygen in the former and its ab-
sence in the latter. It was also Observed that fresh
sewage, was harder to purify, because it contained
a larger proportion of organic matter in suspension.
The bacterial process following this initial step in
sewage purification was shown to be evidenced in the
arrangement of the free ammonia, organic nitrogen
and by the loss of carbonaceous matter. In other
words, in stale sewage—one containing no free
Oxygen and in which the facultative anaerobes do
the work generally called putrefaction there is a
loss of crude organic matter by the reduction of
carbonaceous bodies and the changes of organic
ammonia, to free ammonia. The fact that the per
centage of suspended organic matter present in Sew-
age decreases with the increase of age of the sew-
185
F. HERBERT SNOW.
age and that stale sewage is more easily disposed
of upon sand filters than fresh sewage, was repeat.
edly stated in the four Annual Reports of the said
Board, prior to its first use in 1898 of the term
“septic,” in respect thereto.
The adoption of the term “septic ’’ became neces-
sary owing to the general use of it, since the publi-
cation of the Exeter experiments herein referred
to. _*
This condition came about by the pat application
of the term “septic * to a very old principle (in
contradistinction to the term antiseptic which had
been generally applied to many prevailing Eliglish
works or processes), advocated as an absolute so-
lution of the sludge question just at the time when
everybody in England was beginning to direct his
attention to the bacterial disposal of sludge.
Q. 28. Both Mr. Scott-Moncrieff and Mr. Camer-
on differentiated between the preliminary change
in sewage and the final one of oxidation, as well
as Adeney, Phillbrick, Waring, Mouras and others.
Give a brief statement of the knowledge of the bac-
terial chemistry of these processes at about the
time Mr. Cameron gave his testimony before the
Royal Sewage Commission? A. There were three
dominant opinions. It was agreed that the septic
tank, by means of its bacterial enzymes or spon-
taneous chemical decomposition, materially altered
the composition of the raw sewage. The increase
of the total solids in the liquid pointed to a solvent
action of its water on the matter in suspension, due
to a digested or purely physical process; but the
marked disappearance of organic matter and trans-
ferrence of organic nitrogen to free ammonia was
920
921
922
923
924
186
925
927
928
929
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
due to bacterial influences. The adherents of one
dominant opinion held that the bacterial transfor-
Imation of Sewage occurs in more or less distinct
stages enumerated as the “initial stage * or the
transient aerobic one. The “second stage" or
Semi-anaerobic breaking down of the intermediate
dissolved bodies, and the “third stage,” or complete
aeration and nitrification.
These adherents advocated anaerobic treat-
ment as the essential process for the destruction
of Solid organic matter and so were not prepared
to call the destruction or dissolving of organic
matter in Dibdin's coarse bacteria filter, aerobic
in character. The action must be, they held, an-
aerobic under aerobic conditions, since it was
hydrolic. In the contact filter there were the
opposing aerobic and anaerobic actions. The
“resting full” period diminished the aerobes and
the “resting empty” period diminished the
anaerobes. This oscillation, it was held, tended
towards defeating the very object of the filter.
A preferable system was one in which anaerobic
work is done separately, under uniform Con-
ditions, and the same respecting the aerobes.
Therefore, in constructing sewage disposal ap-
paratus according to this view, it should consist
of two parts, one for the preliminary anaerobic
action, and the other for the subsequent aerobic
action.
Another dominant opinion took the position
that the supporters of anaerobic fermentation
were working under pure hypothesis and that re-
sults could be explained in another way. Or-
ganic matter underwent two successive organic
187
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
and distinctly different stages of chemical
change, a fact of practical value, because the
Second stage of fermentation presented little dan-
ger to river water, while the first stage in the ab-
sence of Sufficient oxygen invariably sets up
putrefaction. Aerobic fermentation will take
place in sewage to the exclusion of anaerobic, so
long as the supply of oxygen is present, and fur-
ther, the conditions under which bacteria affect
chemical changes most rapidly, is that in which
oxygen is supplied to them in the atmospheric
form, in which form the fermentations are un-
objectionable to the senses. This view, therefore,
Supported aerobic fermentation in preference to
anaerobic, while not denying the latter.
Another dominant opinion profoundly summed
up the subject as a process of change brought
about only by living fermentation. If evil Smell-
ing gases are produced, then fermentation is of
ten called putrefaction. But attempts to sepa-
rate, artifically, as in practice, putrefaction from
fermentation and restrict the former to the
breaking down of matter, and to distinguish be-
tween putrefaction which gives off no evil odors
and putrefaction which does give off evil odors,
is fallacious. No such lines can be drawn. Putre-
faction is merely a particular case of fermenta-
tion and the most comprehensive definition of
fermentation is—change produced in various
bodies by the action of living organism. Many
bacteria are aerobic and many others are anaero-
bic, and there , is a point somewhere between
these extremes, called the optimum, where the ac-
tions are going on at their best, and, of course,
93()
931
932
933
934
188
935
936
!)37
938
939
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the thing to do is to find out their optimum con-
dition. In addition to these are the extraordi-
nary physiological class of bacteria called facul-
tative anaerobes, which can be either aerobic or
anaerobic, according to circumstances. It is pos-
sible for anaerobic fermentation to go on near
the oxygen supply, like at the surface of liquid—
for instance, the surface of a stagnant pool—pro-
vided some other organism protects the anaerobe
from the oxygen. That is to say, the physiologi-
cal action is going on in a different direction from
the direction in which either of these alone would
carry it. So that “symbiosis,” as it is called,
comes to mean the action together, of two liv-
ing organisms, where the action of each does not
hinder, and in most cases helps the other. This
was held by the adherents of this view to ex-
plain the disappearance of So much crude sludge
in Dibdin's coarse contact filter acting under
aerobic conditions. And as also explaining the
action taking place in Scott-Moncrieff’s cultivat-
ing filter,’’ and in fact, the action taking place
in all processes of sewage purification where Sol-
ids and liquid impurities are reduced to their
lowest form. Considering the complex fermenta-
tions existing in a mixture like sewage, symbiosis
must be going on at various points according to
whether the sewage is in motion or quiet, or deep
or shallow, &c. So the attempt to uphold putre-
faction as a particular process, in which evil
Smelling gases come off by the agency of anaero-
bic organisms only, must fail. Either kind of
fermentation, aerobic or anaerobic, may produce
putrefactive gases. The adherents of this view
189
F. HERBERT SNOW.
therefore concluded that it was not necessary to
provide for the destruction of sewage in special
anaerobic compartments. The anaerobic process
is not the normal one in the events of nature. The
nitrate is the desired goal of the change and the
antecedent phase to the nitrate is always an am-
monia phase. The reduction to ammonia is ac-
complished by a large variety of organisms, some
Working in an aerobic and others in an anaerobic
way. It is not necessary, therefore, that the pro-
cess should be one of exclusive anaerobic condi-
tion. The aerobic organisms will bring all but
the cellulose bodies to the ammonia condition
most rapidly.
Q. 29. Give a brief statement of what is now
known about anaerobic action in sewage disposal
works? A. A limited period of anaerobic action
is advantageous. It may occur in a filter or in a
tank. It prepares organic matter for the oxidizing
bacteria. Causes the larger particles of suspended
matter to break up; dissolves a part of them or lib-
erates in gaseous forms, the remainder being finely
divided; such effluent can be purified at higher
Tates than fresh sewage. Sewage properly desig-
nated septic sewage, that is, after being treated in a
so-called septic tank, may be treated bacterially by
filtration at the following rates in gallons per acre
daily:
Plain sand filtration. . . . . . . 40,000 to 150,000 gals.
Sand filtration sewage sprayed on. . . .300,000 gals.
Contact filtration. . . . . . . . 660,000 to 800,000 gals.
Sprinkling filtration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400,000 gals.
Too advanced a stage of anaerobic action is a
disadvantage. Such liquid absorbs oxygen in a
940
941
942
943
944
190
945
946
947
948
949
F. HERBERT SNOW.
filter or otherwise before nitrification can take
place. Toxic bodies therein kill the nitrifying
organisms. It is known that a septic tank accumu-
lates sludge and requires to be emptied.
Further, anaerobic filters are successful, give
butter results than similar tanks without bedding
naterial therein because they furnish greater sur-
face for bacterial growth, but they are more diffi-
cut to keep in working order than the plain septic
tank.
Contact filtration supports both anaerobic and
aerobic fermentation. This cycle is advantageous.
It lessens clogging and promotes more rapid puri-
fication. When the filter is drained, oxidation of
intercepted matter proceeds until exygen is all used
up. The resulting products—carbonic acid, marsh
and nitrogen gas, fill the open spaces of the filter.
Marked anaerobic action begins at this point and
continues until the bed is filled and drained again.
The filter material must be coarse enough to pass
suspended matter or it will accumulate and require
physical removal. Clogging should be minimized
by preliminary sludge removal. The methods in
order of preference are septic, plain subsidence,
and straining tank. Mineral matter must pass
away in effluent to ensure perfect permanency. The
filter should be filled with sewage once daily only.
Successive appplications instead of steady flow,
best way of filling. This allows a greater degree of
aeration. In double contact the fine filter may be
of lesser aera than the coarse filter. A contact
fider should be drained before the oxygen is all
exhausted, and the time limit should not be over
two hours from complete flooding.
191
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
Stale sewage in which the suspended solids have
been preliminarily treated by different methods
may be filtered bacterially at the following rates
in gallons per acre daily:
Piain Subsidence Sand 150,000
Chemical subsidence & 4 200,000 360,000
Coke Straining {& 320,000
Gravel ſiltration
(aided by current of air & & 660,000
No treatment Spraying Coke 600,000
£6 & 4 Double coke 600,000
Plain Subsidence Continuous aerobic 1,400,000
Broken Stone
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence printed copies of the specifications
and drawings of the following U. S. Let-
ters patent.
No. 138,250, to F. Hille of April 29,
1873, the same being marked “Defendants'
Exhibit, EIille U. S. Patent.”
No. 108,664, George W. Wigner, Octo-
ber 25, 1870, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Wigner U. S. Patent.”
No. 184,099, to G. R. Moore, November
7, 1876, the same being marked “Defend-
ant’s Exhibit, MOOre U. S. Patent.”
No. 258,744, to A. S. Glover, 1882, the
same being marked “Defendant’s Exhibit
Glover's First patent.”
No. 280,545, to Silas Willcox, July 3,
1883, the same being marked “Defendants'
Exhibit Willcox patent.”
No. 315,912, to Robert Corscaden, April
14, 1885, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Corscaden patent.”
No. 366,333, to Marble & Knapp, July
12, 1887, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Marble and Knapp patent.”
950
951
9.)3
954
192
955
956
957
958
959
F. HERBERT SNOW.
No. 367,576, to G. A. Allen, August 2,
1887, the same being marked “Defendants'
Exhibit Allen patent.”
No. 368,071, to L. Coes, August 9, 1887,
the same being marked “Defendants’
Exhibit Coes Patent.”
No. 403,946, to Meyer & Weck, May 28,
1889, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Meyer & Weck Patent.”
No. 424,838, to F. L. Union, April 1,
1890, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit First Union Patent.”
No. 478,654, to E. F. St. John, July 12,
1892, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit St. John Patent.”
No. 484,823, to E. E. Scrubby, October
25, 1892, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Scrubby Patent.”
No. 505,166, to O. E. Meyer, Septem-
ber 19, 1893, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Meyer Patent.”
No. 530,622, to W. D. Scott-Moncrieff,
December 11, 1894, the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Scott-
Moncrieff Patent.”
No. 556,594, to F. L. Union, March 17,
1896, the same being marked “Defend- .
ants' Exhibit Second Union Patent.”
No. 268,120, to L. Mouras, November
28, 1882, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Mouras U. S. Patent.”
Counsel for defendants also offers in
evidence printed copies of the specifica-
193
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tions and drawings (Blue Books) of the
following British Letters Patent:
No. 232, of January 30, 1860, to Thomas
Walker, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Walker British Patent.”
No. 2329, September 22, 1864, to
Thomas Walker and Thomas Ferdinend
Walker, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Walker & Walker British
patent.”
No. 3203, of October 20, 1868, to Gavin
Chapman, the same being imarked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Chapman British Pa-
tent.”
No. 3562, of November 23, 1868, to
Thomas Smith and John Van Norden
Bazalgett, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Smith & Bazalgett
|British Patent.”
No. 364,0f February 8, 1870, to G. W.
Wigner, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Wigner British Pa-
tent.”
No. 1706, of June 14, 1870, to Bevan
George Sloper, the same being marked
“Defendants' Exhibit Sloper British
Patent.”
No. 2760, of October 17, 1871, to James
Brough Pow, the same being marked
‘‘Defendants” Exhibit Pow British Pa-
tent.”
No. 7134, of May 16, 1887, to Wilhelm
Gurtler, the same being marked “De-
960
961
962
963
964
194
965
966
967
968
969
F. HERBERT SNOW.
fendants' Exhibit Gurtler British Pa-
tent.”
No. 3312, of March 1st, 1890, to Adeney
& Parry, the same being marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Adeney & Parry Brit-
ish Patent.”
No. 22,747, of December 30, 1891, to
Joseph Tertius Wood, the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Wood
British Patent.”
No. 8671, of May 2, 1894, to Frank B.
Candy, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Candy British Patent.”
No. 21,142, of November 8, 1895, to
Cameron & Commins, the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Cameron
& Commins British Patent of 1895.”
No. 23,042, of October 17, 1896, to Cam-
eron, Commin & Martin, the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Cameron,
Commin & Martin British Patent of
1896. ”
No. 742, of March 11, 1872, to Denton
& Field, the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Denton & Field British Pa-
tent.”
No. 5391, of 1881, December 9, to Wil-
liam Robert Lake, the same being maked
“Defendants’ Exhibit Lake British Pa-
tent (a communication from Louis Mou-
ras).”
German patent of Alexander Muller,
No. 9792, of December 11, 1878, and the
same is marked “Defendants' Exhibit
Muller German Patent.”
I95
F. HERBERT SNOW.
A translation of the sale is also of—
fered in evidence and marked “Defend-
ant’s Exhibit Translation of Muller’s
German Patent.”
Counsel for defendants desires to offer
in evidence articles and extracts from
various publications, which publications
are most of them in libraries and it being
not permissible to withdraw them for any
length of time, he therefore asks that
counsel for complainant consents that the
Examiner may transcribe those portions
of such articles and publications as are
relied upon by defendants, and that the
copies may be substituted with the same
force and effect as though the originals
had been offered in evidence.
A publication entitled “Journal of the
Society of Arts, Volume 30 of November
18, 1881, to November 10, 1882, London,
Published for the Society by George Bell
& Son, 4, 5 & 6 York Street, Covert Gar-
den, 1882. The article referred to com-
mencing on page 532 and entitled “Some
Practical Aspects of Recent Investiga-
tions on Nitrification, by Robert Waring-
ton,” the same being marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Copy of Warington Article
on Nitrification No. 1.”
Also a publication entitled “Report of
the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, 54th Annual Meeting
held at Montreal in August and Septem-
ber of 1884,” published London, 1885,
John Murray, Albermarle Street, an ar-
970
971
972
973
974
196
975
976
977
978
979
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ticle on page 682, entitled “On Nitrifica-
tion by R. Warington,” the same being
marked “Defendant’s Exhibit Warington
Article on Nitrification No. 2.”
Also a publication entitled “Minutes
of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers with other Selected and Ab-
stracted Papers, Vol. LXXXVIII,” edited
by James Forrest, published by the In-
stitution at London, 25 Great George
Street, Westminster, S. W., 1887, an ar-
ticle beginning on page 155, entitled
“Sewage Sludge and its Disposal,” by
William Joseph, Dibdin, the portions of
said article which are offered in evidence
are as follows: The paragraph beginning
near the bottom of page 161 and ending
in the 6th line of page 162, this extract
being marked “Defendants' Exhibit Ex-
tract from Dibdin's Paper.”
Also that portion of the same article,
under the general head of “Filtration,”
beginning with the 13th line from the bot-
tom of page 164, and ending with the 4th
line from the bottom of said page, the
same being marked “Defendants’ Ex-
hibit Second Extract from Dibdin's Pa-
per.”
Also a reprint of a report to the Lon-
don County Council entitled “Report by
the Chemists on the Experiments on the
Filtration of Sewage Effluent, during the
years 1892-3-4-5” and printed as a part
of the Interim Report of the Commission-
197
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ers appointed in 1898 to inquire and re-
port what methods of treating and dis-
posing of Sewage (including any liquid
from any factory or manufactory pro-
cess) may properly be adopted,’’ Vol. 2,
Evidence, the same being published in
London in 1902, this Report of Dibdin
referred to beginning on page 121 of said
publication. The same is marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Dibdin's Report to
the London County Couicil.’’
Also a copy of a report made by Henry
Austin, C. E., Chief Superintending In-
spector of the Board of Health, London,
published in London in 1857, the portions
of this work which defendants’ counsel
desire to have copied and marked are as
follows: The description of the Clifton
Union Works and the plan thereof, the
same being described on page of Said
Report. Also the description and plan of
the Cheltenham Sewage Works, described
on page 32 of said Report. Also the de-
Scription and plan of the Sewage works
at Ely, described on page 35 of Said re-
port. Also the description and plan of
“Proposed Sewage Works,” described on
page 79, and the conclusions of his report
on page 89. These extracts are marked
“Defendants' Exhibits Austin’s Plans,”
“Clifton Union Works,” “Cheltenham
Sewage Works,” “Ely Sewage Works,”
“Proposed Sewage Works” and “Con-
clusions.”
980
981
982
983
984
198
985
986
987
988
989
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Also an article from the Journal of the
Society of Arts above mentioned, Volume
46, said article being found on page 165
of Said volume, under the heading “Cor-
respondence,” and entitled “Self Purifi-
cation of Sewage,” the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Roechling
Article.”
Also from the publication entitled
“Minutes of Proceedings of the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers, ‘’Volume 48, page
350, the article entitled “Mouras Auto-
matic Scavenger,” and the same is
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Article
Relating to Mouras Automatic Scaven-
ger (No. 1).”
Also Volume 72 of the same publica-
tion, page 359, an article entitled “The
Theory and Active Working of the Au-
tomatic Scavenger,” the same being
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Article Re-
lating to Automatic Scavenger (No. 2).”
Also an article from Volume 78 of the
same publication, page 502, an article en-
titled “Mouras Automatic Scavenger,’’
said exhibits being marked “Defendant’s
Exhibit Article relating to Mouras Auto-
matic Scavenger (No. 3).”
Also a publication entitled the “Engi-
neering News,’’ published in New York,
under date of April 15, 1892, an article on
page 117 thereof, entitled “An Automatic
Vault Cleaner,” and the same is marked
199
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“Defendants' Exhibit Article Relating to
Automatic Vault Cleaner.”
Also a paper entitled, “ Application of a
Reservoir Interceptor made on the Type of
Mouras Fose and of a Peat Filter for Sew-
age in the System of Separate Sewerage
by L. Pagliani, Professor of Hygiene and
Director of Public Health in Rome, Italy.”
This article being a paper read before the
Seventh International Congress of Hy-
giene and Demography, held in London, in
1891, and being contained in a volume
made up of papers read at said Congress
and in the Library of the American Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers of New York City.
A copy of this article is offered in evidence
and marked, “Defendants' Exhibit, Pag-
liani Article.”
Counsel for defendants also offers in evi-
dence a printed pamphlet entitled, “Ex-
tracts from the Press on the Scott-Mon-
crieff System for the Purification of Sew-
age,” the same containing quotations from
various newspapers and periodicals, pub-
lished in England; the same is marked
“Defendants's Exhibit Pamphlet, relating
to Scott-Moncrieff System.”
Defendant’s counsel offers, if it is in-
sisted on by counsel for complainant to
procure copies of the newspapers and per-
iodicals from which said extracts purport
to have been taken.
Also a publication entitled “Journal of
the Society of Arts,” published in London,
990
99 |
992
993
994
200
995
996
997
998
999
F. HERBERT SNOW.
an article On page 662, entitled “Hurst
Pierpoint (Sussex) Sewage,” by Charles
Wollaston, the same being marked, “De-
fendants' Exhibit, Wollaston Article.”
Also a book by W. Santo-Crimp, entitled
“Sewage Disposal Works, A Guide to the
Construction of Works for the Prevention
of the Pollution by Sewage of the Rivers
and Estuaries,” published in London, by
Charles Griffin & Co., 1890.
An article relating to the Merton Sew-
age Disposal Works on page 151 of said
book, under the heading, “Tanks,” the
same being marked “Defendants' Exhibit,
Description of Tanks of Merton Sewage
Disposal Works.”
Also in the same Work, an article on
page, 164, upon the tanks at Chiswick, the
same being described on page 165, under
the heading, “Treatment.” This exhibit
is marked, “Defendants' Exhibit, Des-
cription of Chiswick Tanks.”
Also in the publication, “ Minutes of
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers,” in Volume 49, pages 180, to
182, an article by Professor H. Tanner,
and the same is marked, “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Tanner Article, relating to Subsi-
dence Tanks.”
Also in the same publication, Volume
76, of 1884, an article by Santo-Crimp up-
on the Wandle Valley Main Drainage,”
and the same is marked, “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Santo-Crimp's Description of
Wandle Valley Main Drainage.”
201
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Also in Volume 79 of the same publica-
tion, an article, entitled, “The Burnham
Sewerage Works,” page 353, and the same
is marked, “Defendants' Exhibit Article
on Burnham Sewerage Works.”
Also in a work by Santo-Crimp above
referred to, description of the Works of
Friern Barnett, beginning on page 194
thereof, and the same is marked, “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Article on Friern-Barnet
WOrkS.” *------
Also from the same publication, a des-
cription of the tanks at Wimbledon on
page 216, plate 25, and the same is marked,
“Defendants' Exhibit, Description and
Plan, Wimbledon Works.”
Also the answer to Question 1674, on
page 93 of the “Report of the Royal Com-
mission on Sewage Disposal,” before re-
ferred to, and the same is marked, “De.
fendants' Exhibit Santo-Crimps Descrip.
tion of Tank Actoin at Wimbledon.”
Also an article relating to the tanks at
Frankford, Germany, as described by W.
H. Lindley, in Volume 46, of the Minutes
of Proceedings of the Institute of Civil En-
gineers, above referred to, pages 392, 393,
and the same is marked, “Defendants'
Exhibit, Description of Tanks at Frank-
fort, Germany.
A publication entitled, “The Sanitary
Drainage of Houses and Towns,” by
George E. Waring, Jr., published in 1876.
Grease Trap used by him at Newport,
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
202
1005
1()06
1007
1008
1009
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Rhode Island, pages 195 and 199. Copies
of these pages and sketches, Figures 14 and
16, are introduced in evidence and marked,
“Defendants' Exhibit, Waring Grease
Traps.” tº
Also a a book entitled, “Sewerage and
Land Drainage by George E. Waring, Jr.,”
3rd Edition, New York, D. Van Nostrand
Company, London, E. & F. N. Spon, 1891;
an article beginning on page 287, entitled,
“The Disposal of House Waste,” pages
287, 288, 289, 290 and 291 are copied and
offered in evidence as “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, copies of pages 287-291, Waring's
Book, Sewerage and Land Drainage.”
Also a catalogue entitled, “Flush Tank
Company, Manufacturers of Automatic
Siphons for Intermittent Flush Tanks,”
169 La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill., 1892,
and the same is marked, “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Catalogue of Flush Tank Company,
Chicago.”
Also a publication entitled, “ Modern
Methods of Sewage Disposal, by George E.
Waring, Jr.,” published in 1894, pages 216,
218, and the same are copied and marked,
“Defendants' Exhibit, Extract from War-
ing’s Book on Modern Methods of Sewage
Disposal.”
Counsel for defendants also offers in evi-
dence, copies of articles published in the
Sanitary Engineers, of New York City on
May 10th and 17th, 1883, by Edward S.
Phillbrick, entitled, and the same are
203
F. HERBERT SNOW.
marked, “Defendants' Exhibit, Phillbrick
Articles.”
Also a work entitled, “Sewage Disposal
in the United States,” by George W. Raft-
er and M. N. Baker, New York, D. Van
Nostrand Company, London; Sampson,
Low, Marston & Co., Limited, 1894, Chapt-
er beginning on page 456, entitled, “Broad
Irrigitation at the Worcester, Massachu-
setts, State Hospital for the Insane,” and
the same is marked, “Defendants' Exhibit,
Article on Broad Irrigation at the Wor-
cester State Hospital for the Insane.”
Also a publication entitled, “ 19th An-
nual Report of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health for the year 1887,” a des-
criptive article relating to the sewage dis-
posal system at Medfield, Mass. A portion
of said article is copied and marked, “De-
fendants' Exhibit, Description of Sewage
Disposal System at Medfield.” The illus-
trative sketch introduced by the witness
Snow is marked, “Page 100, State Board
of Health, 1887.”
Also description and plans for the sew-
age disposal plant of Lawrenceville, New
Jersey, for the Lawrenceville School, as re-
ferred to in the above mentioned publica-
tion of the American Society of Civil En-
gineers and published February, 1887, the
same being marked, “Defendants' Exhibit,
Description and Illustration of Tawrence.
Ville School Plant.”
Also in the book of the said Rafter and
1010,
1011
1012
1013
1014
204
1015
1016
1017
1018
1()19
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Baker, before mentioned, a portion of the
article relating to “Intermittent Filtra-
tion at the Massachusetts School for
Feeble Minded,” and the same is markcd,
“Defendants' Exhibit, Extract from Raft-
er & Saker s Description of Intermittent
Filtration at the Massachusetts School
for Feeble Minded.”
Also in the Volume heretofore referred to
entitled, “Interim Report of the Commis-
sioners,” &c., Volume 2, Evidence, defend-
ants wish to introduce copies of questions
and answers Nos. 1862, 1891, 1892, 1893,
1894,1927,1935,1937, 1938, 1939,1940,1959,
1962, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974,
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2048, 2049,
2059, 2060, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2069, 2070,
2071, 2079, 2080, 2081 and 2158. These
questions and answers are copied and the
same are marked, “Defendants' Exhibit,
Cameron Testimony before the Royal
Sewage Commission.”.
Defendants’ counsel requests that so far
as quotations from the various publica-
tions referred to have been spread upon the
record, that the recopying of the same as
separate exhibits may be dispensed with,
said counsel, agreeing however, to print in
full any article which may be insisted up-
on by counsel for complainant.
Adjourned to Saturday, July 17, 1905, 10:30
205
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 17th, 1905, 10.30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
Q. 30. Please state from your experience as
a sanitary engineer when Septic action begins
in the treatment of sewage? A. Septic action
begins as soon as the oxygen in the liquid is con-
sumed. It may occur and does occur in most
sewers, in many polluted rivers, ponds and pools,
in cesspools and in about all kinds of receptacles
of Sewage, and no practical way is known of
preventing it. The process or action is a nat-
ural One. It may be retarded or largely post-
poned, but can not be prevented. It may be
hastened. Examples of this occurring in tanks
have been hereinbefore cited. For instance, the
Austin tanks referred to in his report herein-
before cited, in which there was a heavy scum
formed upon the surface and a deposit on the
bottom of the tanks.
Gavin Chapman’s process, British patent No.
3203 A. D. 1868 utilized septic action in tanks
in which the sewage was purposely kept until
it became decomposed and in which to hasten
the decomposition the temperature was main-
tained to from 70 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. For
this same purpose of fermenting Sewage, British
patent No. 1706, A. D. 1870, was granted to Be-
van G. Sloper. Septic action was clearly de-
scribed in this patent. Especially in the tanks
hereinbefore mentioned by me. where scum
formed upon the surface, septic action was oc-
curring.
1020
1021
! 022
1023
| 024
206
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Q. 31. Would you know how to design a tank
So as to prevent septic action occurring? A.
No. All the cesspools that I have ever built
and all of the sewage tanks I have ever built
have promoted septic action. The elements of
the Saratoga tank, such as the non-disturbing
inflow and outflow, were employed in the said
Austin tanks and in other tanks hereinbefore
mentioned by me, and the same have been com-
mon in the art of separating solids from the
liquid sewage, and in using these elements in an
apparatus whose object is to effect a substan-
tial settling out of suspended matters, it is im-
possible to obviate septic action. Were the sep-
tic action principle a proprietory one, engineers,
in my opinion, would be forced to abandon the
use of tanks and appurtenances which have
been common in the art for several decades.
Q. 32. Claim 1 of the patent in suit calls for
“The process of purifying sewage which con-
sists in subjecting the sewage under exclusion
of air and light and of agitation to the action of
anaerobic bacteria until the whole mass of solid
organic matter contained therein becomes lique-
fied and then subjecting the liquid effluent to air
and light.”
Please state your understanding of the scope
of such claim and what, if anything, you find
novel therein over the prior art heretofore re-
ferred to by you? A. I understand this claim
to be for a process of purifying sewage. This
process consists in subjecting the sewage to the
action of anaerobic bacteria. This is ac-
complished under the exclusion of air, light, and
agitation. This subjection of the sewage to
207
F. HERBERT SNOW.
anaerobic bacteria is extended until the whole
mass of Solid organic matter contained therein
becomes liquefied. The liquid is then subjected
to air and light.
As I understand this claim, it possesses no
elements novel to the art prior to the said claim.
In Alexander Muller’s German patent, No. 9792,
of 1878, in Mouras’ apparatus as applied in
France and Italy, 1883–1891, in Waring’s and in
Phillbrick’s tanks, and Scott-Moncrieff’s tank,
and in British patent No. 3312, of 1890, to Adeney
and Parry, and in Scott-Moncrieff’s United States
Patent No. 530,622, of 1894, and in Glov-
er's United States patent No. 258,744, of 1882, the
process of purifying the sewage consisted in sub-
jecting the sewage under exclusion of air, light
and agitation, to the action of anaerobic bacteria
for the purpose of liquefying the solid organic
matter contained in the sewage, and then subject-
ing the liquid effluent to air and light.
In Muller’s process the subjection of the sew-
age to anaerobic bacteria for the purpose of
liquefying the solids, was accomplished in basins
which were made large to prevent agitation of
the Sewage, it being specified that they should
have a capacity of a full day’s output of sewage
and be provided with means for its continuous
admission and discharge. The sewage was under
the exclusion of air and light by means of a float-
ing top cover of Scum or straw, so as to retard
cooling and evaporation.
The effluent from the tanks went to filters
where it was exposed necessarily to air and light.
This process, therefore, consisted of all the ele-
ments of said claim.
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
208
1035
1036
1 ()37
1038
1039
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Mouras’ apparatus, as hereinbefore mentioned
by me, comprised an air-tight tank with a trapped
inlet and outlet, in which the solids were lique-
fied by what was thought and described as ana-
erobic bacteria, so that this tank comprised the
first part of the said claim, it being an apparatus
to liquefy solids under the exclusion of air, light
and agitation, the exclusion of agitation in the
tank being accomplished by a submerged inlet
and outlet. The application of this apparatus to
the purification of sewage at Logelback, as here-
inbefore described, where the sewage was distrib-
uted over ground for irrigation, and in Italy by
Pagliani, where Mouras’ tank was connected
with a filter on to which the sewage was flowed,
involved the second part of the above claim; that
is, the subjecting of the liquid effluent to air and
light.
In Waring’s and Phillbrick's tanks, hereinbe-
fore mentioned, the liquefying bacterial action
was intentionally obtained in the first compart-
ment of the apparatus, under exclusion of air,
light and agitation, the tank being covered over
and made air-tight, but provided with special
ventilating pipes which caused air to move over
the surface of the liquid and scum in the tank.
The exclusion of air and light, therefore, was ef-
fected by the scum which formed on the surface
of the tank. It is stated in the patent in suit
(line 20, page 2).
‘‘Brown scum begins to form at the top and
eventually becomes two or three inches thick and
served as an air-tight cover for the sewage be-
|OW.”
The non-agitation of the sewage in these tanks
209
F. HERBERT SNOW.
was purposely accomplished by means of a sub-
merged inlet and outlet pipe. Therefore these
tanks involved the first part of the said claim
and where these tanks were used in connection
with the subsequent disposal of the effluent upon
filters or the ground, or into a river, or other body
of water, the second part of the above claim was
intentionally involved, namely, the completing of
the purification process by subjecting the liquid
effluent to air and light.
Scott-Moncrieff’s cultivating filter comprised
the intentional use of anaerobic bacteria for the
purpose of liquefying the solids in the Sewage and
this was actually accomplished, as hereinbefore
explained. This liquefaction was accomplished
in the tank in the bottom of which there was a
chamber arranged for the purpose of delivering
Sewage so as not to cause agitation and the ex-
clusion of light and air was effected by a covering
of filtering material. In this tank so covered
there was an arrangement for introducing air, at
times desirable, but the use of this was optional
and did not and could not prevent anarebic lique-
faction of the sewage solids. Therefore this tank
comprised the first part of the claim and the last
part, that is, the subjecting the liquid effluent to
air and light was accomplished in the nitrifying
trenches, in which the sewage was exposed nec-
essarily and intentionally to air and light, or
where these were not used, the effluent was ex-
posed to air and light as it flowed out of the tank
at the various openings provided in its side.
The Adeney and Parry British patent, 3312 of
1890, comprises the intentional utilization of
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
210
1045
1046
104.7
1048
1049
F. HERBERT SNOW.
liquefying organisms to destroy the solid matters
in Sewage. In the third method described in said
patent hereinbefore particularly mentioned, the
destruction of Organic matter in the subsidence or
incubation chamber, can only be through the
agency of organisms more distinctly of the ana-
erobic species. No chemicals are used in this
third method. Only the natural liquefaction re-
Sulting from the retention of the sewage in the
tank is embraced and provided for. Clearly,
therefore, the organism intentionally utilized
therein are the anaerobic kind. There is nothing
Said in said patent about exclusion of air and
light, but it is stated therein that the sewage
should remain in the tank long enough to be
treated, therefore I conclude that the tank would
be of such size as to promote subsidence to the
best advantage and that would necessarily in-
volve the formation of deposits and surface scum
under the exclusion of agitation, which, under the
terms of the patent in suit, would comprise an
air-tight cover. Therefore the process involves
the first part of the claim, that is, the exclusion
of air, light and agitation in the process of Sub-
jecting the sewage to the action of anaerobic bac-
teria for the purpose of liquefying the solid mat-
ters contained therein. The rest of the said
claim, that is, the subjecting of the liquid efflu-
ent to air and light, is accomplished in the said
Adeney patent which states that the Sewage may
be filtered and aerated at any of the stages of
the process. But it is especially provided that the
effluent from the subsidence and incubation tank
shall flow to a filter.
211
F. HERBERT SNOW.
I have cited Mr. Glover’s patent because of
what I know of the inventor’s purpose. The tanks
of his patent, hereinbefore mentioned, were to be
Operated the same as he operated the cesspool in
his back yard, hereinbefore described by me, and
that method of operation would necessarily in-
volve what is now known as septic action. Scum
would have formed on the surface of the tank, as
in his cesspool, , and deposit would have oc-
curred on the bottom. The drawing of said
patent shows the liquid flowing out of the last
tank over a weir and thence it goes either for
Subsequent treatment on to the ground filter, or
into the river, thus exposing the effluent for final
purification to air and light. The formation of
surface scum embodies the exclusion of air, light
and agitation mentioned in said claim. The de-
composition known to take place in a cesspool
would occur to some extent, and I have heard
the inventor claim that his apparatus would as
effectually destroy the organic matter as did his
cesspool. All of which, leads me to conclude that
his process comprises a prior use of the first claim
of the patent in suit.
Adjourned to Monday, June 19, 1905, 10.30
A. M.
New York, June 19th, 1905, 10:30 A.M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
Direct Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
Q. 33. Claim 2 of the patent in suit calls for
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in sewage, which consists in secluding
a pool of sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow, from light, air and agitation until
1050
1()51
1052
1053
1054
212
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
F. HERBERT SNOW.
a mass of micro-organisms has been developed
of a character and a quantity sufficient to liquefy
the Solid matter of the flowing sewage, the in-
flow serving to sustain the micro-organisms, and
then subjecting the said pool under exclusion of
light and air and under a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow to the liquefying action of the so-cul-
tivated micro-organisms until the 'solid organic
matter contained in the flowing Sewage is dis-
solved.”
Please state your understanding of the scope of
such claim and what, if anything, you find novel
therein over the prior art heretofore referred to by
you? A. I understand this claim explains the
process of liquefaction mentioned in the first claim.
While the second claim sets forth various steps in
the liquefying process, the whole claim means, as I
understand it, what is meant by the first claim
without the subsequent subjection of the liquid ef-
fluent to air and light. The various steps are diº
vided naturally into two parts, the first showing
the way of cultivating the liquefying organisms,
and the second, showing the manner of sustaining
the action of these liquefying organisms to dissolve
the solid organic matter of the flowing Sewage.
The first part consists of, first, secluding a pool
of sewage from light, air and agitation; Second,
said pool having a non-disturbing inflow and Out-
flow; third, said seculsion being continued until a
mass of micro-organisms has been developed of a
character and quantity sufficient to liquefy the
solids of the flowing sewage; fourth, it being im-
portant to note that the claim states that “the in-
flow serving to sustain the micro-organisms.” The
second part consists of then subjecting the said
pool—under exclusion of light and air and under
a non-disturbing inflow and outflow—to a continu-
213
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ation of the liquefying action of the so cultivated
micro-organisms until the solid organic matter
contained in the flowing sewage is dissolved.”
With this understanding of the scope of the
claim, I find nothing novel therein over the prior
art heretofore referred to by me. The claim covers
nothing more, as I understand it, than the natural
process which was carried out in the Muller, Mour-
as, Waring, Phillbrick, Glover, Adeney and Scott-
Moncrieff tanks. The process covered by this
claim must of necessity be the process carried out
in the said tanks. In Alexander Muller's German
patent, No. 9792 of 1878, a pool sewage was se-
cluded from light and air in tanks which were to
be of sufficient capacity for receiving a full day's
output, the top covering of floating straw, chaff
Or Scum, so as to retard cooling and evaporation,
forming the covering which secluded the pool of
sewage from light and air, said pool having a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow, else the process for
which the patent was granted could not have been
accomplished. The specific form of the Inflow and
outflow was not described in said patent, neither is
it described in the said claim of said patent in suit.
The construction of the apparatus of the said Mul-
ler patent,
“The mechanical and structural arrangement
required in carrying out this process are ex-
tremely simple. They consist of three or four
basins (or baths) of at least one metre’s depth
for the digestion and defication of the waste
liquid. Altogether they should have a sufficient
capacity for receiving a full day’s output in
waste liquid, “and be provided with means for
its continuous admission and discharge.”
This providing a tank capacity equal to a full
1060
1061
1062
1()63
1064
214
1065
1()66
1067
1068
1069
F. HERBERT SNOW.
day’s flow in itself forms an increased area of flow
which would diminish the velocity thereof so very
considerably as to unavoidably constitute a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow from the sewage
pool. This secluding of the sewage from light and
air under a non-disturbing inflow and outflow in
the said Muller patent was extended purposely un-
til the liquefying organisms were methodically cul-
tivated. This being accomplished while the sewage
was continuously admitted and discharged from
the pool, thus the inflow serving to sustain the
micro-organisms, and the process was then con-
tinued until the organic matters contained in the
flowing sewage were dissolved.
“The methodical cultivation of those small
“leaven-like’ organisms to the viability of which
modern science has traced the so-called ‘self-
unmixing’ processes, namely, acidification, fer-
mentation, putrefaction, decay or the like, in ac-
cordance with rules of physiology, with a view
to bringing them into requisition in the task of
precipitating out the liquid waste substances or
bringing about their complete mineralization.’’
In the Mouras, apparatus, as hereinbefore men-
tioned, and described by me, the tank was covered
over and constructed air and light tight, and the
submerged inlet and outlet pipe comprised a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow arrangement, thus
obviating agitation. Scum formed upon the Sur-
face and the expressed object of the apparatus Was
to promote the growth of and the development to a
sufficient extent of the micro-organisms sufficient
to liqefy the solids of the flowing sewage. Mouras’
tank was designed to operate upon the continuous
principle, sewage flowing in and out at any or all
times. It was observed, in reference to the Mouras
tank, in an article hereinbefore quoted,
215
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“That the more water is passed into the cess-
pool the more rapid and complete is the destruc-
tion of the suspended matter, and it remains to
be seen What quantity of water can most advan-
tageously be used to give the best results on a
large Scale.”
This was a recognition of a relation existing be-
tween the inflowing sewage and the sustaining of
the micro-organisms which liquefied the solid mat-
ter. -
In Mouras’ said apparatus, the second part of the
said claim of the patent in suit was accomplished,
it being the intention of the Mouras apparatus to
subject the sewage, under exclusion of air, light
and agitation, to the liquefying organisms so culti-
wated until the solid organic matter contained
therein was dissolved.
In Waring and Phillbrick’s tanks, hereinbefore
mentioned, the liquefying Organisms were inten-
tionally cultivated in the same manner as describ-
ed in said claim No. 2 of the patent in suit; that is,
the submerged inlet and outlet pipes comprise a
non-disturbing inflow and outflow, and the exclu-
sion of light and air was accomplished by the for-
mation of the scum on the surface of the Water in
the tanks, and the object of secluding this pool of
sewage in this way was to promote the activities
of those agencies which were known and observed
under the conditions provided in these tanks to a C-
complish the dissolving of the organic matters in
the sewage. These tanks were designed to Operate
on the continuous principle.
ReceSS.
In British patent, No. 3312 of 1890, to Adeney
and Parry, I conclude from the reasons set forth
in my answer to Q. 32, that the special way of cul-
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
216
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tivating the liquefying organisms in the third meth-
od described in said British patent, comprise the
Same process described in the said claim of the
patent in suit and that the manner of sustaining
the action of the liquefying organism to dissolve
the solid organic matters contained in the sewage
are the same in both the said British patent in the
third method described therein, and in the second
claim of the patent in suit.
In United States patent, No. 530,662, December
11, 1894, to Scott-Moncrieff, has for its object the
process of liquefying solid matters in sewage which
consists in secluding a pool of sewage from light,
air and agitation, as described in my answer to Q.
32. The non-disturbing inflow being provided by
the inlet chamber which widens out into the culti-
Vating filter tank, and the non-disturbing outflow
being provided by the series of openings on the side
of the said filter tank. The operation of this tank
being on the continuous principle, thereby furnish-
ing by the inflow of the sewage the necessary food
supply to sustain the liquefying organisms. And
this process of liquefaction being continued, as in
the said second claim of the patent in suit, until
the solid organic matter contained in the flowing
sewage is dissolved.
Q. 34. Claim 3 of the patent in suit calls for,
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in sewage, which consists in seclud-
ing a pool of sewage having a non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow, from light, air and agitation
until a mass of micro-organisms has been devel-
oped of 'a character and quantity sufficient to
liquefy the solid matter of the flowing sewage,
the inflow serving to sustain the micro-organisms,
then subjecting the said pool under a non-disturb-
ing inflow and outflow and under exclusion of
217
F. HERBERT SNOW.
light and air to the liquefying action of the so-
cultivated micro-organisms until the Solid or-
ganic matter contained in the flowing sewage is
dissolved, and then subjecting the liquid outflow
to an aerating Operation.’’
Please state if you understand the scope of such
claim, and what if anything, you find novel therein
over the prior art referred to by you? A. This
claim reads exactly the same, word for word, as
Claim 2 of the patent, with the words added
‘‘and then subjecting the liquid outflow to an
aerating operation.’’
I have already shown in my answer to Q. 32 in
respect to the first claim of the patent in suit, that
the aerating Operation as applied to the liquid out-
flow was common to the application of the Mouras
tanks in Italy and at Logelback, France; and also
provided for in Alexander Muller's German pat-
ent, No. 9792 of 1878; and also to the Waring and
Phillbrick tanks when used in connection with the
Subsequent disposal of the effluent upon filters or
the ground, or into a river or other body of water,
Scott-Moncrieff’s cultivating filter, U. S. patent,
No. 530,622, of 1894, also provided for aeration of
the liquid effluent, and so also did British patent,
No. 3312, of 1890, to Adeney & Parry.
All of which cititations, excluding the subject
ing the liquid outflow to an aerating operation, I
have cited as containing the elements of Claim 2,
of the patent in suit, as I understand them, and all
of which, including besides the elements of Claim
2, the subjecting the liquid outflow to an aerating
operation, I cite as embodying and utilizing the
elements of said Claim 3 of the patent in suit, as
I understand it.
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
218
1085
1()86
1087
1088
1089
F. HERBERT SNOW.
The process of aerating effluents from tanks is
Very old in the art, and I have hereinbefore made
numerous mentions and descriptions of such use in
the art. It is practically universal in the art of
SeWage purification where a tank is used for al-
most any purpose whatever, to aerate the effluent
therefrom. This has been accomplished in practice
in a great variety of ways, and there have been
numerous patents issued for special devices, a few
Of Which I have hereinbefore mentioned. Since
Franklin’s experiments in 1868, without any depar-
ture from the principle, the idea has obtained in
practice that the more thoroughly sewage is aerated
the more rapidly and completely it is purified. This
principle has been maintained by Franklin, War-
ington, the Massachusetts State Board of Health,
Dibdin, and others.
Mr. Cameron himself among the number. In
this connection I will refer to the aeration of tank
effluent hereinbefore described by me at the
Cheltenham Sewage Works, and the proposed
Sewage works mentioned in Mr. Austin’s Re-
port; in British patent No. 232, of 1860, to
Thomas Walker, British patent, No. 2329, of 1864,
to Thomas Walker and another, and in British,
patent No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas Smith and
another; and in British patent 364, of 1870, to
George W. Wigner; the effluent was intentionally
Subjected to an aerating operation. And in con-
nection with tanks which have been in use, here.
inbefore described by me, those at the Croyden
Sewage Farm, in 1861; at Aldershot Camp Farm,
1864; at Hurst Pierpoint, 1877; at Chiswick, 1878;
and af the Burnham Sewerage Works, 1885; at
Eriern Barnet, 1887; all of which are in England,
219
F. HERBERT SNOW.
provided special arrangements for the aerating
of the effluent from tanks. British patent No.
2760 of 1871, to James Pow, is for a special ap-
paratus for aerating tank effluent; so also was
British patent No. 8671, of 1894, to Frank P.
Candy; so also were the United States patents No.
366,333, of 1887, to Albert T. Marble and another;
No. 368,078, of 1887, to Loring Coes; patent No.
484,823, of 1892, to E. E. Scrubby, special atten-
tion being called to this patent; and U. S. patent
No. 556,596, of 1896, to Frank L. Union, which
provide for the aeration of tank effluents by spe-
cial devices designed therefor. These are some
instances only of a vast number which might be
cited.
I find therefore no novelty in claim 3 of the
patent in suit.
Q. 35. Claim 4 of the patent in suit calls for:
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in sewage, which consists in secluding
a pool of Sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow from light, air, and agitation until
a mass of micro-organisms has been developed
of a character and quantity sufficient to liquefy
the solid matter of the flowing sewage, the in-
flow serving to sustain the micro-organisms, then
Subjecting said pool under a non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow and under exclusion of light and
air to the liquefying action of the so-cultivated
micro-organisms until the Solid organic matter
contained in the flowing sewage is dissolved,
then subjecting the liquid outflow to an aerafing
operation, and then to a filtering operation.”
Please state if you understand the scope of
such claim, and what, if anything, you find novel
therein over the prior art referred to by you? A.
This claim reads exactly the same, word for word,
as claim 3 of the patent with the words added:
1 ()90
1091
1092
1093
1094
220
1095
1096
10.)7
1().98
1099
F. HERBERT SNOW.
‘‘and then to a filtering operation.”
As I understand this claim, I do not find any-
thing novel therein over the prior art hereinbe-
fore referred to by me. The Mouras apparatus
as applied in Italy and at Logelback, France, em-
bodied all the elements of said claim 4 of the pa-
tent, as I understand the claim. So also did the
apparatus of the Muller German patent, No.
9792, of 1878; so also did the Waring and Phill-
brick apparatus, and Scott-Moncrief’s cultivating
filter, as used in England, and as described in U.
S. patent, No. 530,622, of 1894. So also did Brit-
ish patent, No. 3312, of 1890, to Adeney & Parry
embody the elements of claim 4 of the patent in
suit, as I understand it.
So also do other tanks, hereinbefore mentioned
by me as examples of actual use, embody in practice
the elements of said Claim 4.
Q. 36. Claim 21 of the patent in suit, calls for,
“The process of liquefying the solid matter con-
tained in sewage, which consist in secluding a pool
of sewage having a non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow from light, air and agitation until a thick
scum is formed on the surface thereof and a mass
of micro-organisms has been developed of a chair-
acter and quanitity sufficient to liquefy the solid
matter of the flowing sewage, the inflow serving to
sustain the micro-organisms, and then subjecting
said pool under the cover of said scum and under a
non-disturbing inflow and outflow of the liquefy-
ing action of the so-cultivated micro-organisms un-
til the solid matter contained in the flowing sewage
is dissolved.”
Please state if you understand the scope of such
claim, and what, if anything, you find novel there-
in over the prior art referred to by you? A. This
claim is the same, word for word, as Claim 2 of
the patent, with the exception that scum formed on
221
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the surface of the sewage is mentioned. In the
fifth line of Claim 21, after the word, “until,” the
following words are added; “a thick scum is form-
ed on the surface thereof and,” while in Claim 2,
these words are not used, the mass of organisms
developed by the sewage pool in Claim 2, not
necessarily being accompanied by the formation of
scum in said Claim 2, but in said Claim 21, the pool
of sewage is secluded as above described in the
claim, from light, air and agitation, until a thick
scum is formed on the surface thereof and a maSS
of micro-organisms has been developed.
Again, in the 11th line of said Claim 21, the
words, “the cover of said scum,” are used after the
word, “under’ in said line, so as to read, with
what precedes and follows it, “and then subjecting
the said pool under the cover of said scum and un-
der a non-disturbing inflow and outflow,” while in
Claim 2, after the word, “under" were used the
words, “exclusion of light and air,” so that that
part of Claim 2, read “and then subjecting said
pool under exclusion of light and air and under a
non-disturbing inflow and outflow.” So, “the cov-
er of the scum,” in Claim 21 are the words substi-
tuted for the words “exclusion of light and air,”
in Claim 2. Claim 21, therefore, includes the op-
eration of the process when a thick scum is formed
on the surface, under the cover of which the pool
is subjected, as described, to the liquefying action.
As I understand this claim, it does not embody
anything novel therein, over the prior art herein-
before referred to by me in my answer to Q. 33. In
the cases cited in that answer, scum did form and
floated upon the surface of the liquid. From my
own knowledge, this scum which forms upon the
1100
1101
1102
1 103
1104
222
1105
11()6
11 ()7
1108
1 109
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Surface of a sewage pool, may vary in thickness
and extent, but this irregularity does not apparent-
ly diminish to an appreciable extent the liquefy-
ing action. A large per centage of the solid par-
ticles in suspension in sewage upon entering a tank
will settle at the bottom until by the formation of
gases they are buoyed up to the surface where the
gases are liberated and the solid matters, perhaps
dividing into smaller particles, tend to settle again.
While on the bottom, these particles are subjected
to the seclusion of light and air and agitation,
naturally, by the fact of a sufficient depth of water
being above them to accomplish this exclusion of
light, air and agitation. While in this condition,
the liquefying organisms are developed and forming
gases, through their activities, raise the solids, as
hereinbefore mentioned, to the surface of the sew-
age, where some of them will remain and in time a
mass of floating scum accumulates on the surface.
This scum, by its absence, can not prevent liquefy-
ing action occuring on the bottom of the tank un-
der exclusion of light, air and agitation, by reason
of the water above it, as previously described. On
the other hand, the formation of the scum is not
known to assist, to any appreciable extent, the
liquefying action going on in the solids precipitated
On the bottom of the tank. I therefore consider
Claim 21, as I understand it, to contain no novelty
therein over the prior art hereinbefore referred to
by me.
Q. 37. Please compare claim 7 of the patent in
suit with defendants' structure as illustrated in the
exhibit of the Saratoga Plant, and state whether or
not there is present in defendant’s system the ele-
ments of the said seventh claim? A. Defendants’
223
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
structure does not have an outlet comprising a con-
duit having a longitudinal slot open across the
greater part of the width of the tank, but has a
series of openings in the wall of said tank, opening
into a conduit or chamber exterior to the tank. In
the patent in suit, the conduit is in the tank ex-
tending in the tank the greater part of its width,
said conduit being marked or numbered 10 on the
drawing, and from this conduit in the tank two
pipes, 17, extend through the wall, connecting with
a conduit or chamber on the outside of the tank.
Q 38. Please consider Claim 7, in connection
with the prior art, and state your opinion as to the
validity of such claim over the prior art, giving
your reasons for your opinion?
Adjourned to Tuesday, June 20, 1905, 10:30 A.M.
New York, June 20th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before and also Ephraim
Banning, Esq., for defendants.
Direct. Examination of Mr. SnOW Continued :
A. to Q. 38. Said Claim 7 is as follows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sewage,
the combination of a septic tank, and an outlet
the efor disposed above the bottom and below the
normal water-level thereof, said outlet comprising
a conduit having a longitudinal slot open across the
greater part of the width of the tank.”
The object of the outlet conduit disposed above
the bottom and below the normal water level of the
tank and extending across the greater width of the
tank, is to collect the liquid in the tank so as not to
disturb the top layers of the liquid or the bottom
layers, which top and bottom layers contain the
floating matters and the deposits respectively. Said
outlet thus removes the water from mid-depth, or
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
224
1115
| 116
11 17
1I 18
1119
F. HERBERT SNOW.
thereabouts, and does not disturb the rest of the
Contents of the tank. Outlets to serve this same
purpose, have been provided in tanks and used in
the art for many years. In this connection I will
refer to the Cheltenham tanks, described in page
32 of Mr. Austin’s report, hereinbefore mentioned
by me, in which tanks there are provided outlet
chambers or conduits located within the tanks and
extending nearly the whole width thereof, having
perforated holes in their walls through which the
effluent is conducted Out of the tanks below the top
and above the bottom for the purpose served by
the outlet of said Claim 7 of the patent.
Mr. Austin’s proposed tank, hereinbefore men-
tioned, provides for an outlet conduit extending the
width of the tank and above the bottom and below
the top, whose object is the same as the object of
the said outlet in said Claim 7.
In British patent, No. 2329, of 1864, to Thomas
Walker and another there is provided an outlet,
conduit or chamber, extending the whole width of
the tank and being disposed above the bottom and
below the top, said outlet conduit being provided
with a slot, the whole width of the conduit, whose
object is the same as the object of the outlet con-
duit in said Claim 7 of the patent.
In British patent, No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas
Smith and another, there is provided an outlet con-
duit, comprising a conduit having a slot or open-
ing extending the entire width of the tank and be-
ing disposed below the top and above the bottom of
the normal water level thereof, whose object is the
same as the object of the outlet in said Claim 7.
The tanks at Merton, described in Santo-Crimp’s
book, hereinbefore mentioned by me, is provided
225
F. HERBERT SNOW.
with a series of openings through the wall of the
outlet end of the tank, said openings extending the
whole width of the tank, and from the top to the
bottom thereof, whose object is the same as the
object of the outlet conduit of said claim of the
patent.
In the Wandle Valley tanks, described in Volume
76 of the Minutes of Proceedings of Civil Engi-
neers, hereinbefore mentioned by me, there is pro-
vided an outward conduit or chamber extending the
whole width of the tank and having a series of
openings in its walls extending the whole width
thereof, some of them being above the bottom and
below the top of the normal water level in the tank,
said outlet conduit having the same object as the
object of the outlet conduit in said claim of the
patent.
British patent, No. 2760, of 1871, to James B.
Pow, provides an outlet conduit extending nearly
the whole width of the tank and disposed within
the same, said conduit having an opening in its bot-
tom for the entire length of the conduit, being dis-
posed below the top and above the bottom of the
water level of the tanks, the object of said outlet
conduit being the same as the object of the said
conduit of said Claim 7 of the patent in suit.
British patent, No. 7134, to Wilhelm Gurtler,
1887, provides for an outlet chamber located with-
in the tank and extending for a part of the width of
said tank, and having a series of apertures within
its sides and bottom, disposed above the bottom and
below the top of the water level of the tank, the ob-
ject of said outlet chamber being the same as the
object of the outlet conduit of said claim in the
patent in suit,
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
226
1125
1126
1127
1 128
1129
F. HERBERT SNOW.
United States Patent, No. 505,166 of September
19, 1893, to Oluf E. Meyer, provides for an outlet
conduit extending the whole width of the tank and
disposed in the tank below the top and above the
bottom of the normal water level thereof, having
in the whole length thereof an opening or slot, the
said outlet conduit having the same object and
serving the same purpose as the outlet conduit of
said claim of said patent in suit.
United States patent, No. 580,793, of April 13th,
1897, to G. D. Mitchell, provides for the proper
drawing off of the effluent from one tank to another
by any suitable arrangement of pipes extending
over the full width of the tank, or any portion
thereof, and the drawing of said patent shows an
outlet chamber 15, disposed in the tank and having
a slot in said conduit below the top and above the
bottom of the tank, which arrangement may extend
the entire width of the tank, said outlet compris-
ing a conduit having a longitudinal slot Open across
the greater part of the width of the tank and Serv-
ing the same purpose and having the same object
as the outlet conduit in said Claim 7 of the patent
in suit. The application for the said Mitchell pat-
ent was filed March 26, 1896.
The tank at the Worcester State Hospital, des-
cribed in Rafter & Baker’s book, hereinbefore men-
tioned, has an outlet chamber connecting with the
main tank by a series of openings in the dividing
wall, said openings being below the top and above
the bottom of the tank and extending the whole
width, or nearly the whole width of the tank. These
openings in the wall serving the same purpose as
the outlet conduit of Claim 7 of the patent in Suit.
Q. 39. Please compare claim 8 of the patent in
227
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
suit with defendants’ structure as illustrated in
the exhibit of the Saratoga plant, and state
whether or not there is present in defendants’
system the elements of the said eighth claim?
A. Claim 8 is as follows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sewage,
the combination of a septic tank having an outlet
cons, sling of a pipe extending acros sthe greater
part of the width of the tank and disposed above
the bottom and below the normal water level there-
of, said pipe having an opening in its wall through-
out its length for admitting the effluent.”
This claim is like claim 7, but provides that
the outlet conduit shall be a pipe disposed above
the bottom and below the normal water level of
the tank and having an opening in its wall
throughout its length for admitting the effluent.
Defendant’s plant does not infringe said claim 8,
as I understand it, because there is no pipe ar-
ranged and constructed as stated in said claim 8.
If, however, said claim 8 is construed so broadly
as to cover defendants’ construction, then it must
be anticipated, as I understand said eighth claim,
in the same references which I have cited as an-
ticipating claim 7 of the patent in Suit.
Q. 40. Please consider claim 8 in connection
with the prior art, and state your opinion as to
the validity of such claim over the prior art, giv-
ing your reasons for your opinion? A. The ob-
ject of the pipe in claim 8 is the same as the ob-
ject of the conduit in claim 7, claim 7 being
broader in that it does not specify that the con-
duit shall be a pipe. It does not seem to me that
the substituting of a pipe having an opening in
its wall throughout its length for admitting the
1130
1131
1132
1133
| 134
228
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
F. HERBERT SNOW.
effluent, in the place of a conduit having a lon-
gitudinal slot open across the greater part of the
width of the tank for admitting the effluent, com-
prises an invention, since both are disposed in
the tank in the same way and both have the same
object and serve the same purpose. Therefore the
references which I have cited in the prior art with
respect to claim 7 are equally applicable to said
claim 8 as I understand it.
Q. 41. Please compare claim 5 of the patent
in suit with defendants’ structure, as illustrated
in the exhibit of the Saratoga Plant, and state
whether or not there is present in defendants’
system the elements of the said fifth claim? And
also consider said claim in connection with the
prior art? A. The fifth claim is for
“In an apparatus for the purification of sew-
age, the combination of a septic tank having an
outlet disposed above the bottom and below the nor-
imal water level of the tank, and open across the
greater part of the width thereof, and an aerator
COInnCCted with said outlet.”
This is a broad apparatus claim. So far as
the mechanical features of the claim are con-
cerned, the purpose of the outlet arranged as set
forth is to give a non-disturbing outflow along
the width of the tank. And the aerator is for the
purpose of aerating the effluent. The aerator in
the patent in suit “is divided into a suitable num-
ber of compartments 64. The effluent passes into
the first of these compartments, and when this
is filled it passes out through an opening in the
top into a slightly sloping surface 65, down
which it flows in thin films until it falls into the
next compartment 64, this operation being re-
229
F. HERBERT SNOW.
peated until it arrives at the last compartment,
whence it may, if desired, be conveyed through
pipes 66 to a filter or filters for further treatment.
It will be seen that as the effluent passes over
the inclined surface 65 it will be exposed to the
action of the air and so aerated. Instead of em-
ploying the form of aerator above described an
overhanging lip or lips may be provided, over
which the effluent falls in a thin film or films ex-
posed on both sides to the air.” And on line 89
of page 1 of the patent:
“The liquefied sewage as it leaves the septic pool
has a slight odor, so slight, however, that it can
not be noticed at a distance of a yard or two, and
to relieve it of this slight odor it is subjected to an
aerating operation.”
The aerator in defendants’ plant is of entire
different form and construction. It is composed
of a weir such as has been used in the art for a
great many years, said weir being formed by a
vertical plate over which the sewage flows in a
thin sheet and is aerated; from thence it is con-
ducted by a pipe Some distance to an outlet cham-
ber and thence through another pipe to a sec-
Ond aerator of special design, comprising a rising
pipe discharging the effluent from its top over a
metal plate arranged in umbrella fashion about
the rising pipe, said plates being perforated and
over which, and through which the liquid flows
and is aerated.
The object of the aeration in the patent in suit
is stated to be “to relieve the effluent of the slight
odor which the liquefied sewage has as it leaves
the septic pool.” The object of the aeration in
defendants' plant is not to relieve the sewage of
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
230
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Odors, but to promote the saturation of the sew-
age with oxygen in order to aid the work of nitri-
fication in the filter. The aeration in defendant’s
plant would be dispensed with were there no
filters in connection with the plant, and therefore
it is important in understanding said defendants’
plant to associate the aerating device with the
filters as being as much an appurtenance to the
filters as are the dosing tank, gates and distribut-
ing carriers. But in the patent in Suit the aerat-
ing device is at the Septic tank and a part of it,
for as above quoted it is stated (line 51, page 3):
“This operation being repeated until it arrives at
the last compartment, whence it may, if desired, be
conveyed through pipe 66 to a filter or filters for fur-
ther treatment.”
I wish to lay special emphasis on this differ-
ence in arrangement, location and object of aera-
tion in the patent in suit and in defendants’ plant.
In the patent in suit the aerator is a part of the
tank apparatus and completes the first stage of
the treatment of the sewage, its further treatment,
if desired, being on filters, &c. In defendants’
plant the aeration is an adjunct of the filter and
not of the tank treatment.
So far as the construction and disposition of
the outlet in said claim 5 is concerned, and the
combining therein of means of aeration, the ob-
ject and the results produced are precisely the
same, whether these features are combined with
a septic tank or settling tank, and these features
are old in the patents cited in connection with
claim 7, and the combining of these old features
with any sort of a tank would not require inven-
tion, especially as a septic tank with a non-dis-
231
F. HERBERT SNOW.
turbing outlet is old, as in Mouras’ tanks, here-
inbefore referred to, and Waring and Phillbrick.
Furthermore, all sorts of aerators have been de-
vised and used for aerating the effluent from
sewage tanks, and also aerators combined with
tanks having “an outlet disposed above the bot-
tom and below the normal water level of the tank,
and open across the greater part of the width
thereof.” In this connection I will refer to Brit-
ish patent No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas Smith
and another, in which the sewage from each tank
passes through an outlet which extends across
the greater part of the width of said tank and is
below the normal water level of such tank and
flows over a weir into what is called in the pa-
tent a “tumbling bay.”
British patent No. 2760, of 1871, to James B.
Pow, provides for an outlet disposed above the
bottom and below the normal water level of the
tank, and open across the greater part of the
width thereof, and an aerator connected with the
said outlet through which outlet the effluent
passes, flowing over the weir where it is aerated
in the form of spray by three successive falls of
the effluent, accomplished by a special device ar-
ranged therefor.
United States patent No. 505,166, September
19, 1893, to Oluf E. Meyer, comprises an outlet
arranged in the same manner as described in
claim 5 of the patent in suit, and an aerator con-
nected with said outlet, said aerator comprising
an apparatus in which, the sewage is aerated and
filtered in alternate compartments, provided
therefor.
1150.
1151
1152
1153
11 54
232
1155
11.56
1157
1158
1159
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Q. 42. Please compare claim 6 of the patent
in suit with the defendants' plan of sewage dis-
posal System, and state whether or not you find
in the latter the elements of said claim, and also
consider said claim with reference to the prior
art and state your opinion as to its novelty, giv-
ing reasons for such opinion. A. I find that said
claim contains as an element a settling tank, in
addition to the septic tank constructed as set
forth in said claim. The defendants’ plant does
not contain a settling tank apart from the main
tank itself. Therefore defendants’ tank is de-
signed to take everything contained in the sew-
age, while in the claim 6 of the patent in suit
there are two tanks provided, in the first or set-
tling tank of which, as elsewhere explained in
the patent, the grit and other solid matters are
allowed to settle. So far as the claim for the
catch-pit is concerned, such pits have been com-
mon in the prior art for many years. Numerous
instances having been hereinbefore mentioned by
me. Good illustrations of the use of catch-pits
or settling tanks for the purpose explained in
said patent in suit are afforded in British patent
No. 2329 of 1864 to Thomas Walker and another,
and the Wigner U. S. patent 108,664.
Furthermore, Mouras U. S. patent 268,120 con-
tains a grit or settling chamber ill combination
with a septic tank having an outlet disposed
above the bottom and below the normal water
level of the tank, but this outlet, as shown in the
said drawing of said Mouras patent, was not open
across the greater part of the width of the tank.
To widen the outlet according to the size of the
tank and for the purpose for which an outlet is
233
F. HERBERT SNOW.
widened in connection with settling tanks, could
not possibly require any inventive skill, as I un-
derstand the prior art.
In view of the universality of the use of set-
tling tanks or catch-pits for the purpose ex-
plained in said patent in connection with the use
of main tanks, I consider that the art cited by me
in connection with claim 7 of the patent in suit
is also anticipatory of claim 6.
Q. 43. Claims 11 and 12 of the patent in Suit
are as follows:
“11. In an apparatus for purifying sewage, the
combination of a septic tank, an inlet disposed
above the bottom of the tank and below the normal
Water level thereof and occupying the greater part
of the width of said tank, and an outlet extending
across the greater part of the width of said tank
and disposed above the bottom of the tank and
below the normal water level thereof.
“12. In an apparatus for purifying sewage, the
colubination of a septic tank, an inlet occupying
the greater part of the width of said tank, and an
Outſet extending across the greater part of the
Width of the tank and disposed above the bottom
of the tank and below the normal water level
thereof, said outlet comprising a pipe having a
lolºgitudinal slot therein extending the greater part
of its length.”
Please compare these claims with the prior art
of which you have knowledge and state what, if
any, novelty you find in said claims? A. So far
as claim 11 is concerned, it is similar to claim 5,
leaving out aeration, but adding the feature of
the wide non-disturbing inlet. This inlet dis-
posed above the bottom of the tank and below
the normal water level thereof, and occupying
the greater part of the width of the tank, is old
in the art.
Adjourned to Wednesday, June 21, 1905, 1:30
P. M. *
1 160
1161
1162
1163
1164
234
1165
1166
1167
11.68
1169
F. HERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 21, 1905, 1:30 P. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
(Witness continues his answer to Q. 43.)
In this connection I will refer to tanks herein-
before mentioned by me. The Clifton Union
Works, described in Mr. Austin’s Report, com-
prised tanks having an inlet disposed above the
bottom of the tank and below the normal water
level thereof, and occupying the greater part of
the width of said tank, said inlet consisting of a
conduit or chamber extending the entire width
of the tank, disposed on the outside of it and
having a series of slots or apertures through
the wall into the tank, delivering the sewage into
the tank below the top and above the bottom
thereof for its entire width. The proposed Austin
tank is shown both in the sketch in said Austin
Report, and also by the description hereinbefore
quoted by me from page 79 of said Report. It
provides for an inlet disposed above the bottom
of the tank and below the normal water level
thereof and occupying the greater part of the
width of said tank, consisting of a wall ‘with bas-
ket work and preforated boards in the middle,
allowing the water to pass through only at a cer-
tain depth beneath the surface. And an outlet
evtending across the greater part of the width
of said tank and disposed above the bottom of
the tank and below the normal water level
thereof, consisting of strainers through which the
sewage would pass laterally, its object being to
allow the surface water only to pass away, and
promote deposits in the tank.
235
F. HERBERT SNOW.
British patent No. 2329, of 1864, to Thomas
Walker and another, provides a tank provided
with an inlet disposed above the bottom of the
tank and below the normal water level thereof,
Said inlet consisting of a sewer or delivery con-
duit deposed on the outside of the tank and hav-
ing several openings through the wall of 'said
tank, said openings being below the top and
above the bottom thereof. And said tank is pro-
vided with an outlet extending across the greater
part of the width of said tank and disposed above
the bottom of the tank and below the normal
level thereof, said outlet consisting of a conduit
extending the whole width, of the tank, having a
slot or opening the entire width thereof, protected
by a partition extending downward from the top
into the water, serving as a submerged outlet, ex-
tending the entire width of the tank.
British patent No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas
Smith and another, provides for the same kind
of inlet and outlet as mentioned in said claim 11
of the patent in suit, the inlet consisting of a
chamber on the outside of the tank and extend-
ing the whole width thereof through the wall of
which are a series of openings being placed be-
low the top and above the bottom of Said tank
and extending its width, through which the Sew-
age flows to the tank. And the outlet thereof con-
sists of a conduit having a slot or opening, ex-
tending the entire width of the tank and being
disposed below the top and above the bottom
thereof.
British patent No. 364, of 1870, to George W.
Wigner provides for an inlet consisting of a con-
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174.
235
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
F. HERBERT SNOW.
duit extending across the whole width of the tank
On the outside and comunicating with the tank
through a series of openings in the wall for the
entire width thereof, said openings being below
the top and above the bottom of the tank, being
always submerged and non-disturbing in their
action. The non-disturbing outflow is accom-
plished by a weir.
United States patent No. 184,099, of 1876, to
George R. Moore, provides for a tank having a
non-disturbing inlet below the surface of the
liquid and also a non-disturbing outlet. But the
patent states that any number of inlet pipes may
be conducted directly to the tank. This will pro-
vide then a series of inlets extending the greater
width of the tank and being below the top and
above the bottom thereof.
United States patent No. 505,166, of 1893, to
Oluf E. Meyer, provides for an inlet with a
broadened mouth, extending the whole width of
the tank and used in conjunction with a partition
extending from the top of the tank down below
the surface of the water thereof, forming thereby
a submerged non-disturbing inlet. The tank is
also provided with an outlet extending across the
whole width of the tank and disposed above the
bottom of the tank and below the water level
thereof.
Claim 12 of the patent in suit is the same as
claim 7 thereof, excepting the feature of the wide
inlet, which, as stated in connection with claim
11, is old. I therefore find no novelty in said
claims 11 and 12, unless possibly it be a pipe hav-
ing a longitudinal slot therein extending the
237
F. HERBERT SNOW.
greater part of its length, but such a pipe is not
used in defendants’ plant.
Q. 44. Claim 20 of the patent in suit is as fol-
lows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sewage,
the combination of a septic tank, means for exclud-
ing air and light, a non-disturbing inlet for said
tank disposed below the ‘normal water-level thereof
and provided with a broadened mouth, a non-dis-
turbing outlet for said tank disposed below the
nomal water level thereof and provided with a
broadened mouth, and a sewage-conduit connected
With said inlet.”
Please compare this claim with the prior art of
Which you have knowledge and state what, if any,
novelty you find in said claim? A. This claim
covers a non-disturbing inlet with branches, and a
non-disturbing outlet with branches or broadened
mouths, said inlet and outlet being below the top
of the tank and the tank provided with means for
excluding air and light, features very common in
the art. In reference thereto I make the following
references:
The tanks at Clifton Union, described in Aus-
tin’s book, hereinbefore referred to, are covered
over and made air-tight. They have a non-disturb-
ing submerged inlet provided with a broadened
mouth, consisting of a conduit disposed outside of
the tank and connecting with the tank by a series
of submerged openings through the wall, compris-
ing a broadened mouth. Austin’s proposed tank,
hereinbefore mentioned, provides for a non-disturb-
ing submerged inlet with broadened mouth, com-
prising a series of perforations through the walls of
the tank, said openings being below the top thereof,
and a non-disturbing outlet below the top of the
1180
1 181
| 182
1 183
| 184
238
1185
1186
1187
1.188
1 189
F. HERBERT SNOW.
level of the Water, provided with a broadened
mouth, Said outlet consisting of strainers or filters
through which the Water passes laterally. Said
tank is provided with means for excluding air and
light.
British patent, No. 2329, of 1864, to Thomas
Walker and another, provides for a non-disturbing
submerged inlet and a non-disturbing submerged
outlet, both being provided with broadened mouths;
the inlet consisting of a pipe having several
branches and the outlet consisting of an opening
in the wall used in connection with a partition,
forming a submerged slot in the wall the entire
width of the tank.
British patent, No. 364, of 1870, to George W.
Wigner, provides for an air-tight tank having a
non-disturbing submerged inlet comprising a con-
duit extending the width of the tank and being pro-
vided with a series of branch openings into the tank
below the normal water level thereof, such an ar-
rangement comprising a broadened mouth to the
inlet. The non-disturbing outlet comprises a par-
tition wall extending the whole width of the tank,
over which the sewage has to pass.
Scott-Moncrieff’s tank, hereinbefore referred to,
provides for the use of a non-disturbing submerged
inlet with a broadened mouth.
British patent, No. 7134, of 1887, to Wilhelm
Gurtler, provides for an air-tight tank and a non-
disturbing inlet disposed below the normal water
level thereof, and provided with a broadened
mouth, and a non-disturbing outlet disposed below
the normal water level thereof, and provided with
a broadened mouth, said tank being shown in detail
in Figure 7 of the drawings of said patent.
239
F. HERBERT SNOW.
United States patent, No. 505,166, to O. E. Mey-
er, September, 1893, provides for a non-disturbing
inlet with a broadened mouth, and used in con-
junction with a baffle board, and a submerged non-
disturbing outlet provided with a broadened mouth.
I therefore do not find any novelty in said Claim
20 of the patent in suit, as I understand the same.
Q. 45. Claim 22 of the patent in suit is as fol-
lows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of Sewage,
the combination of a septic tank, means for exclud-
ing air and light, a non-disturbing inlet for said
tank disposed below the normal water-level thereof,
a non-disturbing outlet for said tank disposed be-
low the normal water-level thereof, and a sewage-
conduit connected with said inlet.”
and a sewage-conduit connected with said inlet.”
Please compare this claim with the prior art of
which you have knowledge and state what, if any,
novelty you find in said claim? A. As I under-
Stand this claim, it was anticipated in every par-
ticular in the Mouras apparatus, as set forth in the
French, British and United States patents, and as
applied in practice. Also in the Waring and Phill-
brick tanks, in the Union tank, in the tank at the
Worcester State Hospital, in the Glover cess-pool—
all of which I have hereinbefore mentioned and ful-
ly described.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence, copy of U. S. patent to Garryt D.
Mitchell, No. 580,793, dated April 13,
1897, and the same is marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit, Mitchell, U. S. Patent.”
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence, a translation of the French patent,
of September 22nd, 1881, to L. Mouras,
1190
1.191
l 192
1193
1194
240
1195
1196
1197
1198
1,199
F. HERBERT SNOW.
and the same is marked “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Translation of Specification of
Mouras’ French Patent.”
Counsel for defendants will also intro-
duce later, certified copy of the specifica-
tion and drawings of the said French pat-
ent, to be obtained from the United States
Patent Office.
Direct Examination closed.
Cross Examination of Mr. Snow by Mr. Gifford:
XQ. 46. Did you testify to the deposition of
Frank Herbert Snow, which I now show you, in the
printed record of the case in the United States Cir-
cuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, en-
titled American Sewage Disposal Company, of
Boston, v. City of Pawtucket, said deposition, being
dated February 3, 1904? A. Yes.
At the request of complainant’s counsel,
the deposition just identified and which
extends from page 300 to 443, of said rec-
ord, is marked for Identification, “Snow’s
Pawtucket Deposition.”
XQ. 47. In answer to the question as to when
the term “septic” was first used in this art, did
you in that deposition testify:
“It was first used by Mr. Cameron, it being the
term applied to the tank which he constructed and
put in operation at Exeter, England, during the
latter part of 1896. It was not known to me, and,
so far as I have knowledge, to engineers in this
country until 1897, when there appeared various
discussions as to the merits or otherwise of the
Cameron patent.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 48. From what source did you derive your
24 L
F. HERBERT SNOW.
knowledge of the septic tank that Mr. Cameron
put into operation at Exeter, England, during the
latter part of 1896? A. Partly from various pub-
lications describing Mr. Cameron’s claims, and
partly from conversation with experts of the
State Board of Health of Massachusetts, and
others interested in the art.
XQ. 49. So far as you can remember, please
mention where you saw the Cameron Septic tank
of Exeter, England, published in 1897; that is to
Say, in what publication? A. I can not state
now from recollection the name of any publica-
tion of that year describing the Exeter plant
which I read at that time.
YQ. 50. Can you mention any of the publica-
tions which were among the first in which you
saw Mr. Cameron's Exeter septic tank experi-
ments published? A. My recollection is the first
publications were from England, my attention
being called to them in the offices of the Massa-
chusetts State Board of Health.
XQ. 51. Can you name any of the experts or
officers of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health who were among the first with whom you
talked as to Mr. Cameron’s septic tank experi-
ments at Exeter? A. Mr. F. P. Stearn, formerly
Chief Engineer of the State Board of Health
and now Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan
Water & Sewerage Board, was among the first ex-
perts to discuss the Exeter system with me. I
think, however, this must have been in 1898, at
the time I was engaged in designing a tank for
Mr. Stearn.
XQ. 52. At the time in 1897 when Mr. Cam-
1200
| 201
1202
1203
1204
242
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
F. HERBERT SNOW.
eron's septic tank experiments first came to your
attention, what position did you hold with re-
Spect to any sewage disposal plant? A. I was
in charge of the operation of the sewage disposal
Work at Brockton, Mass.
XQ. 53. Up to that time had you been ac-
Customed to remove the sludge from the bottom
of the tank at Brockton every day, that is, once
every day? A. Yes.
XQ. 54. And what had you been accustomed
to do with the sludge so removed every day? A.
Dispose of it broadcast upon drying-out beds, es-
pecially set apart for that purpose
XQ. 55. Since Mr. Cameron’s septic tank ex-
periments at Exeter were brought to your atten-
tion, in 1897, how many plants in the United
States have you or your firm constructed, com-
prising the combination of the septic tank in
which the sludge was permitted to remain and
liquefy indefinitely with subsequent filter beds for
the septic effluent? A. Ten.
XQ. 56. About how large a population alto-
gether do those ten plants dispose of the sewage
from? A. From 45,000 to 82,000.
XQ. 57. When did you design the first of the
ten plants you have referred to? A. In the lat-
ter part of 1898. I am referring now to tanks
constructed since 1897.
XQ. 58. Generally speaking, is it true of each
of those ten plants that the size of the Septic
tank or tanks has been equal to the total daily
flow of sewage of the system so that the time for
the passage of sewage through the Septic tank
is about 24 hours? A. Yes.
243
F. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 59. Is it also true of those ten tanks that
Some of the Septic tanks have never been cleaned
out, and the first tank constructed has been
claned out but once in three years? A. Yes.
XQ. 60. Is it true, according to your under-
standing, that Mr. Cameron adopted the period
of twelve to twenty-four hours as the time for
Sewage to occupy in passing through a septic
tank, and there is no knowledge at the present
time which warrants the discarding of this period
as a general rule for the design of the dimensions
of a septic tank? A. It is true that this period
of time was the one which the sewage occupied
in passing through the first small tank of the
three tanks which Mr. Cameron used at Exeter.
There is no evidence known to me that Mr. Cam-
eron had previous knowledge or intended to use
this period of time in this first small tank experi-
ment. But he afterwards used about this same
time. The ordinary passage through the third
or last large tank at Exeter was about eighteen
Thours. This size or capacity of tank has been
common in the art in connection with ordinary
settling tanks, and today, as formerly, it is
thought good practice, owing to the irregularity
in the flow of the sewage during the twenty-four
hours, to provide for tank capacity of about one
day’s flow. I am not willing to state, however,
that this period of passage through the tank, or
a tank capacity of a day’s flow, is essential to
septic action. I do not think it is. The indefinite
retention of the solids of the sewage is the im-
portant point, and if these could be retained, or
rather be separated from the bulk of the Sewage,
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
244
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
F. HERBERT SNOW.
and retained in the tank, at the same time per-
mitting the passage of the liquid through the
tank in a short time, for instance, in a space of
a few moments, I know no reason why the lique-
fying of the Solids so intercepted would not go
OIl.
|XQ. 61. Did you in the Pawtucket case testify
as follows:
“R. d-Q. 227. You have several times stated that
twelve to twenty-four hours was the best time for
sewage to occupy in passing through a septic tank.
I'or how long a time has it been known that the
best time for that purpose is within those limits?
A. Mr. Cameron adopted this period, and, as I
have previously testified, there is no kowledge at
the present time which warrants the discarding of
this period as a general rule for the design of the
dimensions of a septic tank?
A. Yes.
|XQ. 62. Did you also testify in the Pawtucket
case as follows:
“R-d-Q. 220. Referring again to the plants you
have built and planned which include a septic tank,
(loes the sewage in those tanks remain at a con-
stant level and how deep is the sewage in them? A.
The depth of the sewage is from seven and a half
to nine feet and the sewage is maintained at a
Constant level in the tank.”
A. Yes, but I would like to modify that answer
now by stating that in one of the tanks, while
the depth is the same; that is, from seven and a
half to nine feet, the sewage is not maintained at
a constant level in the tank.
XQ. 63. To what extent does the level of the
sewage in that one particular tank fluctuate? A.
I can not state in figures what this fluctuation
is, but the tank is designed to act as a storage
245
F. HERBERT SNOW.
reservoir for storm water which comes from the
Sewer System during periods of precipitation.
XQ. 64. In the ten plants comprising Septic
tanks that you have built since you first knew of
the Cameron tank in 1897, what relationship
have you observed between the length and
breadth of the septic tanks. A. Generally speak-
ing, they are about twice as long as wide.
XQ. 65. And what is their construction with
respect to the inlet and outlet openings? I mean
as to the location and extent of Said openings?
A. In every tank the sewage is conducted therein
below the surface and above the bottom thereof
and is drawn from the tank at the opposite end
from the inlet from below the surface and above
the bottom of the tank.
XQ. 66. How far across the end of the tank
do the outlet openings extend? A. Across the
greater width of the tank.
XQ. 67. And how far across the end of the tank
do the inlet openings extend? A. There are
usually two or more openings discharging Sew-
age into the tank, arranged so as to comprise
non-disturbing inlets, said openings being spaced
equi-distant from the sides of the tank.
XQ. 68. In all of these ten plants comprising
septic tanks, which you have constructed since
learning of the Cameron experiments in 1897, is
the septic tank effluent exposed to light and air
between its exit from the tank and its entrance
Info the filtering material? A. Yes.
Adjourned to Thursday, June 22, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
1220
1221
| 222
1223
1224
246
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
F. HERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 22nd, 1905, 10:30 A.M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
CrOSS Examination. Of Mr. Snow Continued:
It Is Stipulated that the time for taking
testimony herein be extended to August 1,
1905.
XQ. 69. Is the Saratoga plant, charged to in-
fringe in this case, one of the ten plants of your con-
Struction above referred to A. Yes.
XQ. 70. Returning now to the Brockton sewage
plant, of which you had charge, is it approximately
true that in 1896 the total amount of sludge pump-
ed out of the tank Or tanks on to the filter beds was
25,000,000 gallons, and that this sludge after drain-
ing and drying, was removed from the filter beds
by raking and scraping to the amount of 145,000
pounds, and was then burned? A. Yes. I can-
not answer this question from recollection, but I
have before me a copy of the Engineering News,
dated May 20, 1897, in which there is an abstract of
my report on the operation of the Brockton plant
for the year 1896, in which I find the figures men-
tioned in the question, stated, and I believe them
to be correct. The sludge was really a concentrated
sewage and should not be taken to represent or
mean the same as sludge deposited in a tank and
composed very largely of solid matter. It will be
noticed that the concentrated sewage called sludge,
amounted to 25,000,000 gallons for the year 1896,
or approximately 100,000 tons. This heavy liquid
was pumped through a 24 inch cast iron pipe for a
distance of three miles on to the sludge filters,
247
F. HERBERT SNOW.
through the liquid percolated and left the solid on
the surface of the sludge beds. This solid matter,
so strained and dried amounted to 73 tons only for
the year. The comparison of the two figures, 100,-
000 tons of the sludge in its liquid form and 73
tons in its dried out form, conveys a better idea of
the proportion of the 25,000,000 gallons which was
really solid matter.
XQ. 71. Did the figures given in the last question
for Brockton in 1896 also hold approximately good
for that plant in 1897? A. No. The quantity of
sewage and its strength increased annually.
XQ. 72. So that for the year 1897 there was
more than 145,000 pounds of the drained and dried
sludge removed by raking and scraping from the
filter beds and burned; is that correct? A. I think
Such was the fact.
XQ. 73. Was the practice at that time, 1896 and
1897, at Brockton, to pump the settled sewage from
the tank to the filter beds late each day and when
in the course of this pumping, the sludge was reach-
ed, to bring into play an agitator to stir up the
sludge before it went to the pump? A. Yes.
XQ. 74. After learning of the Cameron septic
tank experiments at Exeter, England, in 1897,
what, if any experiments with a septic tank did you
try at Brockton in 1898, before you designed the
first of your ten septic tank plants in the latter
part of 1898, as you have stated in answer 57? A.
The Brockton tank was operated to retain the
settled solids and the floating scum in the tank, at
the same time permitting the daily pumping of the
liquid sewage out of the tank on to the filter, the
object of this experiment being to ascertain to what
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
248
1235
1236
1237
1238
12:39
F. HERBERT SNOW.
extent the dissolving actions would occur under
these conditions.
XQ. 75. Would the following, which I have
taken from an article in the Engineering News of
February 2, 1899, be a correct description of the
experiments referred to in your last answer:
“In the fall of 1898 it was decided to operate the
(Brockton) reservoir as nearly as possible like a
septic tank. Accordingly, for the eight weeks be-
tween Sept. 6 and Nov. 29 no sludge was sent to
the sludge beds. It was necesary to pump from the
reservoir, and this of course led to the introduction
of fresh air and some stirring up of the accumula-
ted solids, both material variations from the septic
tank practice. These facts should be kept in mind
when comparing the results here with the claims
made for the English septic tank. The regular
sewage sent to the beds each day had ample time
for septic action to take place in it; but new Sup-
plies of air were introduced daily, and when the
sew age was pumped from the tank the suction
drew some of the solid matters with it. Such solid
matter as remained in the reservoir appears to have
stayed at the top. At the end of four weeks there
was a layer fourteen inches in depth of this floating
matter at the farther end of the reservorr, diminish-
ing in thickness to zero at about ten feet from the
Other end. The reservoir is 42 feet, Wide 118 feet.
long and has a storage depth of 12 feet. At the end
of eight weeks this layer was 24 inches deep at the
influent end and ten inches at the other. The mater-
ial was a black, greasy mass between peat and mud
in consistency with a green leather-like surface. If a
stick were thrust through it the hole made would
fill with sewage and remain for a long time. This
stuff always stayed at the top of the tank and
Obi Crvations indicated that there was no accumu-
lation on the bottom, samples of the contents of
the tank being collected at different depths and
analyzed. While these septic experiments were
in progress the sewage sent to the beds was much
stronger than before and its character changed
249
F. HERBERT SNOW.
more than usual during its stay in and transit
through the forced main. Instead of materially
increasing the dissolved organic matter in the
applied sewage, and decreasing that in suspension,
however, analysis showed that the dissolved album-
enoid ammonia had increased but eleven per cent.
and the free ammonia only twenty-two per cent.
while the suspended albuminoid ammonia in-
creased 129 per cent. and the Oxygen consumed 34
per cent. and the total solids 38 per cent. At the
conclusion of the experiments the sludge which
had been accumulated for eight weeks in the form
of the floating mass before described, was stirred
up and, with some difficulty, forced out of the reser-
voir and on to the sludge beds. Its total volume as
delivered was 556,000 gallons, whereas the ordinary
situdge flow for the same period would have been
3,190,000 gallons the reason being, as above shown,
that a large part of the solid matter had gone on to
the regular sewage bed. The mass had a most
horrible stench and was very difficult to handle on
the sludge bed. The water did not drain out
readily and the men sent in to dig holes in the
sludge to facilitate drainage were so sickened by
the odor that they vomited.”
A. Yes, as far as it goes, and in so far as it de-
scribes the facts as to what happened.
XQ. 76. How do you account for the fact that
this attempt to operate the Brockton tank as near-
ly as possible like a septic tank, in 1898, proved to
be such a failure, so far as securing the liquefac-
tion of the solids in the sewage was concerned?
A. I do not know what is meant by the words,
“such a failure,” in the question, but it was a fact
that the liquefaction of solid matters was not pro-
moted in the Brockton tank to as substantial a de-
gree as is secured in tanks in which the normal
level of the water therein is maintained at a more
constant height. The depth of the liquid in the
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
25()
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Brockton experiment referred to varied from
twelve feet to, I think, about four feet, possibly not
Quite so much, but at any rate the tank was emptied
daily of a large part of the liquid, and this caused
the scum upon the surface to drop to very near the
bottom, necessarily causing an agitation. To this
very great fluctuation I attribute the negative I’e-
sults. On the other hand, a very marked change in
the quality of the sewage was effected during this
experiment, and some degree of lequefaction occur-
red.
XQ. 77. Were there any other conditions in that
1898 Brockton experiment tending to interfere with
the promotion of the liquefaction of the solid mat-
ters in the tank? A: I attribute the said negative
results almost wholly to the excessive fluctuation
of the water level in the tank.
XQ 78. When you designed the first of your ten
septic tanks in 1898 after this Brockton experiment,
how did your design of the tank and its appurten-
ances differ from the design of the Brockton tank
in which that experiment was tried? A. It was
designed to obviate any fluctuation in the surface
of the water in the tank and was provided with an
inlet similar to the one in the Brockton tank, but
instead of being disposed near the bottom of the
tank as at Brockton, it was at mid-depth thereof.
And the outlet of the tank, instead of being at the
bottom of the tank, as at Brockton, was disposed at
mid-depth thereof, having the same object as the in-
let, which was the non-disturbing of the deposits in
the bottom of the tank and the floating scum on the
surface thereof. This arrangement was not new to
me, since I had used it for the same purpose to pro-
25i
F. HERBERT SNOW.
mote septic action in a tank constructed by me be-
fore 1897, the date mentioned in the question.
All that portion of the answer as to be-
fore 1897 objected to as irresponsive and
Volunteered.
XQ. 79. I now turn to what you have called the
“World renowned classical researches of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health,” the yearly
volumes of whose reports from 1890 to 1900, inclu-
sive, I have here present. Why do you honor these
reports by the expression, “world renowned classi-
cal?” A. Because, so far as I am informed, they
are considered so by engineers and scientists en-
gaged in practicing the art of sewage disposal, and
for the reasons hereinbefore fully mentioned by me
in describing the place in the development of the
art which these experiments take.
XQ. 80. Please give the Court an idea, as to the
ability and facilities that the Massachusetts State
Board of Health had for keeping abreast of the
most advanced knowledge in this art and its prac-
tical application? A. The ablest chemists, bac-
teriologists and other experts were associated with
the Board and ample appropriations by the State
afforded the Board every facility to carry out the
object of the experiments, which I have hereinbe-
fore stated was to ascertain how much sewage could
be purified by soils existing in various parts of
Massachusetts.
XQ. 81. In your 21st answer, in summing up
what was generally known at the close of 1895, by
those best qualified and practicing the art or fol-
lowing the Massachusetts Reports you said,
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
252
1255
1256
1257
1259
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“It will be noticed that the idispensable element
of all these accelerated processes was the prelimi-
mary removal of the sludge.”
In 1896 and 1897, what means do the Reports of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health show that
they were employing for this preliminary removal
of the sludge? A. Plain subsidence tanks and sub-
sidence aided by chemicals, and straining tanks and
rapid straining, aided by a current of air drawn
through the strainer, and the staleing of sewage,
the last being accomplished by the use of a sewer
in which the changes, mechanically, chemically and
bacterially, were observed, and the benefits thereof
noted.
XQ. 82. In your Pawtucket testimony, did you
testify and do you now testify also as follows:
“R-d-Q. 218. At what point do you draw the line
between a staleing of sewage and septic action
which is intentionally induced? A. In from six
to eight weeks time, the intended action of a septic
tank may be expected to become established, and,
so far as I am able to judge, it will not occur much
before this time. In making this statement I am
referring to the time when the liquefaction of the
solid matters in the bottom of the tank, or on the
top of the liquid in the tank begin to be liquefied to
an appreciable extent, and I do not refer to the
putrefying action which exists even to some extent,
possibly, in the sewage before it enters the tank.”
A. That was my testimony in the Pawtucket
case, and I now testify the same, but I wish to make
the answer or my meaning more plain, if possible.
In my opinion, from six to eight weeks is required
in which the liquefying action referred to will be
established to the extent of creating an equilibrium
beyond which the solids will not accumulate on the
bottom of the tank or on the top thereof. Up to
253
F. HERBERT SNOW.
this time these accumulations will be very rapid,
the activities of the liquefying organisms not hav-
ing reached the degree sufficient to successfully
cope with the solids constantly being added to those
already accumulated in the tank. But after this
period they have sufficiently increased and there is
therefore no further accumulation of these matters.
I wish to be clearly understood as stating that the
liquefying action does occur to an appreciable ex-
tent prior to this time. It is the equilibrium about
which I was referring in the answer to question
R-d-Q. 218, above cited.
XQ. 83. Did you also testify in the Pawtucket
case, and do you now testify, as follows:
“The best practice requires that the tank be built
of sufficient capacity to hold quite an accumulation
of solids, because it is known that sufficient time
must Occur for the installation Of the desired bac-
terial life. I have observed that from eight to
twelve weeks may elapse from the starting of a
septic tank before there is rapid evolution of gas,
and during this time the solids accumulate very
rapidly . . . . . . . I do not mean to be
understood as saying that substantial septic action
may not be secured in less than eight weeks, or
more than twelve weeks, but from my of servation
and experience with average sewerage, I believe
that the time will be in the vicinity of eight to
twelve weeks. My experience and observation I
find to have been corroborated by the experiments
of the Massachusetts State Board of Health, pub-
lished in the Board's Annual Report for 1899, page
423, which shows that in a tank in which sewage
passed through in thirty hours the rapid evolution
of gas did not begin until about the end of the sº c-
ond month of operation of the tank, and from that
time on the gas given off in volume equaled one gal-
lon to every twenty-two and a half gallons of the
sewage passing through.”
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
254
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
F. HERBERT SNOW.
A. I did so testify and will testify the same now.
It is understood that in this quoted testimony I was
then referring, and now refer to the time required
for the establishment of the equilibrium between
the accumulated solids in the tank plus those being
constantly added thereto by the inflow of the sew-
age, and the bacterial activities whereby further
accumulations are prevented. Furthermore, this
general statement pertains more particularly to the
application of the septic action to tanks of large
size.
Recess until 2 P. M.
XQ. 84. In the 1896 Report of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health, do you find the meth-
ods of preliminary removal of the sludge then in
vogue stated as follows, (p. 475):
“REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM SEWAGE.
“Studies of different methods of removing sludge
have been continued throughout the year as fol-
lows:
“1. Rapid filtration through coarse gravel with
the aid of a current of air drawn down through the
gravel.
“2. Rapid filtration through coarse gravel with
the aid of a current of air forced up through the
gravel.
“3. Sedimentation.
“4. Chemical precipitation.
“5. Straining through coke.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 85. And in the same report of 1896, do you
find the following:
“SEDIMENTATION.”
“For several years the supernatant sewage ob-
tained by allowing regular sewage to stand and
settle for a definite period has been applied to a
sand filter.” A. Yes.
255
F. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 86. Is the following an excerpt from the
1897 Report of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, (p. 421):
“REMOVAL OF SLUDGE BY SEDIMENTA-
TION, FOLLOWED BY A FILTRATION OF
THE SUPERNATANT SEWAGE TEIROUGH
SAND.
“Experiments in regard to the amount of sludge
that can be removed from sewage by allowing it to
stand for four hours have been continued since the
beginning of 1892. The results obtained have dif-
fered from year to year according to the strength
of the sewage and the amount of insoluble Organic
matter in suspension in it. This investigation
continued throughout 1897 and during the first two
months of the present year (1898), and the results
obtained are shown by the table on page 415. Dur-
ing the entire period covered by this investigation,
with the exception of a portion of 1893, the super-
natant sewage has been applied to a sand filter at
the station.” A. Yes.
XQ. 87. Throughout all of the Reports of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health, up to 1898,
do you find any suggestion of utilizing a tank for
the liquefaction of the solid constituents of the sow-
age by bacterial action or otherwise? A. Yes,
all of the filter tanks were used for the purpose of
liquefying the solids and changing the sewage Imat-
ters, both dissolved and suspended reaching the
filters or filter tanks into liquid or the lowest miner-
al form.
On page 458 of said Report under the heading
“Relation of Free Dissolved Oxygen in Sewage
to Increase in Free Ammonia,’’ attention is called
to the fact that refuse matters entering the sewer
are decomposed in the presence of free dissolved
oxygen, and the oxygen of such compounds as
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
256
1275
1276
1278
1279
F. HERBERT SNOW.
nitrates and nitrites by the bacteria in the sew-
age, that is, organic matters, are changed to
simpler forms. Time is required for this process
varying with the numbers and kinds of bacteria
and with the nature of the organic matter. On
page 459 are the following words:
“Many of the bacteria in fresh sewage are capable
of growing in the absence as well as in the presence
of free oxygen, and are known according to Pas-
teur’s classification as facultative anerobes. After
the sewage becomes stale and the free oxygen all
consumed, these particular bacteria continue to
live and produce vile odors, a process generally
spoken of as putrefaction.”
On the same page, under the heading “Free
Dissolved Oxygen in Sewage Disappears as Free
Ammonia Increases During Passage to the Sta-
tion,” are the following words:
“To apply these principles to the case at hand,
we may say, as was stated for the main part in
earlier reports, that the sewage in the Lawrence
street sewer contains free dissolved exygen, as well
as oxygen in the form of nitrates and nitrites, and
that it receives the greater part of its polluting
matters only a few minutes before its arrival at
the point of collection. The ratio of free ammonia
to albuminoid ammonia is comparativey small at
this stage, because the time required for bacteria
to decompose the crude organic matter of the sew-
age is insufficient. Next the sewage passes through
the pipe 4300 feet long leading to the station. The
time required for this step, usually several hours,
is sufficient for the bacteria present in the sewage
with the free exygen, together with those bacteria
firmly established upon the sides of the pipe, to
decompose some of the crude organic matter into
free ammonia, and to partially effect the first step
in the purification of sewage.”
Again, on page 460, under the heading “In-
257
E. HERBERT SNOW.
itial Steps in the Decomposition and Purification
of Sewage” are the following words:
“The changes which fresh sewage undergoes, and
the relative amounts of organic nitrogery yielded as
alumbinoid ammonia, are well shown by the fol-
lowing experiment, which is representative of a
series which have been made in the laboratory. As
it is generally supposed that sewage contains no
free dissolved oxygen, it is plain that an important
step in advance has been taken in our knowledge
of sewage purification. * * * * * * An-
other point worth mentioning is that, as the
crude organic matter is converted to free ammonia,
it is the soluble and not the insoluble portions
which are the first to undergo this change.
“The results of study in these lines are of value
for two reasons:
“1. They give us a clearer conception of the
initial step in the purification of organic matter
by bacterial action, a process which is of the utmost
importance in the economy of nature.
“2. They pave the way for more substantial
knowledge concernig the composition of sewage,
and for more accurate data upon the capacity of
Various filtering materials to purify sewage,
expressed in units of unpurified and unoxidized
Substances.”
Again, on page 479, I find these words:
“Nitrification in Filter No. III., which received
fresh sewage from the Lawrence street sewer,
appealed much more slowly in cold weather than
in the case of the other two filters receiving par-
tially (lecomposed sewage. In warm weather there
was only a slight difference, although No. III
required a longer time for complete nitrification to
become established.”
On page 532, under the heading “Comparison
of Conditions of Experimental Filtration With
Those in Actual Practice.”
‘‘II. State of Decomposition of Sewage” is
the following:
1280
1281
| 282
1283
1284
258
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“With regard to the composition of the Law.
rence sewage it may also be noted that it is some-
what more decomposed than in the case of several
of the sewages found at different places throughout
the state. This is caused by bacterial action dur-
ing the interval of time which elapses during the
passage of the sewage to the station,--a condition
which would exist in sewage disposal works on a
large scale where the filter field is several miles
distant from the lateral sewers, or where the sew-
age passes through a settling tank.”
On page 468 of the “Massachusetts State Board
of Health Report for the Year 1896,” under the
heading, ‘‘Disposal of Fresh and Stale Sewage,”
it is stated as follows:
“If, on the other hand, the sewage is stale and
has undergone comparatively long—continued
mechanical, chemical and bacterial actions, not
only is the crude organic matter more finely
divided and hence more readily enters the inter-
stices of the filtering material as stated in the last
report of the Board, but the sewage has actually
lost crude organic matter both by the change of
organic nitrogen into free ammonia and also by the
reduction of the organic matters, measured by the
oxygen consumed, on account of the formation
and liberation of gaseous compounds of carbon.
For example, the table given on page 461 of the
Report of the Board for 1894 shows that when a
bottle of fresh sewage was allowed to stand for
twenty-four hours the organic nitrogen (Kjeldahl)
decreased 51 per cent. and the oxygen consumed 25
per cent., while the free amonia increased over 100
per cent.
“To illustrate the difference in the disposal of
fresh and stale sewage two small tube filters con-
taining equal depths of the same grade of sand
were put in operation in May. To one of these fil-
ters sewage taken directly from the city sewer and
brought immediately to the station has been ap-
plied, while the other has received the sewage
pumped at the station.”
259
F. HERBERT SNOW.
These comprise suggestions of and the actual
utilizing of the process of liquefaction of the
Solid constituents of the sewage by bacterial ac-
tion brought about in a bottle and in a long
Sewer both of which for the purposes at the ex-
perimental station acted as tanks.
YQ. 88. By “tank” in the last question, I did
not intend to include either a bottle or a sewer
or a filter tank. Are the filter tanks referred to
in the first paragraph of your last answer those
in which the oxidation or nitrification or aerobic
bacterial action occurs? A. Yes, those in which
the aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, as
well, working under aerobic conditions more
largely, accomplish the work of reducing crude
organic matter into a liquid and mineral form.
|XQ. 89. Throughout all of the reports of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health, up to 1898,
do you find any suggestion of utilizing a tank be-
tween the sewer and the aerobic action for the
purpose not of separating the solid from the
liquid constituents of the sewage, but for the op-
posite purpose of liquefying the solid constitu-
ents and permitting them to remain in this lique-
fied form in the current of sewage flowing out of
the tank? A. Yes, and also no. Yes, in so far
as liquefying action will go on in any kind of
tank, which action conveys beneficial results
pointed out by the State Board of Health and re-
ferred to by me in the answer to question 87. But
no, insofar as the use of such a tank had for its
object only the liquefying of the solid constitu-
ents of the sewage.
XQ. 90. Throughout all the reports of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health up to 1898,
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
260
T 295
1296
J 297
1298
1299
F. HERBERT SNOW.
do you find any suggestion of any tank between
the sewer and the aerobic action, excepting the
tank in which the solid constituents of the sew-
age were separated and removed from the liquid
Constituents thereof.” A. No, with the excep-
tion of course of the very important experiments
by the State Board of Health referred to by me
in answer to question 87, especially where fresh
Sewage was taken from the Lawrence Street
Sewer and applied to one filter and stale sewage
Was taken out of the tank at the station and ap-
p plied to another filter. This certainly suggested
a tank between the sewer and the aerobic action,
in which tank the solid constituents of the sew-
age were not separated and removed from the
liquid constituents thereof.
XQ. 91. I am endeavoring to word my ques-
tions so as to specify a tank in contradistinction
to a sewer, but you do not seem to answer them
with, that understanding, but on the contrary to
answer them as though I were asking about a
Sewer as well as a tank. Understanding that
when I say a tank I do not mean a sewer, and
that when I say a non-filtering tank I do not mean
a fiſter tank, will you please answer the following
question: Throughout all of the Reports of the
Board of Health up to 1898, do you find any Sug-
gestion of a non-filtering tank (not a sewer) used
in the process of treating the sewage excepting
the tank in which the preliminary removal of the
sludge or solids from the liquid was accom-
plished? A. Yes; in the 19th Annual Report of
said Board for the year 1887, on page 101, there
is a description of a tank, which I have herein-
261
F. HERBERT SNOW.
before described and from which Report I will
now quote:
“Near the lower end of the sewer the sewage
passes through a cesspool arranged as shown on
the accompanying drawing (Plate III) so that the
outflow takes places from beneath the surface of
the sewage standing in the cesspool. The effect is
that objects which either float or sink ale held back
until they are sufficiently changed by chemical or
other action to flow uniformly with the rest of the
liquid, and are prevented from being thrown out
upon the ground at the outlet, whole Iumps of
foe.cal matter, orange peel, and the like, might be
offensive or ill-adapted for percolating through the
ground. Very little sediment collects in the cuss
pool, only about one foot in depth in the course of
a year. When it fills up the sediment will have to
be taken Out.” *
This tank was an intentional utilization of the
liquefying process mentioned in said State Board
of Health Report and my authority for answer-
ing in the affirmative the question asked.
Complainant's counsel objects to the last
answer on the ground that the Re-
port referred to is not present and he
has no means of verifying the refer-
ence thereto, or its context, and also
on the ground that it is not referred
to in the answer.
YQ. 92. I have obtained and have present for
convenience of reference the ten years of the
Massachusetts State Board of Health Reports
from 1890 to 1900, and I now ask you whether,
throughout all of those reports now present, up to
1898, you find any suggestion of a non-filtering
tank (not a sewer) used in the process of treat-
ing the sewage, excepting the tank in which the
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
262
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
F. HERBERT SNOW.
preliminary removal of the sludge or solids from
the liquid was accomplished? A. No; under-
standing that the word “tank” excludes from
my answer the tank at the Lawrence experiment
station and also the sewer leading to it, either
separately or taken together.
XQ. 93. What ground have you for stating
that the tank at the Lawrence experimental sta-
tion, referred to in your answer, was not a tank
in which the preliminary removal of the sludge
or solids from the liquid was accomplished? A.
The tank to which I referred in my last answer
is not indicated on any drawing of the Reports
of said Board now before me. By it I did not
mean the main tanks into which the sewage is
pumped for subsidence or other experimental pur-
poses, but a chamber at the foot of the sewer
into which the suction end of the pump is located
and from which the sewage is pumped from the
sewer to the station. I should prefer to substi-
tute for the word “tank” in the last question
the words “pumping chamber,” and even this
chamber dissociated from the sewer leading to
it would not suggest the use of a tank in which
the preliminary removal of sludge or solids from
the liquid was not accomplished.
XQ. 94. I do not think that I quite under-
stand your position, but to get at what I am en-
deavoring to bring out, I will change the form of
my question as follows: -
Throughout all the Reports of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health, prior to 1898, that
we have present (1890 to 1900), do you find any
process for the treatment of sewage described
inconsistent with the principle that you have
263
F. HERBERT SNOW.
stated in your 21st answer, namely, that an in-
dispensable element was “the preliminary re-
moval of the sludge” from the liquid portion of
the sewage? A. No.
XQ. 95. Will you please look at the paper
now shown you and state whether you find it to
correctly quote the Reports of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health, so far as the extracts
which it purports to give from those reports for
the years 1898, 1899, and 1900 are concerned; the
Reports of those years being here present? A.
1 have no doubt it is correct, if I discover any
errors later on I will say so.
Complainant’s counsel has the paper
shown the witness marked for identifica-
tion as “Massachusetts Board of Health
Report on Septic Tank.”
XQ. 96. Do you understand that the follow-
ing in the Massachusetts State Board of Health,
Teport for 1898 referred to the Cameron septic
tank system? (p. 438.)
“SEPTIC, TANK SYSTEM.
“The processes by which this percentage of sus-
pended organic matter can be reduced are now
being taken advantage of by the so-called septic
tank system (first in operation in Exeter, Eng.)
the main feature of which is an air-tight tank into
which the sewage passes to be retained for a time.
in order to allow the bacteria of decomposition,
and subsequently those of putrefaction, to break
up the organic matters into simpler forms. During
the year we have studied this method with very
interesting results.”
A. I understand that the words “so-called
septic tank system” refer to the Cameron Septic
tank system first in operation in Exeter, Eng-
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
264
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
F. HERBERT SNOW.
land. Also, that this “so-called septic tank sys-
tem’’ is stated by the State Board of Health in
said quotation as taking advantage of the pro-
cess by which the percentage of suspended organ-
ic matters can be reduced. I further understand
that this “so-called septic tank system is stated
by the above quotation to consist of certain
features, that is, an air-tight tank, and its object
is to retain sewage for a time in order to allow
certain things to be accomplished. I do not un-
derstand that the whole quotation refers to the
Cameron septic tank system, but more particu-
larly the apparatus by which the process by
which the percentage of suspended organic mat-
ters can be reduced was taken advantage of by
the “so-called septic tank system.”
XQ. 97. Following this mention of the Cana-
eron Septic tank system in the Massachusetts
State Board of Health Reports for 1898, does it
appear from said Report that the Massachusetts
State Board of Health took up the septic tank
subject and experimented with the septic tank
extensively for years? A. Yes.
Adjourned to Friday, June 23, 1905, 10:30
A. M. 3.
New York, June 23rd, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Livingston Gifford, Esq., for com-
plainant; Ephraim Banning, Esq., for defendants.
Cross-Examination of Mr. Snow Continued:
(Witness states as follows:)
I now have before me the 19th Annual Report
of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts
being for the year 1887, to which I referred in
265
F. HERBERT SNOW.
my answer to XQ. 91, quoting from page 101 of
said Report.
XQ. 98. In the Massachusetts State Board of
Health Report for 1887, page 101, does the follow-
ing sentence immediately follow the excerpt you
quoted in answer 91? -
“It takes about half an hour for sewage to pass
from the dye house through the sewer, which is
nearly 3200 feet in the extreme length, to the outlet
where it flows out on the surface of the ground.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 99. Returning now to the experiments of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health, with
the Septic tank system, after the mention of Cam-
eron, how many pages of the Reports of 1898,
1899 and 1890, respectively, do you find devoted
to the experiments with the septic tank system
and the filtration of the septic tank effluent? A.
In answering this question to avoid any mis-
understanding of my meaning of the word “sep-
tic tank” as describing what the State Board of
Health did, I will quote from page 438 of the
Report of the Massachusetts State Board of
Eſeaſth for 1898, said quotation following that
made in XQ. 96:
“During the year we have studied this method
with very interesting results. An air-tight wooden
tank, divided into two compartments by a partition
midway in the tank, has been used as a septic tank.
The sewage flows into one compartment, and over
this partition into the other, from which it is with-
drawn by means of a faucet midway between the
top and bottom of the side of the tank. Thus we
avoid drawing out either the sediment from the
bottom of the tank or the fat and fatty matters
which accumulate upon the surface of the sewage.
The sewage remains in the tank from 24 to 36
hours, and the tank is always kept full, sewage
1321
1322
1323
1324
266
1825
1326
1327
1328
1329
F. HERBERT SNOW.
being run into the tank when any is withdrawn, and
at the same rate.”
Also on page 370 of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health Report for the year 1900, under
the heading “Septic Tank, A Receiving Average
City Sewage.”
“This tank experiment was begun during the
latter part of 1897, and the results obtained up to
Jan. 1, 1900, are given in previous reports. The
construction of the tank during the first year and
a half of its operation was as stated. In the last
report, but a change was made early in 1900,—the
sewage and sludge in the old tank being transferred
to the new one,—and as now constructed it is an
air-tight wooden tank, divided by two partitions
into three equal compartments. Floating parti-
tions also prevent the passage from one compart-
ment to another of the scum on the surface of the
Sewage. The sewage flows through a pipe in the
top of the tank, which empties midway between
the top and bottom of the first compartment, and
is withdrawn from the further end of the tank at
the same depth, the pressure of a body of sewage in
the feed tank above keeping the flow fairly con-
Stant.”
With this understanding of the State Board
of Health septic tank, I answer the question as
follows: In the said 1898 Report, out of 51 pages
devoted to sewage disposal experiments, 8 refer
to the septic tank system and the filtration of the
effluent thereof, and for the 1899 Report, out of
a total of 65 pages devoted to sewage treatment,
14 thereof related to the septic tank and the fil-
tration of its effluent, and in the said 1900 Report,
out of 62 pages devoted to sewage treatment, 22
thereof referred to the septic tank system and
the filtration of the septic tank effluent.
XQ. 100. In view of the statement quoted in
267
F. HERBERT SNOW.
your last answer, that the Septic tank experi-
ments of the Massachusetts State Board of Health
commenced in the latter part of 1897, how long
do you understand that they were in commenc-
ing these Septic tank experiments after learning
about Mr. Cameron’s septic tank at Exeter, Eng-
land? A. I understand that the experiment
with this tank, which the State Board of Health
called a septic tank, because of its then extensive
use as a term in England in connection with the
dissolving process taking place in sewage, was
begun in the latter part of 1897. I do not know
how soon this experiment was started after the
large Exeter tank, which was put in use in the
summer of 1896, came to the notice of the said
Board of Health. It, in my opinion, could not
have been longer than one year previous to the
time the 1897 experiment was started that the
Massachusetts Board were influenced, if in fact
they were influenced at all, by what was done at
Exeter. The reason for this opinion is that Cam-
eron’s first two tanks were small affairs and so
far as I am informed did not attract attention
|broadly.
XQ. 101. Are the following excerpts from the
Massachusetts State Board of Health Reports for
the years 1898 and 1899:
From Report for the year 1898:
“The results obtained from these three filters
are very instructive and show that the septic tank
process for the initiation of the purification of sew-
age is one of much interest.”
From Report for the year 1899:
“From the results obtained in England and at
the Lawrence Experiment Station during 1898 and
1330
1331
1332
1338
1334
268
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
1899 it has been fully demonstrated that the addi-
tion of a septic tank to a sewage purification plant
may be made cf great value in many instances.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 102. As I understand it now, prior to ob-
taining knowledge of Cameron’s septic tank system,
the Massachusetts State Board of Health in its
filtration of sewage had invariably proceeded upon
the principle that (to use your words) “the indis-
pensable element of all these accelerated processes
was the preliminary removal of the sludge.” But
that after obtaining knowledge of the Cameron sep-
tic tank system, said Board instituted the series of
experiments whereby they reached the conclusions
stated in my last question. Is this correct as you
understand it? A. Yes, but I do not mean to be
understood as infering by this answer that the
principle, that “the indispensable element of all
these accelerated processes was the preliminary re-
moval of the sludge ’’ was set aside or in any way
changed. But I do mean that the State Board con:
structed an apparatus which they designated as a
“septic tank,” because this was the term then com-
monly used in reference to an apparatus in which
the solids were separated from the liquids, in which,
at the same time, the advantage of the solvent ac-
tion taking place in tanks was availed of, and in
this apparatus the said Board observed to what ex-
tent the dissolving action could be carried, and the
conclusions referred to in the question relate to the
experiments of the Board whose object was to find
out the limitations of the natural solvent action in
sewage when confined in a tank like the one used
in the experiment.
XQ. 103. And as I understand it, prior to ob-
269
F. HERBERT SNOW.
taining knowledge of Cameron's septic tank system,
the methods employed for the preliminary removal
of the sludge were those set forth in the Report for
the year 1896, (p. 475), namely:
“1. Rapid filtration through coarse gravel with
the aid of a current of air drawn down through the
gravel.
“2. Rapid filtration through coarse gravel with
the aid of a current of air forced up through the
gravel.
“3. Sedimentation.
“4. Chemical precipitation.
“5. Straining through coke.”
Is that as you understand it? A. I find this
same statement in reference to the studies of differ-
ent methods of removing sludge and sewage on
page 463 of the Report of said Board for 1895, in-
cluding one other method:
“Rapid filtration through medium coarse coke,
with a current of air forced up through the coke.”
And on page 458 I find another method mention-
ed as affecting not the preliminary removal of the
sludge, but the preliminary composition of the
sludge before it reaches the filters, which comprises,
as stated on said page 458, and also on page 459 of
the said 1895 Report, a mechanical, chemical and
bacteriological change in the sludge or organic mat-
ter in suspension of importance. This should be
classed with the other methods of preliminary
treatment of sludge mentioned in the question in
order to fully cover said methods, as I understand
them.
XQ. 104. The last paragraph of your last answer
I understand to refer to “stale,” as distinguished
from “fresh ’’ sewage. Do you understand that up
134()
1341
1342
1343
1344
270
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
F. HERBERT SNOW.
to the time they obtained knowledge of Cameron's
Septic tank system, the Massachusetts State Board
of Health in its filtration of sewage had invariably
proceeded upon the principle that the indispensable
element of all these accelerated processes was the
preliminary removal of the sludge from the liquid
whether the sewage was stale or fresh; meaning by
“preliminary removal,” the separation of the
sludge from the liquid so that the sludge
was prevented from going to the filter? A.
Yes, with respect to the high rates of filtration,
but not with respect to slow sand filtration. On
to some of the filters all the constituents of the
sewage, suspended and solid, were applied in crude
form, there being no attempt at a preliminary re-
moval of the solids from the sewage.
XQ. 105. In operating upon stale sewage, what
do you understand to have been the difference in
principle between the manner in which the Massa-
chusetts State Board of Health preliminarily dis-
posed of the sludge before they obtained knowledge
of the Cameron septic tank system, and the man-
ner in which they preliminarily disposed of the
sludge in their septic tank experiments after ob-
taining knowledge of the Cameron septic tank sys-
tem? A. As I understand the question, my answer
is : Before the State Board of Health built, the
tank, they called “septic tank,” certain mechanical,
chemical and bacteriological actions were observed
to have occurred on the passage of the sewage to the
experiment station, which changes were of a char-
acter helpful to the subsequent filtration of the sew-
age, and the difference in principle between what
was observed about these changes before the said
tank experiment and after it, was one of degree and
271
F. HERBERT SNOW.
not of kind. The tank experiment being conducted
to accelerate and extend the mechanical, chemical
and bacterial changes occuring in sewage.
XQ. 106. Would it not be a correct answer to the
last question to say that the principle for prelimi-
nary disposal of the sludge upon which the Massa-
chusetts Board proceeded, prior to obtaining knowl-
edge of the Cameron Septic tank system, was to re-
move the sludge as solid matter from the liquid so
as to prevent it from going to the filter, whereas in
the use of the septic tank after obtaining knowledge
Of the Cameron septic tank system, the Board pro-
ceeded upon the principle of not removing the
sludge as solid matter, but of converting it into a
liquid and permitting it to remain with the original
liquid of the sewage and to go to the filter? A.
NO.
Recess.
XQ. 107. What words in the last question would
have to be changed in order to enable you to answer
in the affirmative? I ask this question because it
Seems to me obvious that my last question states
correctly the practice of the Masachusetts Board
before and after obtaining knowledge of the Cam-
eron Septic tank system, and I therefore assume
that your negative answer must be because I have
inadvertently used some word that you object to.
A. My answer to the last question was not an
evasion of the intent of the question, as I under-
Stand it, nor is it attributable to the inadvertent use
of any word. I based my answer, as I understood
the question to be based, upon the practice of the
Masachusetts Board before and after its use of the
tank called “septic tank,” in 1897.
XQ. 108. In answer 104, you have said that in
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
272
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
F. HERBERT SNOW.
some of the Masachusetts Board operations there
was “no attempt at a preliminary removal of the
solids from the sewage.” In the present question
I do not refer to those cases, but merely to the op-
eration where there was a preliminary removal of
the solids from the sewage, and I ask you whether
the principle of preliminary removal of the solids
from the sewage upon which the Massachusetts
Board proceeded prior to obtaining knowledge of
the septic tank system, involved the removal of the
solid from the liquid, so as to prevent it going to
the filter? A. The question limits my answer to
the operation where there was a preliminary re-
moval of the solid from the sewage, so of course in
all such cases the principle could not do otherwise
than involve the removal of the solid from the liquid
so as to prevent it going to the filter in the form of
solid. But I understand the question to mean more
than this, because it mentions the State Board of
Health’s knowledge of the septic tank system. Said
Board’s knowledge of septic action existed prior to
its use of the term “septic tank” in 1897, as I un-
derstand it, and I have hereinbefore referred to the
Medfield tank, described in the said Board’s report
for 1887, which had for its object more than the
mere separation of the solids from the liquids in
the tank.
So far as the answer refers to the Med-
field tank it is objected to by complain-
ant's counsel as totally irresponsive, and
also because the reference to the Report
of 1887 is not set up in the answer.
XQ. 109. Do you mean by your last answer that
you have used the term “preliminary removal of
273
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
the solid,” to mean the removal of the solid as a
solid from the original liquid of the sewage, as dis.
tinguished from the liquefication of the solid and
permitting it to remain in liquid form with the
Original liquid of the sewage? A. To a greater or
less degree the two operations—the physical re-
moval of a solid as a solid from the liquid by subsi-
dence, and the liquefaction of the solid matters in
suspension—go on simultaneously, and to this ex-
tent, which may be considerable and depending up-
on circumstances, in my answer to XQ. 108, I did
not intend to make any distinction. Confining my-
self, as I understood the question, in the first of the
answer to the physical or mechanical removal of the
solids as a solid.
XQ. 110. Aside from what you have referred to
as the “staling ” of the sewage, is it true that the
principle for the preliminary disposal of sludge on
the way of the sewage to their filters, upon which
the Massachusetts Board proceeded prior to obtain-
ing knowledge of the Cameron septic tank system
was to physically or mechanically remove the
sludge as a solid, and prevent it from going to the
filter, whereas, in the use of the septic tank after
obtaining knowledge of the Cameron septic tank
system, the Board proceeded upon the principle of
not physically or mechanically removing the sludge
as solid, but of convertimig it into a liquid and per-
mitting it to remain with the original liquid of
the sewage and go to the filter? A. In that in-
stance where the Board used such a tank its object.
was; first, to intercept the solids in suspension and
retain them in the tank for the purpose of observing
to what extent these solids would pass into liquid
form, in which liquid form, of course, the sewage
1360
| 361
1362
1363
1364
274
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Would pass out of the tank to the filter. I do not
know When the said Board first knew about what
is now called septic action, but assuming that the
Question intends to fix the date at the time the said
Board used the word “septic,” I answer that, aside
from “staling,” and excluding from my answer the
Medfield tank and also the bacterial method of
crude sludge disposal, the preliminary disposal
of sludge was to physically or mechanically remove
it as a solid and prevent it from going to the filter,
and subsequent to 1897, excluding other methods,
where the septic tank was used, it converted more
or less of the solids into liquid, which liquid was
subsequently filtered.
Answer objected to by complainant’s
counsel as irresponsive, and the attention
of the Court is called to the recent answers
of the witness as showing the utter impos-
sibility of securing replies to questions as
put.
XQ. 111. You have already stated that you testi-
fied in the Pawtucket case as follows:
“R-d-Q. 218. At what point do you draw the line
between a staleing of sewage and a septic action
which is intentionally induced? A. In from six
to eight weeks time the intended action of a septic
tank may be expected to become established and
so far as I am able to judge it will not occur much
before this time. In making this statement I am
referring to the time when the liquefaction of the
solid matters in the bottom of the tank or On the
top of the liquid in the tank begin to be liquefied
to an appreciable extent, and I do not refer to the
putrifying action which exists even to some extent,
possibly, in the sewage before it enters the tank.”
In the preliminary treatment to which the sewage
275
F. HERBERT SNOW.
was subjected on its way to filters of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health, prior to their obtain-
ing knowledge of the Cameron septic tank system,
on which side of the “line '’ that you there drew be-
tween “staling of sewage * and “septic action,” did
they proceed? A. Prior to 1897, so far as I know,
there was no attempt at the Lawerence experiment
station of said Board to carry the dissolving action
in sewage to such a substantial degree as to inten-
tionally liquefy all the suspended solids contained
in the sewage.
XQ. 112. But after the Massachusetts State
Board of Health obtained knowledge of the Camer-
on septic tank system, the statement of your last
answer did not continue to be true, did it? A. No,
not after 1897.
XQ. 113. Is the following an excerpt from an
article published in the Engineering News of
August 4, 1898, here present, by H. W. Clark,
Chemist Of the State Board of Health of Massachu-
setts, Department of Water Supply and Sewerage,
Lawrence, Mass., entitled “Massachusetts Experi-
ments on the Purification of Fresh, Stale and Sep-
tic Sewage.”
“Quoting from our Reports I have given experi-
ments showing the change in the composition of
sewage with increased age; showing also the loss of
crude organic matter taking place as sewage grows
older; and showing the greater ease with which
intermittent sand filters can dispose of stale sew-
age than flesh sewage. These facts are now being
taken advantage of by the so-called septic tank
system first in operation in Exeter, England. This
is an air-tight tank into which the sewage passes
and is retained for a time in Order to alllow the
bacteria of decomposition and putrefaction to
break up the organic matters into simpler form and
1870
1371
1372
1373
1374
276
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
F. HERBERT SNOW.
thus reduce the insoluble matter or sludge by
causing a considerable portion of the carbon and
nitrogen to be so changed that it is either in solu-
tion in the sewage or will pass away from it in the
form of gas. As I have said, I have given data
showing that the action by which this process is
made successful have been thoroughly understood
by us for a considerable time, and the fact that
sewage would lose a certain percentage of crude
organic matter when held in a body has certainly
been known. Anyone who has ever had any experi-
Gnce With or noted the changes taking place in an
ordinary cesspool must have had their attention
drawn to this fact. We have not, however, ever
considered that these actions could be utilized as
now proposed by the septic tank system.” We have
however studied the method to some extent during
the past few months with very interesting results.
The sewage remains in our tank 24 to 36 hours and
is drawn from a faucet midway between the top
and bottom and the side of the tank as at Exeter.
We thus avoid drawing out the sediment from the
bottom Of the tank and the fat and fatty matters
Which accumulate upon the surface of the sewage.”
A. Yes.
|XQ. 114. Were you acquainted with this W.
H. Clark, Chemist of the State Board of Health
in Massachusetts? A. Yes.
XQ. 115. Do you know for how many years
he was connected with the Board? A. Mr.
Clark was an assistant chemist in 1892, and be-
came the chemist in charge of the Lawrence ex-
periment station in 1895, speaking from recol-
lection, and has held the position continuously
until today.
XQ. 116. Is Mr. Clark’s article, from which
the last quotation was taken, introduced by the
following paragraph?
“For the past ten years systematic investigation
277
F. HERBERT SNOW.
in regard to methods of sewage purification have
been carried on by the State Board of Health of
Masachusetts at the Lawrence Experiment Station
which was established largely for that purpose.
Many of these investigations can be properly
classed under the head of experiments upon purifi-
cation by intermittent filtration, and many modifi-
cations of intermittent filtration have been studied.
Moreover, all these studies have been carried on
not with the idea of obtaining results only, but of
rmaking clear the essential principles by which the
purification of sewage can be effected. It seems
to be an opportune time to say this and to present
a brief review of a portion of the work of the sta-
tion during its first eight or nine years of opera-
tion, and also of the results of some investigations
recently made on account of the considerable quan-
tity of literature recently published in regard to
the results obtained by the so-called septic tank sys-
Lem and bacterial filters of England.”
A. Yes.
YQ. 117. Prior to 1897, or about the time
when the knowledge of the Cameron septic tank
of Exeter, England, came to this country, what
were the most reliable text-books in existence on
the Subject of sewage disposal? A. Col. George
E. Waring's books, Society publications, the En-
gineering News and the Engineering Record,
Rafter & Baker’s book and Santo-Crimp’s work,
come to my mind. Mr. Crimp’s book comes the
nearest to being a treatise on Sewage disposal.
Rafter & Baker’s book is most reliable and
gives in condensed form American practice, but
it is by no means a treatise or complete in detail.
Even at the present time there is no book which
adequately treats of the whole subject of Sewage
disposal.
Adjourned to Saturday, June 24, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
/ sº
* ** - ---
1380
1381
1382
1883
1384
278
1385
1886
1387
1388
1889
F. HERBERT SNOW.
New York, June 24th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Cross-Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
XQ. 118. Do you consider that it was respon-
sive to the last question which inquired exclu-
sively for text-books for you to include such pe-
riodical newspapers as the Engineering News and
the Engineering Record? A. Possibly not. The
weekly publications of the Engineering News and
the Engineering Record could not be said to be
text-books.
XQ. 119. Are the following excerpts from the
Santo-Crimp book of 1890 entitled “Sewage Dis-
posal Works?”
On page 21, quoting from the “Report of the
Committee Appointed by the Corporation of Glas-
gow in 1880, to Inquire Into the Various Meth-
ods of Sewage Disposal’’:
“The sewage sludge is the troublesome, not to
say dangerous element in all such processes, espe-
cially that from lime precipitation, which changes
more rapidly than that produced by the action of
alumina or oxide of iron. The first and absolutely
essential preliminary to the adoption of any method
of treatment by precipitation is to arrange for the
systematic removal of the sludge from the works.
To begin sewage treatment without this is to end
in the creation of a gigantic nuisance and become
involved in an almost hopeless struggles to sup-
press it. Sewage sludge may be disposed of in four
ways—it may be compressed into portable cakes;
or it may be conveyed in a semi-fluid condition to
the open sea; or it may be used to make up waste
land; or it may be dug into the ground so produc-
ing a highly fertile soil.” *
279
F. HERBERT SNOW.
On page 23, quoting from the “Conclusions of
the Commissioners Appointed by the Municipal
Authorities of the City of Turin to Inquire Into
the Methods Adopted for the Disposal of Refuse
in Various European Towns”:
“The only method recognized up to the present
time as really efficacious for the puryfication of
sewage is irrigation carried out in a proper way
upon suitable soil; after the separation of the sus-
pended matters this method is deprived of danger
and inconvenience and in our district should give
the best agricultural results.”
On page 54:
“ SETTLING TANKS.
“The primary object of the settling tank at sew-
age disposal works is the separation of the sus-
pended matters from the liquid sewage together
with a certain proportion of the dissolved impuri-
ties, the design of the tank should be such as to
bring the sewage to rest or nearly so in the shortest
title practicable and admit of the solid matters be-
ing removed with the minimum labor.
“ Continuous v. Absolute Best System.—The de-
tails will to some extent depend upon the mode of
treatment of the sewage and whether the ‘con-
tinuous ' or ‘absolute rest ' method is adopted.
In the former case, the sewage is allowed to pass
continuously through the tank, but the forward
movement is sufficiently retarded to admit of the
solid being deposted, while in the latter case a tank
is filled with sewage and after a certain period of
Quiescence the liquid is drawn off, leaving the
solids on the floor of the tank. At first sight it
would appear that the absolute rest system is the
pro ferable, since the deposition of the solids would
more likely be perfectly effected; but after trying
both systems the author found that the continuous
System possesses certain advantages which more
than compensate for the absence of absolute rest.
“Cleansing of Tamks—When a tank has been fill-
ed, and, after deposition of the solids, the clarified
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
280
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
F. HERBERT SNOW.
water has been drawn off, the sludge remains on
the floor of the tank, and unless this is removed
with each operation, the re-admission of the sewage
is attended with a stirring up of the sludge—it is
Washed in short—and the sewage becomes unduly
chargeſt with the dissolved matters contained in the
sludge. The cleansing of the tank after each time
of filling is an expensive operation.
“When the continuous system is adopted, the
sGwage quietly flows through the tank, or a series
of tanks, and if the forward rate is such that two
hours elapse between the time of its entry and exit,
the suspended solids will be effectively removed,
provided suitable chemicals have been properly
used in the treatment of the sewage. In this system
the tank should be cleansed at least Once in three
days, as the decomposition of the settled sludge is
attended with the production of foul gases, princi-
pally carburretted hydrogen (marsh gas) which
causes the sludge to rise to the surface in great
nasses, slowly to subside again on the liberation
of the gases. The effect of the second admixture
of the sludge with the sewage is to cause the latter
to become very foul and as the lightest and most
Offensive matters are the last to settle and the first
to rise again, and as these matters subside near the
Outlet of the tank, the importance of keeping the
tanks clean can not be too strongly urged.”
A. Yes. *
XQ. 120. In view of that part of the above
quotation from Santo-Crimp's book of 1890, stat-
ing that
the tanks should be cleansed at least once in three
days, as the decomposition of the settled sludge is
attended with.” &c.
I ask you whether you find any statement in this
book to the effect that any advantage could be
obtained by the putrefaction of the sludge in the
tank? A. I find on page 90 of said book the fol-
lowing:
281
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“The first step towards the disposal of sewage
Sludge is the separation from the solids of as much
Water as possible in the shortest practicable time,
in Order, first, that the bulk may be reduced, and,
Secondly, that time should not be given for the
production of the foul gasses of putrefaction.”
I take this clause to indicate the trend in prac-
tice with regard to the modes of disposal of
Sludge referred to in this book, but I wish to add
that at this time I am not positive that there is
not Some statement in the said book to the effect
that any advantage could be obtained by the de-
composition or putrefaction of the sludge in the
tank. The affecting of solids in suspension by
the putrefactive action is mentioned in several
places in the book, and it may be, upon further
examination of said book, that the putrefaction
of sludge in the tank may be mentioned in con-
nection with the advantage of the action, but I
think not.
XQ. 121. Are the following excerpts from the
Rafter & Baker book of 1894, commencing page
207:
“METHODS OF SILUDGE DISPOSAL.
“Practiable methods of disposing of sludge may
be classified as:
(1). The sludge may be allowed to flow or may
be pumped into sludge basins, from which it is sub-
sequently conveyed, either by gravity or steam
power, to adjacent areas, to be utilized as an agri-
Cultural fertilizer.
(2). The sludge may be deposited in large open
basins, surrounded by embankments, where it is
allowed to remain until the larger portion of the
water has evaporated or drained away, after which
it is removed by carts or other coveyavice, either
for use as a fertilizer, or to some other point for
final disposal, as in filling in low land,
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
282
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
F. HERBERT SNOW.
(3). Liquid sludge may be run directly on to
agricultural areas, and efficiently disposed of by
ploughing into the soil as soon as possible.
(4). Sludge, either in the liquid state or after
partial desiccation, may be mixed with combusti-
bles, such as peat, tambark, and Sawdust, and dis-
posed of by burning.
(5). Sludge may be mixed with earth, rubbish,
vegetable mold, marl, gypsum, stable manure,
leaves, or other suitable materials, to form com-
post heaps, and in this manner finally utilized as
Illa, Ill II’6”.
(6). Liquid sludge may, when disposal works
are situated within reach of a large and deep body
of water ( and for this purpose tide-water is prefer-
able), be disposed of "by running into dumping
scows which convey it to deep water where it may
be dumped. The minimum distance at which this
operation may be safely performed in large bodies
of fresh water, like the great lakes, which are also
the source of public water supplies, is as yet entire-
ly unknown.
(7). Sludge may be burned in a furnace of form
similar to a garbage destructor, or in a garbage
destructor in connection with garbage, as at Coney
Island, N. Y.
(8). Sludge may be compressed by a filter press
into solid cakes, in which form it may be handled
and conveniently transported for use as a fertil-
120 I’.
“The use of the filter press has considerably
simplified the handling of sludge, which, previous
to its introduction, was a source of great difficulty
at nearly all precipitation works. At present filter
presses are in use at only two places in this coun-
try, namely, at East Orange and at Long Branch.
For a statement of some of the results at East
Orange, the reader is referred to Chapter XXIV.,
treating of the works at that place.
“Sludge, as it ordinarily comes from settling
tanks, operated by either the intermittent or con-
tinuous system, contains from 90 to 95 per cent.
water and from 5 to 10 per cent. solid matter.”
283
I'. HERBERT SNOW.
Also, on page 204:
“CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESS.
“(4). That the arrangements for removing the
sludge be such as to insure its frequent removal,
for if left in the tanks until putrefaction sets in the
sludge is likely to rise to the surface, giving off foul
Odors.”
A. Yes.
XQ. Tº?. I understand the following to be ex-
cerpts from Waring’s book on “Modern Methods
of Sewage Disposal,” 1894 Edition. We have not
that Edition here present, but I will ask you to
verify these excerpts and report as to their ac-
curacy at a subsequent Session.
On page 12:
“In practical work, two cardinal principles
should be kept in view and should control our
action:
(a) Organic wastes must be discharged at the
sewer outlet in their fresh condition—before putre-
fuction has set in; and
(b) They must be reduced to a state of com-
plete oa;idation without the intervention of danger-
ous or offensive decomposition.”
On page 57:
“THE PREPARATION OF SEWAGE FOR,
TREATMENT.
“The coarser constituents, or such of them at
least as will not be broken üp in the earlier stages
of disposal, should be removed by screening. To
remove them by sedimentation in tanks, as is not
unusual, leads to putrefaction, and is not admissi-
ble in good work. Horizontal screens where the
conditions admit of their use are better than verti-
cal Ones as they are more easily cleared of their
accumulations and are more complete in their
action. After screening the sewage will still con-
tain a good deal of suspended matter, fibrous and
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
284
1415
1416
1417
| 4 || 8
1419
F. HERBERT SNOW.
other, which constitutes sludge in the case of pre-
cipitation, and which is an embarrassment in irri-
gation and still more in filtration. It should be
removed as completely as possible in the work of
preparation.
“As a matter of fact, such preparatory treat
ment opens a field for invention and improvement
that is well worth exploiting.”
A. I will do so.
XQ. 123. I now turn to some of the text-books
in this art written and published subsequent to
the introduction of the knowledge of Cameron's
Septic tank system at Exeter, England.
Is the following an excerpt from the book en-
titled “Sewage and the Bacterial Purification of
Sewage,” by Samuel Ridel, Fellow of University
College, London; Fellow of the Institute of Chem-
istry, of the Chemical Society, and of the Sani-
tary Institute of Great Britain; Vice-President of
the Society of Public Analysists; published in
1891; page 203:
0 “In 1895 Mr. Cameron, City Purveyor of Exe-
ter, introduced his “septic tank” process for the
treatment of a portion of the sewage of the city,
comprising about 1500 to 2000 persons on the com-
bined system, with a volume of approximately
50,000 gallons. The tank is cemented water-tight,
and banked below the ground to keep it from
changes of temperature, the top being arched over
and covered with turf, so that light and air are
excluded. The raw sewage, without screening or
any preliminary treatment, enters by two inlets
which are carried down five feet below the surface
in order that the entry may be quiet so as not to
disturb the bacterial layers, also, that air may not
be carried in, nor any gases escape back to the
sewer. After passing through a ‘grit chamber’ 10
feet deep by 7 feet long, and of the same width as
the tank (18 feet), the sewage flows over a wall
285
F. HERBERT SNOW.
submerged one foot below the surface into the main
portion of the tank which is 56 feet 10 inches in
length, 7 feet 6 inches in depth, and 18 feet wide,
its capacity up to the level of the liquid being
53,800 gallons or approximately a day’s Supply.
Hence the transit of the sewage is ordinarily very
gradual, averaging about 24 hours in the tank, so
as to give ample time and quiet for the changes.
“From the inspection chamber it is seen that a
leathery scum from 2 to 6 inches thick, according
to the position, collects on the surface and renders
the whole anaerobic. Below this is a zone of fer-
mentation, but bubbles of gas keep the liquid in a
state of quiet admixture. At the bottom of the
tank there is a layer of the dark peaty matter
previously referred to (p. 87), which is so small in
amount that during a period of one year’s working
it does not require to be removed. It is reported
since that after three years without etearing the
amount of sediment or residue from the sewage and
excreta of a population of 1500 was under 4 feet
deep. The insoluble organic matter has been grad-
ually broken up by the bacteria, while the inor-
ganic substances have been kept in suspension by
the gases and have passed off in the flow so that the
quantity does not sensibly increase.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 124. Is the following an excerpt from the
book entitled “Municipal Engineering and Sani-
tation,” by M. N. Baker, Associate Editor of En-
gineering News, published in 1902, page 145:
“Within the past few years studies made in Eng-
land and America, have shown that the old-fash-
ioned cesspool, dangerous as it has been oftentimes,
was not wholly bad and that in those dark and ill-
ventilated chambers the anaerobic bacteria, have
been carrying on their work unseen and unknown.
Bv changing the form and proportion of the cess-
pool to an elongated tank, providing preliminary
grit chambers for the deposit of sand and other
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
286
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
F. HERBERT SNOW.
fixed mineral matter, and arranging for the con-
tinuous flow of sewage through the tanks at , a
very low rate the suspended organic matter has
been retained to be acted on by the anaerobic bac-
teria at their leisure. Such solid organic matter
as has passed on and out with the partially clarified
effluent, has been either in the dissolved form or in
a finely divided state that will readily dissolve.
Under this system the sludge in the septic tank,
as this reservoir is called, accumulates very slowly
owing to the fact that so much of the organic mat-
ter is changed to gaseous forms, water, and dis-
solved nitrogenous matter. Consequently, the
sludge problem, incident to chemical precipitation
and more or less troublesome in broad irrigation
and intermittent filtration, largely disappears
with the septic tank. The effluent from these tanks
contains about as much organic matter as ‘that
from chemical precipitation works. But in a form
much more suitable for further transformation.
A little aeration and it may be passed to filter beds
Where aerobic bacteria complete the process.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 125. Is the following an excerpt from the
book published in 1904, entitled “The Purifica-
tion of Sewage, Being a Brief Account of the
Scientific Principles of Sewage Purification and
their Practical Application,” by Sidney Barwise,
Fellow of the Sanitary Institute, Medical Officer
of Health of the Derbyshire County Council (page
87):
“It was left, however, to Cameron of Exeter to
be the first to successfully deal with the sewage of
a town by first liquefying the sewage and then
oxidizing or nitrifying it on bacteria beds.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 126. Are the following excerpts from the
book published in 1905, entitled “Sewerage, the
Designing, Construction and Maintenance of Sew-
287
E. HERBERT SNOW.
erage System,” by A. Prescott Folwell, Member
American Society Civil Engineers; Member
American Society of Municipal Improvement;
Associate Professor of Municipal Engineering,
Lafayette College (pages 4 and 13):
“It seems advisable to speak thus at length on
this subject for the reason that many intelligent
persons look with favor on the cesspool as a sani-
tary contrivance, whereas in most cases it is one
of the greatest abominations permitted in any
civilized community.
“The general adoption of the septic tank (see
Art. 98), which has been called the “glorified cess-
pool,’ cannot properly be used as an excuse for the
cesspool. In reality the two differ in every essen-
tial. In no satisfactory septic tank (ioes the sew-
age remain longer than 24 or at most 48 hours.
Even then there are given off large quantities of
gases which no one would think of piping into his
house as is practically done from most cesspools.
A comparison of cesspools with septic tanks does
not touch upon the objections to the former that its
use scatters a large number of centers of soil pollu-
tion throughout a closely populated area.”
Also at page 423: *
“The septic tank consists essentially of a rect-
angular tank through which the sewage flows con-
tinuously and so slowly as to permit all suspended
matters to settle to the bottom or collect upon the
surface, the sewage being drawn off by a horizontal
slot a foot or so below the surface. The floating
matter forms a scum from two or three to thirty
inches thick, which teems with bacteria. The size
of the tank varies in different plants, capacity of
from one-fourth to twice the sewage flow per
twenty-four hours having been given. Probably
the majority have a capacity of about the daily
flow. It was at first thought necessary to exclude
air and light from the tank by means of a roof or
cover, but the experiments at Lawrence and Man-
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
288
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
chester have shown this to be unnecessary. It is
thought desirable, however, to cause the sewage to
enter the tank beneath the surface of its contents
that air may be excluded; and the scum probably
serves to exclude both light and air from above.
The depths of the tanks which have been built
varies from three and a half to ten feet. Since
the scum may occupy two feet or more and the
sediment half this depth, it would seem desirable
to make the tank at least five feet deep and probably
six or eight feet would be better. Too great depth
Or width would render it difficult to cause uniform
flow throughout the tank which is essential. The
areas of the tanks vary from 16 by 37 feet to 18 by
100 feet.”
A. Yes.
ReceSS.
XQ. 127. If you have access to the Journal of the
New England Water Works Association, will you
please ascertain and state at a future session,
whether the following is an excerpt from a paper
on “The Purification of Sewage by Bacterial
Methods,” read on or about July 2, 1901, by Dr.
Leonard P. Kinnicutt, Professor of Chemistry,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
“The real practical value of the septic tank is
that it destroys suspended matter without form-
ingany very great amount of sludge or precipitate,
thus having an advantage over any chemical pre-
cipitation process; that it seems to bring cellulose
into at least partial solution, thus preventing the
coating over of bacteria beds, either those of inter-
mittent filtration or contact, with a layer more or
less impervious to water; that it breaks up the
more complex organic compounds, forming sub-
stances that are more easily acted upon by the nit-
rifying bacteria than the compounds in raw sew-
age. In a few words, it is a process which pre-
pares the sewage for subsequent treatment on bac-
terial beds, either those of the double contact sys-
289
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tem or those of the intermittent filtration system.
And if I were asked what was the most important
step made in sewage treatment during the past ten
years, or since the report of the , Massachusetts
State Board of Health, I think I would answer, the
recognition that sewage purification should, for the
best results, take place in two stages, and the devis-
ing of a method, as the septic tank treatment, for
breaking up the complex organic compounds and
bring a large part of the suspended matter in solu-
tion. Without some preliminary treatment, I feel
convinced that any systems of treating large quan-
tities of sewage on limited areas like the double
contact system, is doomed to failure, and I also
feel convinced that with the intermittent filtration
method much more satisfactory results could be
obtained if the sewage first received septic treat-
ment.”
And will you also verify, if you can, the following
excerpt from Professor Kinnicutt’s paper, publish-
ed in the Journal of the Association of Engineering
Society, June 1903, page 323:
“During the past two years the septic tank has
grown in favor and has been installed in a great
many places in England and the general Opinion is
that it certainly has its place in the bacterial puri-
fication of sewage. g & It pre-
vents to a large degree the clogging of bacterial
beds. It liquefies or changes into gaseous products
a portion of the suspended matter at the bottom
of the tank, thus reducing the amount of sludge.
It renders as a rule the sewage more easily acted
upon by nitrifying bacteria.”
A. I will.
XQ. 128. How does Professor Kinnicutt stand
as an authority in this art? A. He is one of the
leaders in America.
XQ. 129. Is the following an excerpt from an
opinion given by you to the City of Baltimore and
published in the Baltimore News of May 22, 1905:
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
290 wº
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“Baltimore would make no mistake if it installed
a septic tank system, employing, for instance, sand
filters for secondary treatment. Such a system
would give absolute satisfaction in Baltimore,
especially in view of the fact that the disposal plant
there will not have to take care of storm Water but
will be limited to sewage proper. That simplifies
the problem materially. The fact that a septic-
tank-sand-filter system has never been built on a
scale as large as would be necessary in Baltimore
is of no consequence. The system has proved itself
thoroughly capable of taking care of 2,000,000 or
50,000,000 gallons of sewage a day, provided that
the plant is large enough. The only problem for
Baltimore will be to build big enough septic tanks
and sufficiently large filter beds.”
A. Said quotation in the Baltimore News pur-
ports to be an opinion given by me to the City of
Baltimore. I have given no such opinion to the
City of Baltimore, nor any other opinion.
XQ. 130. Do you mean to say that you did not
furnish any foundation whatsoever for the publica-
tion quoted in the last question? A. The founda-
tion for the quotation was laid in a conversation
I had with a Baltimore News staff correspondent.
XQ. 131. So far as the excerpt above quoted is
concerned, does it embody with substantial correct-
ness a portion of what you said at that interview?
A. Yes.
XQ. 132. Does the following excerpt from the
Baltimore News article of May 22, 1905, also rep-
resent substantially what you said at that inter-
View 2
“The following table gives the rates in gallons
per acre of filtering surface daily which may be
maintained by the several processes.
291
F. HERBERT SNOW. 1450
Method of Rate of
Preliminary Operation
Kind of Treatment of Type of (Gallons)
Sewage. Suspended Solids. Bacterial Filter. Per Acre Daily.
Fresh -- No Treatment - - - - - - - - Slow Sand -------------- 100,000
Stale- - - Plain Subsidence - - - - - - Sand ------------------- 150,000
“ - - -Chemical Subsidence-- “ ------------- - - - - - - 200,000–360,000
“ - - - Coke Straining - - - - - - - “ ------------------- 320,000
** - - - Gravel Filtration, aided
by current of air---- “ ------------------- 660,000 1451
“ - - - No Treatment - - - - - - - - Spraying Coke ---------- 600,000
“ . . . “ “ -------- Double Coke- - - - - - - - - - - - 600,000
66 Plain Subsidence } Continuous Aerobic -- 1,400.000
* * * * * * * * * * * Lºº º Aº Lº *...* * * * * * * * * * * * Broken Stone - - - - - - 9 Jºv - 9
Septic -- In Septic Tank - - - - - - - Sand ------------------- 40,000—150,000
“ . . . . “ “ ------- Spraying Sand ---------- 300,000
“ . . . . “ “ ------- Contact ---------------- 660,000–800,000
“ . . . . “ “ ------- Continuous Sprinkling- - - 1,400,000 ‘’
A. Yes, the rates in the table are for gallons per
acre daily of filtering surface. 1452
XQ. 133. When you drew the line between
“staling of sewage” and “septic action ” in
answers 82 and 83, you defined the septic action as
the “establishment of the equilibrium between the
accumulated solids in the tanks plus those being
constantly added thereto by the inflow of the sew-
age, and the bacterial activity whereby further ac- 1453
cumulations are prevented.” Was it in that sense
that you employed the word “septic ’’ as dis-
tinguished from “stale * sewage in the table quot-
ed in the last question? A. Yes.
XQ. 134. Are the following excerpts from your
Pawtucket testimony heretofore referred to, in rela-
tion to the distinction between settling tanks and 1454
septic tanks, (page 312):
“Q. 4. What is the difference between the
structure and operation of settling tanks and sep-
tic tanks? A. In answering this question I un-
derstand that the term ‘septic tank” refers to Mr.
Cameron's tank at Exeter, England, or one like
it in design or purpose, since this word was the
292
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
F. HERBERT SNOW.
term Cameron used to designate his apparatus,
and, so far as I know, was the first use of this
Word as applied to sewage disposal, and we may
fix the date of this use of the word, which has
Since become widely accepted, by the date of
the English patent, which was about April, 1896.
With this understanding, the substantial differ-
ence between the two is this: That the septic
tank is a settling tank in which the suspended
Solids are retained in a constant depth of water
for an indefinite period for the intentional pur-
pose of Securing their dissolution by the putre-
factive process, while the settling tank, perhaps
exactly similar in every respect except that of
manner of operation, is a structure in which the
settled solids are retained in the tanks for brief
periods only and are removed at short intervals
and in a comparatively fresh condition. The
time that the solids are retained in the tank is
one of the essential differences. The maintenance
of a constant level of sewage in the tanks and
the continuous principle of operation as distinct
from the intermittent principle are the other es-
sential differences.”
(Page 332):
‘‘I have observed that from eight to twelve
weeks may elapse from the starting of a septic
tank before there is rapid evolution of gas, and
during this time the solids accumulate very rap-
idly. A settling tank, operated simply as a set-
tling tank, that is, requiring the drawing off of
the accumulated sludge every few days, prevents
the ripening of affect in bacterial growth within
the tank and consequently interferes with and
prevents the proper effective development of the
liquefying bacteria. I do not mean to be under-
stood as saying that substantial septic action may
not be secured in less than eight weeks or more
than twelve weeks, but from my observation and
experience with average sewage I believe that the
time will be in the vicinity of eight to twelve
weeks.”
293
F. HERBERT SNOW.
(P. 383):
“The proper use of the term ‘septic tank’ in-
volves its application to that apparatus in which
the Solids are retained for an indefinite period
for the purpose of Securing substantial liquefac-
tion of the solids which have subsided in the tank
by the natural action of gravity.”
(Page 388):
“XQ. 71. One advantage of retaining your
Septic tanks over replacing them by settling
tanks is that you have no sludge to dispose of ex-
cept at the end of long periods of time, as I under-
stand it; is that so? A. Precisely. The prime
object of the septic tank is to facilitate the
handling of the sludge whose disposition in any
case is the great problem.
“YQ. 72. And as to the disposition of certain
contents it is also an advantage of the Septic tank
that its functions include, as stated by the State
Board of Health Report for 1900, page 371, “the
hydrolosis and transformation into gases of cel-
lulose in Sewage, such as paper, rags, vegetable
matter, etc., is it not? A. In practice consid-
erable of this material is not liquefied or trans-
formed into gases and remains in the tank with
mineral matters to be finally removed and dis-
posed of, but to the extent that these matters are
liquefied or gasified, it is an advantage since it
reduces the amount of matter to be removed from
the bottom of the tank.
XQ. 73. Another advantage of your septic
tanks is that the effluent, as you say in answer
to Q. 69, ‘imposes less work upon the oxidizing
bedſ?’ A. Yes.
“XQ. 74. Is it also an advantage of your sep-
tic tank that the secondary beds work equally
well in summer and in winter? A. The oxidiz-
ing beds of our plants do not effect as thorough
nitrification in winter as in summer, so they do
not work equally well, but the said oxidizing beds
undoubtedly work better in winter than they
would were not the suspended solids of the Sew-
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
294
1465
1466
1467
| 468
1469
F. HERBERT SNOW.
age partially intercepted in the septic tank and
partially liquefied and gasified therein.
“XQ. 75. It is also an advantage of your sep-
tic tanks, is it not, that its effluent has less con-
tents requiring mere straining than the effluent
of Settling tanks would have—I refer to strain-
ing as contradistinguished from oxidation as re-
ferred to by you in answer to Q. 7? A. Yes.”
A. Yes.
XQ 135. Using the term “septic tank” in the
sense in which you used it in the above quotations
from your testimony, and using the term “septic
action ” substantially as you have defined it in your
answers 82, 83 and 133, namely: the “establishment
of the equilibrium between the accumulated solids
in the tank plus those being constantly added there-
to by the inflow of the sewage, and the bacterial ac-
tivity whereby further accumulations are prevented
—using those terms with those significations, please
state all of the publications and patents in the
prior art among those referred to irº any part of
your testimony, wherein you allege that such “sep-
tic tank º' or such “septic action ” was described?
A. I understand this question as not relating to
apparatus, but rather to the intentional use of
substantial septic action in tanks, and I answer
accordingly: German patent, No. 9792 of 1878, to
Alexander Muller; French patent, No. 144,904, of
1881, to Louis Mouras; U. S. patent, No. 268,120, to
L. Mouras, Nov. 28, 1882; British patent, No. 5391 of
1881, to William R. Lake, (this British patent, No.
3203 of 1868, being the Britsh Mouras patent), to
Gavin Chapman; British patent, No. 1706 of 1870,
to Bevan G. Sloper; British patent, No. 7134, of
1887, to Wilhelm Gurtler; U. S. patent, No. 258,-
744, of 1882, to Amasa S. Glover; U. S. patent, No.
295
F. HERBERT SNOW.
424,838, April 1, 1890, to F. L. Union, (as applied
in practice at Milford); U. S. patent No. 530,622,
Dec. 11, 1894, to W. D. Scott-Moncrieff. Dibdin's
Report to the London County Council, Oct. 1895,
describing his Sutton contact filter tanks. Des-
cription of Alexander Muller’s experiments. Trans-
actions of the Journal of Society of Arts. Transla-
tion of Mouras’ French patent, and in reference to
Mouras' apparatus, Vol. XLVIII, 1882, page 50,
Vol. LXXII, 1883, page 359, and Vol. LXXVIII,
1884, page 502, of the Minutes of Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineers and Engineering News,
April 15, 1882, and Professor L. Pagliani’s paper
before the International Congress of Hygiene at
London, 1891.
Extracts of British Press Publications, with re-
spect to Scott-Moncrieff’s Process.
From Waring's books, as follows:
His 1876 book, with respect to a grease trap and
tight cess-pools.
In his 1891 book, entitled “Sewerage and Land
Drainage,” page 287, page 288, and 291.
In his 1894 book on “Modern Methods of Sewage
Disposal,” page 216, 218.
Catalogue, entiled “Flush Tank Company, Chi-
cago,” 1892, page 24 and 26.
Sanitary Engineer, May 10, 1883, describing
Phillbrick’s apparatus.
19th Annual Report of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health, for 1887, pages 100 and 101 and
102.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, February, 1887, describing tanks at
Lawrenceville, N. J.
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
296
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Rafter & Baker's book page 507, describing the
tank at the Massachusetts School for Feeble Mind-
ed.
British patent, 3312 of 1890, to Adeney & Parry.
I believe the above list to answer the question,
but possibly I may have overlooked some instances.
In the above references, hereinbefore, I have fully
described what they comprise, the said descriptions
appearing on the record.
Adjourned to Monday, June 26th, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 26th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel, as before.
Cross Examination of Mr. Snow Continued :
Since it does not apear whether the vari-
ous quotations made from the prior art
publications by Mr. Snow, or the copies
thereof introduced in evidence are in all
cases complete copies of the particular
matter referred to and its curitext, com-
plainant’s counsel now makes a general ob-
jection to each and all of them as incom-
plete and fragmentary.
Complainant’s counsel also objects to
the quotations and exhibits of and refer-
ences to the Pagliani article, on the ground
that it does not appear to have been a
printed publication in the sense of the
statute and that its date of publication, if
ever, does not appear.
Complainant’s counsel also objects to
the translation as to the Alexander Muller
device, quoted at the beginning of answer
297
F. HERBERT SNOW.
26, On the ground that it does not appear
whether it was published prior to Novem-
ber 11, 1898, the date of the Journal of the
Society of Arts, Vol. XLVI.
Complainant’s counsel notes of record,
that the Waring books of 1876 and 1894,
have not as yet been produced, and there-
fore objects to the quotations and exhibits
therefrom and references thereto, as incom-
petent.
Defendants’ counsel notes of record, a
willingness to produce the books referred
to and any other books desired, at any time
upon reasonable notice, and states, that
the reason why all books referred to by the
witness have not been present during the
entire examination is that the same have to
be obtained from libraries and can not be
kept out indefinitely, or, as a general rule,
for more than one day at a time.
Complainant’s counsel states that he has
not objected to anything which has been
present at any part of Mr. Snow’s deposi-
tion which appears upon its face to have
been a printed publication in the sense of
the statute.
Complainant's counsel objects to the
Catalogue of the Flush Tank Company on
the ground that it does not appear to be a
printed publication within the meaning of
the statute, and furthermore that its date
of publication, if ever, does not appear.
Complainant’s counsel objects to the
quotations and exhibit from and the ref-
erences to the “Extracts from the Press
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
298
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
F. HERBERT SNOW.
on the Scott-Moncrieff System,” on the
ground that it does not appear to have been
a printed publication in the sense of the
statute and its date of publication, if ever,
does not competently appear.
Complainant’s counsel objects to the
Quotations and exhibits from and refer-
ences to the “T)ibdin Report to London
County Counsel,” on the ground that the
publication in which it appears does not
appear to have been published until 1902.
This objection holds good also as to all
other quotations and exhibits from and
reference to the publication entitled “The
Interim Report of the Commissioners Ap-
pointed in 1898 to Inquire and Report
what Methods of Treating and Disposing
of Sewage may be Properly Adopted.”
XQ. 136. After the adjournment over Sunday,
do you wish to add to the references given in
answer to the last question? A. I have given
no further consideration to the matter during the
adjournment.
XQ. 137. If you desire to add any reference
in answer to XQ. 135, to those already contained
in that answer, please do so now. A. I think I
have nothing further to add. *
|XQ. 138. For the convenience of the Court I
desire to have a list of the references cited by you
in answer to XQ. 135, arranged in such a way
that the various references descriptive of the
same apparatus or process or inventor, are ar-
ranged together, and I have therefore prepared
the following list in which the apparatus or pro-
299
IT. HERBERT SNOW. 1490
cess is identified in the first column by the in-
ventor or locality and the publications that you
have referred to for showing it are in the second
column.
Mlouras. . . . . . . . . ... U. S. 268, 120 of 1882.
tº e º e º e º tº m e º º English 5.391 of 1881.
" . . . . . . . . . . . French 144, 904 of 1881 & Translation.
" . . . . . . . . . . . Minutes Inst. Civ. Eng. XLVIII. 1491
“ . . . . . . . . . . . & 4 6 & 4 & “ LXXII.
“ . . . . . . . . . . . & 4 4 & & & “ LXXVIII.
" . . . . . . . . . . . Engineering News, Apl. 15, 1882.
Pagliani. . . . . . . . . . . Congress of Hygiene, etc.
Muller. . . . . . . . . . . . German 9792 of 1878.
" . . . . . . . . . . . . Journal Soc. Art. of 1897.
Waring. . . . . . . . . . . 1876 Edition p.
" . . . . . . . . . . . 1891 Edition pp. 287-291.
" . . . . . . . . . . . 1894 Edition pp. 216-218.
Phillbrick. . . . . . . . . Sanitary Engineer. May 10, 1883.
Medfield. . . . . . . . . . Mass. Bd. Health Report 1887, p. 100-2.
Feeble Minded Sch... Rafter & Baker, 1894, p. 507. 1492
Tuawrenceville. . . . . Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Feb. 1887.
Scott-Moncrieff. . . . U. S. 530, 622, 1894.
* { & 4 . . . . Extracts Press- Pamphlet.
Dibdin . . . . . . . . . . . . Rep. to Lon. Co. Council.
Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . U. S. 424, 838 of 1890.
Glover . . . . . . . . . . . . U. S. 258, 744 of 1882.
Adeney. . . . . . . . . . . English, 3312 of 1890.
Chapman. . . . . . . . . . English 3203 of 1868.
Sloper. . . . . . . . . . . . English 1706 of 1870.
Gurtler. . . . . . . . . . . . English 7134 of 1887.
Flush Tank Co. Catalogue.
( &
A. The list is correct. 1493
XQ. 139. I observe that when you gave the
list in answer to XQ. 135 you hesitated about in-
serting Lawrenceville. Why was that? A. Be-
cause there is nothing in the Lawrenceville ar-
ticle that says in so many words that there was
an intentional use of Septic action. 1494
XQ. 140. In which of the publications and
patents cited by you in answer 135 is the tank
that you now refer to as being a septic tank des.
ignated by the term “cesspool?” A. In Mouras
French, English and United States patents; in
Phillbrick article in the Sanitary Engineer, in
300
1495
1496
- 1497
1498
1499
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the Medfield plant, the Union patent, and possi-
bly in Waring’s publications.
XQ. 141. Do you find any substantial differ-
ence, So far as the questions here involved are
concerned, between the different illustrations
that you have introduced, or that are shown in
the publications which you have referred to, of
the Mouras apparatus? A. There are slight dif-
ferences, but the United States patent shows
everything that is included in the others, so far
as drawings are concerned.
XQ. 142. I desire now to serve the convenience
of the Court by collecting together tracings of
the inner lines and the outlets and inlets only of
the cesspools you have referred to in answer 140,
namely, Mouras, Phillbrick, Medfield, Union and
Waring, also your “sketch of Glover’s cesspool.”
I will ask that you point out to me on the draw-
ings the structure in each of these cases that
you treat as being the septic tank, so that I may
make such tracings, and can indicate on each trac-
ing also the water level by a dotted line. A. In
reference to Mouras, I point out Figure 1 of the
United States patent. In reference to Phillbrick
I point out the drawing accompanying the ar-
ticle in the Sanitary Engineer, page 554, May 17,
1883, entitled “Siphon Tank.” In reference to
Medfield, I point out the drawing entitled “Cess-
pool,’’ Plate III., State Board of Health Report,
Massachusetts, 1887. In respect to Union, Fig-
ure 1 in the drawing of U. S. Patent No. 424,838,
April 1, 1890; and in respect to Waring, in his
1896 book, Figure 14, page 195, entitled “Grease
Trap” and in his 1891 book, page 291, Figure 56,
entitled “Arrangement of Flush Tank and Ap-
Mouras
COMPLANANTS EXHIBIT
Phillbrick
=
TRACINGS PRIOR
ART CESSPOOLS
Waring 1876
Waring 1891
Medfield
-----O---
Waring 1892
—
Union
Pagliani
N
|
I
Glover Use 1882.
School Feeble Mind ed.







301
F. HERBERT SNOW.
pliances,” and in the Flush Tank Catalogue, 1892,
page 24, Figure No. 1, entitled “Intercepting
Chamber,” and in Waring’s 1894 book, page 217,
Figure 5, entitled “Settling Chamber.”
Recess.
XQ. 143. Have I in accordance with the state-
ment of the last answer made the tracings with
substantial accuracy? A. Yes.
Complainant’s counsel offers in evi.
dence the sheet of tracings last referred
to, and the same is marked “Complain-
ant’s Exhibit Tracings Prior Art Cess-
pools.”
XQ. 144. I would like to add on the sheet of
tracings just offered in evidence, a corresponding
tracing of the Pagliani construction which you
have treated as being a septic tank. Can you
point out to me a drawing which you understand
to represent this Pagliani construction, from
which I can make such tracing? A. On Plate
XL. Trans Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs. Vol. XLVI. No.
909, which accompanies Metcalf's paper on “The
Antecedents of the Septic Tank,” September 25,
1901, there is a drawing entitled “Of L. Pagliani,
Rome, Italy, 1884, 1891, Fig. 7.”
The tracing above referred to is ad-
ded to the Exhibit sheet and marked
*Pagliani.”
XQ. 145. In order that I may add it also to
the sheet of tracings above marked in evidence,
will you please point out in the drawings of Rafter
& Baker of the apparatus at the Massachusetts
School for Feeble Minded that portion which you
1500
| 501
1)02
1503
1504
302
1505
1506
1507
1 508
F. HERBERT SNOW.
have treated as corresponding with the septic
tank? A. I now point out on page 508 of said
book, Fig. 89, entitled “Details of Detaining
Tank,” &c., that part thereof marked “Sludge
Trap.”
The tracing referred to in the last
Question is added to the exhibit sheet
and marked “School for Feeble
Minded.”
XQ. 146. In order that I may add it also to
the sheet of tracings above marked in evidence,
will you please point out in the drawing of the
Gurtler English; patent 7134 of 1887, that por-
tion which you have treated as corresponding
with the septic tank? A. It is Fig. 7 in the draw-
ing of said patent, which I now point out.
The tracing referred to in the last
question is added to the Exhibit sheet
and marked “Gurtler, 1887.”
XQ. 147. Which of the tracings on the sheet
marked “Complainant Exhibit Tracings Prior
Art Cesspools’’ in your opinion represents the
nearest approximation to the septic tank shown
in the Cameron patent in suit? A. Pagliani
first, Gurtler second, and together in one group,
Mouras, Philbrick, Union, Glover, Waring 1891
and 1892, third; and together in a group, War-
ing of 1876 and 1894; Medfield, School for Feeble
Minded, fourth. I place Pagliani first because,
as I understand the drawing, there is a non-dis-
turbing outlet consisting of a conduit extending
the Whole width of the tank and having an opening
disposed throughout its length beneath the nor-
mal water level of the tank and above the bottom
3()3
F. HERBERT SNOW.
of said tank, and having also two non-disturbing
inlets disposed above the bottom and below the
normal water-level of the tank. I take Gurtler
as Second, because it shows an inlet consisting
of a conduit extending for a part of the width of
the tank, and having an opening the entire width,
thereof below the top or water-level and above
the bottom, but extending to the bottom of the
tank, and also an outlet comprising as chamber
or conduit disposed in the tank and extending a
part of the width thereof, having a series of open-
ings in the bottom and side thereof, said open-
ings being below the normal water level in the
tank and above the bottom of said tank. I group
Mouras, Philbrick, Union, Glover and Waring
of 1891 and 1892 as third because they each com-
prise a non-disturbing inlet and outlet consisting
of a pipe extending in the tank and turning
downward, having its opening below the normal
water-level thereof and above the bottom of the
tank for the purpose of admitting the liquid and
also drawing it out of the tank without disturb-
ing the surface scum or the deposits in the tank.
I have cited Waring of 1876 and 1894 and Med-
field and the School for Feeble Minded, as fourth
because in each the inlet pipe is above the nor-
mal water level of the tank, but the outlet thereof
extends below the said normal water level and
above the bottom of the tank, the purpose of Said
outlet being to draw the water from mid-depth
and thus prevent the passage of floating matters
or deposits from passing out with the liquid.
XQ. 148. In your quotation from the Pagliani
article in your direct testimony, what is his de-
scription of the outlet which, in your last answer
1510
1511
| 512
1514
304
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
F. HERBERT SNOW.
you have described as a “non-disturbing outlet
consisting of a conduit extending the whole width
of the tank and having an opening disposed
throughout its length beneath the normal water
level of the tank and above the bottom of said
tank.” A. In my answer to Q. 26 I quoted as
follows from Pagliani's description:
“As in every Mouras reservoir, mine has for
Overflowing liquids an opening, but provided with
a grate, through which can not pass directly
those bodies that are floating on the liquid gath-
ered in the reservoir. This opening has the di-
ameter a little less than 5 centn., that is to say,
narrower than that of the tube which begins from
it, and continues in other still larger ones, so that
what passes through it will surely pass through
the next tube.”
I uriderstand the drawing in “Complainant’s
Exhibit Tracings Prior Art Cesspools” shows this
opening and also the grate “through which can
not pass directly those bodies that are floating
on the liquid gathered in the reservoir.” This
grating is shown as extending across the width,
of the tank and below the normal water level
thereof and comprises what I described in my
last answer as “a non-disturbing outlet consist-
ing of a conduit extending the whole width of
the tank and having an opening disposed through-
out its length beneath the normal water level of
the tank and above the bottom of said tank.” I
should perhaps add these words, “having an
opening or series of openings disposed through-
out its length.”
XQ. 149. What are 5 centrn. equal to in inches?
A. About two inches. º
XQ. 150. Since the Pagliani drawing seems to
305
F. HERBERT SNOW.
me too ambiguous, unaided by further descrip-
tion, and since no publication of either the draw-
ing or the description yet appears prior to the
Cameron patent in suit, I will pass to the second
of the tracings mentioned in your 147th answer,
namely, Gurtler. Please quote from the Gurtler
English patent the whole reference made to this
drawing in any way, whether as to its construc-
tion or mode of operation. A. On page 2, line
18:
“Fig. 7 shows a section of a pit for water-clos-
ets, &c.”
On page 3, line 37:
“Pits may be constructed as shown at Fig. 7
of the drawings accompanying my Provisional
Specification, being entirely closed with hermeti-
cally closed openings and be provided with pumps
for emptying their contents without requiring to
be opened.
“Such structures, while affording the requisite
strength, will also have a certain degree of elas-
ticity and will be exceedingly cheap and durable
and at the same time easily and quickly made.”
On page 4, line 18:
“I’igure 7 shows a section of a pit for water-clos-
ets, &c.”
These are the only references I find in the
patent.
|XQ. 151. In the Gurtler description do you
find any authority for locating the water level at
the top of the outlet pipe instead of at the bot-
tom thereof, as it is located by the dotted line in
“Complainant’s Exhibit Tracing Prior Art Cess-
pool?” A. Yes, the outlet conduit is represented
in the drawing as containing stones or other ma-
terial representing what I understand to be a
1520
| 521
1522
1 523
1524
306
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
Screening or filtering material and therefore I un-
derstand that this forms an obstruction to the
flow of the liquid out of the tank, the sides of the
outlet conduit chamber and the straining material
it contains acting as a barrier for the scum which
collects on the top of the normal water level in
the tank, indicated by the dotted line which said
dotted line is level with the bottom of the top
opening in Said outward conduit. The bottom of
the Said conduit is provided with openings be-
neath the surface of the normal level of the water
and disposed at such a depth as to draw the
water from below the scum and deliver it into
the pipe. I therefore see no inconsistency in the
dotted line representing the water level in Com-
plainant’s drawing.
XQ. 152. Is there any statement in the Gurtler
specification as to what this dotted line in the
Gurtler drawing was intended to represent? A.
No.
XQ. 153. You have stated that the inlet in
Gurtler extends to the bottom. The inlet would
therefore be in the sludge? A. No; because the
bottom of the tank is given a very pronounced
pitch away from this inlet to the opposite side,
where there is disposed a pipe not shown in com-
plainant’s drawing, for the purpose of removing
the sludge there accumulated.
XQ. 154. What do you understand to be the
meaning in the Gurtler drawing, Fig. 7, of the
dotted line near the bottom ? A. This shows the
level line, below which the outlet pipe for the sludge
is disposed in the tank.
XQ. 155. Do you find any statement to that ef-
2O7
F. HERBERT SNOW.
fect in the Gurtler specification? A. No ; I was
simply referring to the fact as to the drawing.
XQ. 156. Turning now to the group including
the Mouras, Phillbrick, Union, Glover and Waring,
of 1891 and 1892, which you have placed third in
your 145th answer, and taking Phillbrick as the
representative of this group, what size of diameter
would you make the Phillbrick tank if you were go-
ing to substitute it and its inlet and outlet openings
in the Saratoga plant, here claimed to infringe, in
place of each of the septic tanks at present in that
plant; for the same amount of sewage that is handl-
ed by the Saratoga septic tank? A. The diameter
Of the tank would be about 80 feet.
XQ. 157. And what would be the diameter re-
spectively of the inlet and outlet pipes? A. 12
inches.
XQ. 158. What depth of sewage contents in the
tank? A. The same as in the present Saratoga
tanks, about an average of 8 feet.
XQ. 159. The Phillbrick drawing appears to show
the depth of the contents as about three-quarters of
the diameter, assuming this relationship of depth
to diameter, how much would it reduce the di-
ameter of 80 feet given in your 156th answer, and
increase the depth of 8 feet given in your last
answer? A. As I understand the question, I
answer that a depth of 8 feet would require a tank
10.66 feet in diameter, where the ratio between the
depth and width was 3 to 4; and in a tank 80 feet in
diameter, where the ratio was the same, the depth
Would be 60 feet.
XQ. 160. That is not the way that I intended to
put the question. I understand that you have stat-
ed that for a sewage contents corresponding with
1530
1531
1532
| 534
308
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
F. HERBERT SNOW.
that of either of the Saratoga septic tanks, the
depth of the sewage for a Phillbrick tank of 80 feet
in diameter would be about 8 feet. What I want to
know is, for the same sewage contents, what would
be the diameter and depth of sewage of the Phill-
brick tank, providing the depth of the sewage was
three-quarters the diameter of the tank; as it ap-
pears to be shown in the Phillbrick drawing? A.
I understand the question to refer to the Phillbrick
tank dimensions as proposed by Mr. Phillbrick, for
the use of an individual suburban residence.
Taking these same dimensions of diameter and
depth, which Phillbrick suggested for the individu-
al surburban residence, of a depth of three feet to 8.
diameter of four feet, and applying them to a tank
circular and having the contents equivalent to the
contents of one of the Saratoga tanks, said circular
tank being 80 feet in diameter, the depth thereof to
correspond to the proportions of the Phillbrick tank
proposed for an individual surburban residence,
would be, 60 feet.
This dimension tank would hold nearly eight
times more than a Saratoga tank. A tank of similar
proportions to the one recommended by Phillbrick
for a suburban residence of equal capacity with the
Saratoga tank, would have a diameter of about 42
feet and a depth of about 31 feet.
XQ. 161. Are the following excerpts from Santo-
Crimp’s book of 1890 :
Quoting from the Conclusions of the Committee
appointed by the Local Government Board in 1875,
to inquire into the various methods of sewage dis-
posal, (p. 17):
‘‘That the retention * * * * of refuse
and excreta * * * in eesspools * * *
309
F. FIERIBERT SNOW.
or other places in the midst of towns must be ut-
terly condemned and that none of the So-called
dry-earth or pail system or improved privies can
be approved other than as palliative for cesspits-
middens.”
Quoting from the Conclusions of the Committee
Appointed by the Society of Arts in 1876 to inquire
into various subjects connected with the health of
the town, (p. 19):
“That all middens, privies and cesspools in
towns should be abolished by law, due regard to
the point of time being had to the condition of
each locality.”
(P. 34):
“The pail system has been evolved from the
old midden and cesspool systems regarding the
evil effects of which latter the Blue Books Of-
ficial Reports, issued from time to time since the
date of Chadwick’s first researches, give number-
less examples. It is unnecessary to enter into the
details of such an abominable system conser-
vation of foul matters since it is universally con-
demned by all sanitarians. As an example of
the enormous mass of pollution at one time ex-
isting in the large northern cities, Manchester
may be quoted, where, in 1868, no fewer than 60,-
000 open middens and cesspools, covering an area
of sixteen acres, were in existence. The abolition
of these centers of infection and disease and the
substitution of pan or pail or improved closets
has led to an improvement in the health of the
people of inestimable value.’’
A. Yes.
XQ. 162. Will you examine Waring's book of
1894, and state whether the following is an ex-
cerpt therefrom :
(p. 214):
“Until twenty years ago the out-of-sight out-
of-mind system—in other words, the use of cess-
pools—was nearly universal. The radical objec-
tions to the cesspool had already begun to be rec-
1540
1541
| 542
1544
310
1545
| 546
1547
| 548
1549
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ognized and they are now known to be absolutely
condemnatory. Cesspools are always objection-
able and there are not many cases where they are
at all admissible.”
A. I will.
XQ. 163. Does Waring’s book of 1891 contain a
chapter on “Sewage Disposal,” and another separ-
ate chapter on “House Drainage?” A. Yes.
XQ. 164. In which chapter does the Waring 1891
construction occur that you have referred to in
your testimony? A. It is in Chapter XXVII, en-
titled “House Drainage,” section, entitled “The
Disposal of the IIouse Wastes.”
XQ. 165. And is the first paragraph of this sec-
tion as follows:
“If a sewer is available for connection with the
main drain of a house the question of disposal, so
far as the occupant of that house is concerned,
is settled. By far the larger majority of houses,
however, are without such facilities and it is a
matter of the greatest importance to decide wisely
as to the means of disposal to be adopted. All
competent authorities are in full accord as to
the pernicious character and absolute inadmissi-
bility of cesspools or of any form of receptacle of
the water-borne wastes of houses which are not
subject to constant or frequent renewal.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 166. What is the difference, so far as con-
taining oxygen is concerned, between the house
waste from the main drain of the house and the
sewage at a sewer outlet? In other words: After
the house wastes have left the main drain of a house
and entered the sewer, what effect is produced upon
them by passing through the sewer? A. The dis-
charge from the house drain is what is called fresh
sewage and contains dissolved oxygen. The dis-
311
F. HERBERT SNOW.
charge from the main sewer of a large system of
Sewers is not fresh, but stale; that is, it contains no
free dissolved oxygen, it having been consumed by
those bacterial processes known as decomposition
and putrefaction. The suspended matters reaching
the sewer from the house are acted upon mechani-
cally, chemically and bacteriologically as they pass
along through the sewer.
Adjourned to Tuesday, June 27th, 1905, 10:30 A.
M.
New York, June 27th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, Counsel as before.
Cross Examination of Mr. Snow Continued:
The witness, Snow having produced to-
day, the 1896 Edition of Waring's book,
entitled “Modern Methods of Sewage Dis-
posal,” and neither side having been able
to obtain a copy of the 1894 Edition up to
the present time, it is stipulated that it be
assumed unless the contrary shall appear,
that the 1894 and 1896 Editions are sub-
stantially identical.
XQ. 167. Did you testify as follows in the Paw-
tucket case, (p. 324):
“The water before receiving the foreign matter,
or even afterwards, and for a time after having
entered the sewer, usually contains 'free oxygen
and nitrous and nitric acid and the organic mat-
ters are largely in suspension; but as this fresh
sewage flows along, it is acted upon by various
mechanical, chemical and bacterial forces, and
worked over until it has undergone a distinct
change, or practically the first stage in the break-
ing up of the organic matter into simpler forms.
1550
1551
1552
1554
3 12
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
F. IILRBERT SNOW.
Under bacterial influences in the presence of oxy-
gen, some of the carbonaceous matter is oxidized,
and the nitrogen and hydrogen unite to form
ammonia, and this unites with carbonic dioxide to
form ammonium carbonate, and this process will
gC On and on, the free ammonia increasing and the
crude organic matter decreasing until the dissolved
oxygen in the sewage is exhausted. Up to this
stage the process is considered one of oxidation,
that is, while putrefaction to some extent may, and
probably does, go on in small particles of organic
matters in the sewage, the principal bacterial
changes and the absorption of oxygen are caused
by the aerobic bacteria. The sewage is fresh or
stale up to the point of exhaustion of its free oxy-
gen; after this, bacterial life continues active in
the sewage and chemical changes go on, breaking
up the Organic matter, but the process is a putrefac-
tive one instead of that of oxidation, the oxygen
being all absorbed and the sewage becoming foul
in Odor on account of the generation and escape of
hydrogen compounds of carbon. Nitrogen is also
set free in the putrefactive process, which process
also reduces the amount Of Carbonaceous and nitro-
genous matter in the sewage. When sewage is in
this dissolving, liquefying state, it is called septic
sewage, which is another name for putrefaction.
The class of bacteria accomplishing this change
are called anaerobic.
“Therefore the aerobic bacteria are the oxidizing
bacteria, commonly spoken of in sewage purifica-
tion as the nitrifying bacteria, and the anaerobic
bacteria are the putrefactive bacteria and their
activities are usually manifested by foul odors in
contradistinction from the oxidizing bacteria,
which process is generally non-offensive. The effect
of complete aerobic action of organic matter in
sewage is its nitrification; the effect of putrefac-
tive or anaerobic action is largely the reduction of
solid matters to liquid or gaseous forni, in other
words, decomposition is the term covering the
whole process of changes in matter from Organic
to mineral form and it may be accomplished en-
313
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
tirely by aerobic bacteria, or by aerobic and anae-
robic or putrefactive bacteria, but never by the
putrefactive or anaerobic bacteria, alone.”
A. Yes; but I notice a wrong use of the word
“stale” which I should like to correct, because it
Was not What I meant in the said quotation and is
not consistent with all my other uses of the word
stale in the said Pawtucket case. In the above Quo-
tation it appears that I stated,
“The sewage is fresh or stale up to the point of
exhaustion of its free oxygen.”
This distinction I did not intend to make and it
cannot be made now. Sewage is fresh up to the
point of exhaustion of its free oxygen, and stale
thereafter, and as showing that this was always the
use of that Word in the Pawtucket case I will refer
to page 329 thereof:
“Since in fresh sewage the organic matters in
Suspension are larger in size, they may be strained
out readily on the surface of the filter and when
dry may be easily removed; this sludge does not
putrefy and create a nuisance; but if the sewage
be stale or putred . . . But if the quantity of
stale sewage is applied in proper doses, the sludge
does not seriously clog the filter, and because the
Organic matter has been worked over into forms
more suitable for bacterial food than is the case
with fresh sewage, there is greater efficiency in
aerobic action in the filter. So staleing of sewage
is resorted to as one means of facilitating the nit-
rifying of bacteria.”
On page 331: *
“It has been observed that oxygen is absorbed
slowly by fresh sewage and rapidly by stale and
septic sewage, and it is known that the rapid
absorption is caused by gases rather than bacterial
action.
f
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
314
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
F. HERBERT SNOW.
On page 332:
“Refuse matters entering the sewer are at once
started on their way of decomposition by the co-
operation of bacteria and the free dissolved oxy-
gen. The rapidity of the action varies with the
number and kind of bacteria present, the quality
of the sewage and the temperature. Many of the
bacteria are capable of growing in the absence as
well as in the presence of oxygen and they are
called facultative anaerobe. After the oxygen is
consumed, they and the anaerobes proper continue
to work and reduce the suspended organic matter.”
On page 333:
“If the sewage is stale before going into the tank,
it may by further anaerobic action develop various
toxins.”
On page 386:
“I understand that the kind of sewage referred
to here is what is known as stale sewage, that is,
One in which the aerobic bacteria have ceased to
Work and the putrefactive or anaerobic organisms
are active.”
On page 388:
“XQ. 70. Stale sewage is sewage in which putre-
faction has commenced and proceeded to a certain
degree, is it not? A. Yes.”
XQ. 168. In your Pawtucket testimony, did you
also testify (p. 325), as follows:
“The term decomposition, as applied to aerobic
action, usually implies changes going on in an
ample Supply of oxygen, and the term putrefaction
implies the changes going on in the absence of oxy-
gen.”
A. Yes.
XQ. T69. As I understand you, the only bac-
terial action which can take place so long as the
free oxygen remains in the sewage is aerobic, and
that the anaerobic or septic action can not com-
315
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
mence until after the free oxygen has been dis-
posed of; is that correct? A. No, as more par-
ticularly explained in my answer to question 28
and question 29. But, generally speaking, that
is, referring to these actions, aerobic and anaero-
bic, in their extremes, my answer to the above
question would be yes.
XQ. 170. I see that in the part of your direct
testimony you mentioned you refer to three dom-
inant opinions on this subject. Everybody
agrees, however, that the presence of free oxy-
gen is inimical to anaerobic or septic action, and
that so long as it remains in the sewage the
aerobic action continues; is that so?
A. Yes, so far as the aerobic action continues
So long as Oxygen remains in the Sewage, and
yes also, insofar as free oxygen is inimical to
anaerobic or septic action, but no, insofar as the
presence of free oxygen in the upper layers of
Sewage in a pool prevents or is inimical to anaero-
bic or septic action taking place in the lower or
bottom layers of a pool of sewage I mean by
this that septic action may take place in the de-
posits in the bottom of a sewage pool to a very
Substantial degree, and at the same time dis-
Solved oxygen may be present in the upper lay-
ers of that same sewage pool.
XQ. 171. Is the decomposition by aerobic ac-
tion which occurs in the presence of the free oxy-
gen attended by any maceration or breaking up
of the larger solid portions of the house-waste
after entering the sewer from the house drain?
A. Yes. But this I believe to be very largely
a mechanical and chemical action, such as is in-
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
316
1575
1576
1577
1579
F. HERBERT SNOW.
duced by dilution and mechanical mixing through
the velocity of flow in the sewer.
XQ. 172. Is the following a substantially cor-
rect statement of the history of house-wastes
from the time they leave the house drain and
enter the sewer?
1. The house-wastes on leaving the house
drain and entering the sewer contain free oxy-
gen.
2. As they flow through the sewer they are
acted upon by various mechanical, chemical and
bacterial forces and worked over until they have
undergone a distinct change or practically the
first stage in the breaking up, decomposition or
maceration of the organic matter into simpler
forms. During this stage the process is consid-
ered one of oxidation, that is, while putrefaction
to Some extent may, and probably does, go on in
Small particles of organic matters in the sewage,
the principal bacterial changes and the absorp-
tion of oxygen are caused by the aerobic bacteria.
3. Tn the next stage bacterial life continues
active in the Sewage and chemical changes go
on. But the process is in this stage a putrefac-
tive one instead of that of oxidation, the sewage
being in a dissolving, liquefying state called
“septic sewage,” and a class of bacteria at work
being called anaerobic, and the solid matters be-
ing largely reduced to liquid or gaseous form.
4. The next stage is the reintroduction of oxy-
gen whereby aerobic bacteria are for a Second
time brought into action and serve to oxidize or
nitrify the liquefied product produced by the ana-
erobic bacteria during the preceding stage.
3] 7
F. TIERIBERT SNOW.
A. Yes, understanding this to be a reference
to what takes place in sewage naturally from
the time of its introduction into a sewer to the
time it goes into a stream of water. I should
have to modify the answer if the question in-
volved any structures for the purpose of facilitat-
ing nature’s process of purification.
XQ. 173. Is the following an excerpt from
your Pawtucket testimony (p. 429) :
“I will say that there are two kinds of scum
which are markedly different in character, one
being the scum found on the surface of some set-
tling tanks and the other being the septic tank
scum ; the latter is quite likely to be found several
inches in thicknes and of a consistency of axle
grease, while the former is likely to be light and
frothy and but an inch or less in thickness. And
besides the septic scum is a homogeneous mass in
appearance, while the scum of the settling tank is
at once and easily broken up by stirring the surface
of the liquid.”
A. Yes.
XQ. TV4. Is the following an excerpt from your
Tawtucket testimony, page 409?
“I have stated that no nitrification takes place in
the tank and that all the aerobic bacteria are de-
stroyed while the sewage is passing through and
that the bacteria in the effluent from the tank may
be less than one-sixth Of all the bacteria that were
in the original sewage. But the actions which go
on in the septic tank are not purifying actions,
While the solids may be largely changed these
changes relate largely to the carbonaceous matters
and since there is no nitrification in the tank there
is no purification, because purification comprises
the reduction of nitrogenous matter to mineral
form and this is not accomplished in part or in
whole in the septic tank.”
1580
1581
1582
1583
A. Yes.
1 584
3.18
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
T. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 175. Is the following an excerpt from
your Pawtucket testimony (p. 333) 2
“The chief object of the septic tank is to help
get rid of the sludge problem. The changes which
go on in the tank are largely of the carbonačeous
matter and not so much with the nitrogenous mat-
ter. It is the carbonaceous matter, like cellulouse,
paper, &c. which principally clogs the surface of
a filter. When they remain on the surface of a
filter they are very slow to oxidize, but they are
leadily acted upon by the putrefactive bacteria in
the tanks. No nitrification takes place in the tank
and all the aerobic bacteria are destroyed while
the sewage is passing through, and those found in
the effluent are the facultative bacteria and may be
less than one-sixth of all the bacteria in the sewage
before it entered the tank.
“Septic effluent without aeration is very difficult
to filter owing, first, to the contained gases gene-
rated in the tank and liberated in the filter, which
gases are inimical to the life of aerobic bacteria;
and secondly, that the partially decomposed organic
matter rapidly exhausts the air held in the pores of
the filter, preventing thereby effective aerobic
action.
“It is know that the anaerobic action may be pro-
moted to too great an extent. If the sewage is
stale before going into the tank, it may by further
anaerobic action develop various toxins which
prevent nitrification in the filter. So while the
conditions which liquefy the solids in the tank are
the principal ones aimed at those occurring in the
body of the liquid in the tank may be of even
more importance as effecting and preventing subse-
quent nitrification.
“It is also known that if sewage remains in the
tank for several days, that is, none flowing in or
out, it disturbs and retards the desired bacterial
action on the solids in the tank, and that the solids
will accumulate faster.
“The optimum period for the liquid to pass
through the tank is unknown, but for the average
sewage it is thought to be, and is probably, between
319
F. HERBERT SNOW.
twelve and twenty-four hours. The solids, how-
ever, must be retained indefinitely to effect sub-
stantial liquefaction.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 176. Is the extent to which the anaerobic
action should proceed for the best result ex-
pressed by saying that it should go to the point
of (to use your words in answer 83) “the estab-
lishment of the equilibrium between the accumu-
lated solids in the tank plus those being constant-
ly added thereto by the inflow of the sewage, and
the bacterial activities whereby further accumu-
Iations are prevented,” or in other words, that
the anaerobes should be sufficient to liquefy the
Solid matter and conversely the inflow should
Serve to Sustain the anaerobes? A. I answer in
the affirmative excluding from the question the
last clause in the same, ‘‘ or in other words, that
the anaerobes should be sufficient to liquefy the
Solid matter and conversely the inflow should
serve to sustain the anaerobes.” And my rea-
Son is that it nowhere appears, so far as I am in-
formed, that the organisms which liquefy the said
accumulated solids are entirely of the distinctly
anaerobic kind.
|XQ. T77. As I understand it, then, you would
answer the last question wholly in the affirmative
if I substitute the word “organisms’’ for anae-
robes?” A. Yes.
XQ. 178. A good deal has been said as to the
effect of the septic action upon the solids in the
septic tank, but I understand you to have said in
your testimony quoted in XQ. 175 that the con-
ditions occurring in the body of the liquid in the
tank may be of even more importance. Will you
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
320
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
F. HERBERT SNOW.
please explain what, if any, effect you understand
the septic action to have upon the liquid portion
of the sewage in the tank? A. Modifications of
the dissolved matters. The important changes to
which I referred in XQ. 175 were particularly
those producing toxins which are known to exert
a retarding influence upon nitrification in subse-
quent filtration.
XQ. 179. Are the following excerpts from
your Pawtucket testimony (pp. 326, 328, 330) *
“There are two general forms of filters, one the
natural sand or gravel filter and the other the
artificial contact filter. Both are intermittent in
operation and have for their object the effective
cultivation of the aerobic or nitrifying bacteria.
In practice they are modified to meet local condi-
tions.
“Since nitrification or reduction of nitrogenous
matter to mineral form is the object of sewage puri-
fication, the conditions most favorable to the action
of the aerobic organisms which produce nitrifica-
tion are all essential. These are presence of oxy-
gen, of Organic matters, of moisture, of some alkali,
and a temperature favorable for plant life, and
they are afforded in a filter of sand or porous
material.
“The mechanical separation of the sewage by
straining out on the filter is but an incident favor-
able to the further work in the filter, where the
essential conditions are slow motion over the fil-
tering material of the sewage in thin films in con-
tact. With air.
“Flowing crude sewage on porous material
affects a straining out of large quantities of sus-
pended matter which if continued will clog the filter
and the effluent will be as impure as the applied
sewage. It is customary in practice to obviate this
by applying only so much sewage as will pass
through the filter and allow the screened matter
321
F. HERBERT SNOW.
to dry up or become oxidized, and with care in this
respect the intermittent operation may be carried
on successfully for an indefinite period.
“The capacity of a filter is determined by the
amount of sewage it can purify in winter. It has
been observed that the amount of clogging material
stored in a filter is proportional to the sludge in
the sewage applied. A concentrated sewage chokes
a filter faster than more diulte sewage, so less quan-
tity can be safely applied and the same quantity of
sludge will store up faster in a filter operated at a
high rate than at a low rate. A clogged surface
interferes with and retards aerobic action. Sludge
clogging in winter is even a more serious difficulty
than in summer, and these facts, therefore make
important the removal of the sludge from the sew-
age before it reaches the filter. This removal
is accomplished in various ways, more commonly
by a settling tank. The concentrated sludge is
usually applied to sludge filters or strainers and
allowed to dry before removal. The supernatant
Sewage freed from the large amounts of clogging
material is then flowed on to the regular filters and
by this means more complete nitrification is
secured and at high rates.
“Therefore, to promote most effective aerobic
action in a filter much attention is directed to the
sludge problem. The preliminary treatment of sew-
age to remove sludge before filtration, is accom-
plished by several methods which bring into play
aerobic or anaerobic bacteria, or both, either inten-
tionally or as an incident to the mechanical pro-
cess employed for the separation. These methods
are chiefly plain subsidence, subsidence aided by
the use of chemical precipitants, straining pure
and simple, and septic action.
“Plain subsidence is very commonly employed
since large filters of fine material can be operated
at very much higher rates with settled sewage than
with ordinary sewage.
“The removal of sludge by chemicals is not often
employed as it is not of sufficient aid to filtration
to justify its cost over plain subsidence. Straining
and Septic treatment have their fields of usefulness.
1600
1601
| 602
16()3
1604
322
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
F. HERBERT SNOW.
The choice of these methods is a matter of pro-
found judgment in any particular case, since the
method employed may materially affect the degree
of aerobic action in the filter, upon which purifica-
tion of the great bulk of the sewage depends. The
facts relating to the changes bacterial and other-
Wise which take place in these preliminary methods
are all important as relating to and affecting the
subsequent development of aerobic and anaerobic
bacteria.
5
Sand filters are commonly used where natural
deposits or suitable sand or gravel are available.
They are bacterial filters in which the aerobic
action is largely carried on near the surface where
the air comes most in contact with the sewage. Con-
tact filters by which anaerobic and aerobic bac-
teria may be developed, are commonly used where
there is no available sand and consequently the
beds have to be artificially built.”
A. Yes.
Recess.
XQ. T80. Returning now to the list of “septic
tanks” or “septic action” references of the prior
art given in your answer to XQ. 135, in which of
them is the part that you compare with a septic
tank, in fact a contact or cultivation filter?
A. Three out of the twenty-seven references,
two being Scott-Moncrieff’s process and the third
Dibdin's Sutton contact filter tanks. With re-
spect to Scott-Moncrieff’s tanks, mentioned in the
extract from British Press Publications, and also
described in U. S. patent 530,622, Dec. 11, 1894,
there is a chamber, that is, a septic tank, and not
in fact a contact filter or cultivation bed, although
above this chamber there is a tank used as a Sep-
tic tank, but containing bedding material which
acts like a screen or strainer and comprises what
323
F. HERBERT SNOW.
is designated by Mr. Moncrieff as “the cultivation
bed.”
XQ. 181. Do the following excerpts from Pro-
fessor Folwell’s book of 1905, entitled “Sewage”
(being the same book that I have quoted from
before), refer to the systems of Dibdin and
Scott-Moncrieff which you have cited (commenc-
ing on page 401):
“Chemical precipitation has been adopted in
many plants as a preliminary to filtration or land
treatment; and many of those which have not
adopted this retain the sewage for a short time
in sedimentation tanks. The disposal of the
sludge thus deposited is a most troublesome ques-
tion, and various plans have been tried for avoid-
ing the formation of this. In the “bacteria bed”
of Dibdin very porous material is used—one-
eighth, to two inches diameter—which will drain
out thoroughly and quickly and will permit the
coarse suspended matter to enter the whole body
of the filter and not the surface only. This ma-
terial is placed in the tank or pit in which the
Sewage is retained for about two hours, permit-
ting the bacteria to act during that time. The
organic matter being practically all liquefied and
a large part of it nitrified.
(P. 420):
“In the Scott-Moncrieff ‘cultivation filter’ the
sewagé passes upward through flints or other
stones, leaving the solid matter behind, but car-
ries with it all matter liquefied from sludge pre-
viously deposited. Here the aim is to combine
both liquefaction and nitrification in the same fil-
ter, the liquefying anaerobes being segregated in
the Iower part, the nitrifying bacteria in the up-
per; although the former class of bacteria some-
times occupy the entire filter.
The Moncrieff cultivation filter is essentially a
continuous flow first-contact filter, in which the
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
324
1615
1616
1617
1618
16) 9
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Sewage enters from below instead of from above.
A third fine grain filter is sometimes used, and
Moncrieff has employed six or seven filters, one
above the other, for purifying the effluent from
his cultivation filter.”
A. The first quotation refers to Dibdin's fil-
ter that I had in mind; the second and third quo-
tations, however—those relating to Scott-Mon-
crieff’s filter—are evidently not references to the
Scott-Moncrieff tank to which I have referred, but
to a later patent and later tank than the ones I
have hereinbefore spoken of and described.
XQ. 182. Is it true that in the Scott-Moncrieff
system, cited by you in answer 135, the sewage
passes up through the “cultivation filter,” in-
stead of down, as in the case of Dibdin'? A. Yes.
XQ. 183. Is the Dibdin system cited by you in
answer 135 the same that you referred to in your
direct testimony as follows (Ans. 21) 2;
“As was expected, the Sutton ‘contact Filter’
overshot the mark, accumulated organic matter
and had to be subsequently overhauled, but it did
draw attention to possibilities of this form of fil-
ter hitherto unattempted in practice. Conse-
quently it comprised one of the progressive steps
in the bacterial treatment of sewage.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 184. Does the Scott-Moncrieff U. S.
patent 530,622, to which you have referred, re-
fer by “conduit B” in the following paragraph
to what you have referred in answer 180 to as
“a chamber that is a septic tank?”
“T3y making the concentrating conduit B of
less capacity or contracted as compared with the
filter bed of larger area above it, and further by
arranging the inlet of the crude material to said
conduit at the extreme bottom thereof a result
is obtained which is vital to the successful culti-
325
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
vation of the micro-organisms, as by this the
crude material in the contracted conduit or cham-
ber is kept constantly on the move, passing for-
ward and upward without any place of perma-
ment deposit, thus preventing the accumulation of
Stale, organic and foecal matter, which would de-
stroy or retard the action of the micro-organ-
isms.”
A. Yes, but I would like to call attention to
a further description in said patent of the action
that takes place in this “conduit B,” which sup-
ports what I said in my answer to XQ. 180. The
claim of the said patent is as follows:
“The herein described method of purifying
Sewage, which consists in passing the Sewage,
without previous removal of the solid portions,
under a suitable head, first through a concentrat-
ing chamber with concentrated outlet openings in
which the solid portions are retained until so far
decomposed by the action of the micro-organisms
that they can pass through the outlet openings,
while the life products of the micro-organism
are allowed to pass out with the liquid and finer
Solid particles without delay, and then upward
through a filter bed of suitable depth and of
greater Superficial area than said concentrating
chamber, whereby the decomposition of the solid
matters is substantially completed, substantially
as described.”
YQ. 185. What are the outlet openings let-
tered in the Scott-Moncrieff drawing which you
understand to be referred to in your last quota-
tion, and where are they located relatively to the
filter bed? A. These openings are marked C on
the drawings, and they comprise a series of open-
ings in the top of the said chamber B, and at the
same time form the bottom and support for the
cultivating filter.
XQ. 186. Do you know of any instance where
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
326
1625
1626
1627
| 628
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
a System like that shown and described in the
Scott-Moncrieff patent has ever gone into use in
this country? A. Substantially like it, yes.
XQ. 187. Where? A. The tank hereinbefore
cited by me as used in Medfield, Mass. I refer to
the tank described in the 19th Annual Report of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health Report
for 1887, in which there is a strainer consisting
of excelsior placed in the last compartment of the
tank and in the upper portion thereof up
through which the sewage has to pass to flow out
of the tank. The details of arrangement are not
the same as in the Scott-Moncrieff patent, but in
practical operation the same results are secured;
that is, the lower compartment corresponding to
conduit B of said patent would retain heavy or
the larger suspended matters where they would
decompose and the more smaller particles would
pass up with the liquid through the filter and
be further decomposed therein.
|XQ. 188. Are the following excerpts from your
testimony in the Pawtucket case in regard to the
Glover to whom you have referred in your direct
testimony herein (pp. 335, 337) :
“Mr. Glover had a cesspool in the back yard
of his residence in Brockton in 1882 when I went
there. It was built of loose stones, so that the
liquid would percolate into the adjacent ground,
which was gravelly. Into this cesspool the sew-
age of the house was first discharged. There was
a 'second cesspool of the same kind and connected
with the first one, so that the liquid would over-
flow from the first cesspool into the second one.
Both, cesspools were ventilated by means of the
pipe attached to the side of the house and extend-
ing to the top. When I saw the cesspools in 1882
they were giving no trouble with respect to odors
and did not have to be cleaned out Mr. Glover
327
F. HERBERT SNOW.
attributed this fact to the ventilation which sup-
plied fresh air to the cesspool, and, in some way
he did not understand, operated to prevent the
accumulation of solids.
“Upon this discovery which he claimed he
made, that air would accomplish changes in the
Cesspool and render it unnecessary to clean them
out, he took out this first patent No. 258,744. He
told me that he endeavored to cover this idea in
his patent. He did not think filters were neces-
Sary at that time. He built a duplication of his
two cesspools at the poor farm in 1882. They
were made water-tight and he experimented with
them and the results were disappointing in one
rspect, that is, he did not get the same effect as
in his old cesspool. The tanks accumulated
sludge. I distinctly remember that this fact made
him more enthusiastic than ever about the value
of his patent for separating out solids in sewage,
he claiming that there was a fortune in the sale
of these solids for fertilizing.
“In 1887, when Mr. Glover offered his plan to
the City of Brockton, he had modified his
ideas. He then included in his plan, first,
a settling basin to be used without chemi-
cals for the separation of the solids from the
liquid; second, a wall of gravel at one end of
the settling basin through which, the sewage was
to filter; third, a series of arches of soft brick
through which the sewage was intended to filter;
there being four divisions each including this en-
tire arrangement, to allow for cleaning, etc., all
covered with a building having a central chimney
for removing foul odors.
“After the Brockton disposal works were con-
structed——the same being started in operation in
the fall of 1894—Mr. Glover , claimed that that
system was his. He watched its operation with
great interest and had many conversations with
me about it. I remember that he claimed that the
process whereby the sludge naturally dried up on
the surface of the Brockton filters was part of his
invention. He tried to interest people in Brock-
ton and elsewhere in the formation of a company
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
328
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
IT. HERBERT SNOW.
for the construction of disposal works under his
patent and he brought a good many individuals, to
Brockton to see the system in Operation there and
he told many of them, if not all, that the system
was his system.
“During all these years I never heard Mr. Glover
say one word about any bacteria except those whose
activities were promoted in the presence of air.
Putrefaction he thought would occur in any sew-
age and his invention was one calculated in his
mind to obviate any nuisance by removing the
Solids and composting them for fertilizers and re-
In Oving the odors necessarily accompanying this
process of separation. His prominent idea was
that these things could best be accomplished in his
ventilated covered apparatus.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 189. Do you understand that the Glover
cess-pool referred to in the first paragraph of the
above quotation is the same that you have shown in
your “sketch of Glover’s Cess-pool, drawn by F.
Herbert SnOW 2’’ A. Yes.
XQ. 190. In answer 67, referring to the septic
tanks built by you since learning of the Cameron
system, you have stated that they comprised “non-
disturbing inlets.” What, in your opinion, dis-
tinguishes a non-disturbing inlet from a disturbing
inlet? A. I can answer that question much better
if given a specific instance, rather than to make a
general statement that will apply to all cases. The
answer, if confined to the tanks to which I referred
in XQ 67, is as follows: Instead of being below the
surface of the water, when non-disturbing the inlet
would be above it, if disturbing. If not confined to
these tanks, my answer is, a largely increased sec-
tional area into the sewage pool, when non-disturb-
ing, instead of a small and non-increased sectional
area of inlet into the sewage pool, when disturbing;
329
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the idea being, that in a large pool formed by a wide
and deep excavation in a small ditch, into which
pool, the inlet and outlet were respectively increas-
ed in area and decreased, there would be a non-dis-
turbance of the contents of the pool. Even were
the inlets and Outlets not increased in area where
they entered and left the pool, there would still be
a portion of the pool in the central portion thereof,
in which the contents would not be disturbed.
XQ. 191. I believe the only references which you
gave in answer 135, of “septic tank” or “septic
actions,” in the prior art that I have not already
touched upon in the cross-examination, are the Eng-
lish patents to Chapman and to Sloper, and to
Adeney, and German patent to Muller. Does either
of these four patents show any apparatus or contain
any drawing? A. No.
XQ. 192. In which of the four patents to Chap-
man, Sloper, Adeney and Muller, respectively, are
chemicals described as a part of the process? A.
In all of them, but the use is optional in Adeney
and Muller, as I understand these patents.
XQ. 193. Please read from the Adeney patent
the portion thereof which you consider to be a des-
cription of a process without chemicals? A. I
hereinbefore fully described this patent, as I under-
stand it, in answer to Q. 26. It begins in the first
line of page 2 of said British patent:
“(Fig. 3) 'The third méthod of treatment, con-
sists of thoroughly aerating the effluent from the
first filter tank by converting it into a fine spray by
means of an air-current and then allowing the aer-
ated eſtluent to flow into the ‘subsidence and incuba-
tion chamber" for the purpose and object above
described of developing and multiplying the micro-
Organisms in the sewage and refuse liquors and
destroying the organic matter in them.”
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
330
1646
1647
1648
1649
F. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 194. And is the following paragraph of
Adeney a continuation of the above as to the same
non-chemical process?
“The eſtiuent from the ‘subsidence and incubation
tank,’ When he third of the above methods of treat-
ment is adopted, in non-putrefactive, when the
liquid is imaintained at a suitable temperature dur-
ing all seasons, as we propose to do.”
A. Yes.
XQ. 195. In view of the statement in the two
paragraphs above quoted from Adeney, that the
sewage is thoroughly aerated by means of an air
current before flowing into the subsidence and incu-
bation chamber, and that the effluent therefrom is
non-putrefactive; are not these things inconsistent
with there being a septic action or anaerobic action
in said chamber, but consistent with there being an
aerobic action therein? A. No; not when taken
with other statements in the patent, or without
these other statements. The said patent states:
“The liquors may be filtered and aerated at any
of the stages of the process, but this is not neces-
sary.”
XQ. 196. The quotations of your last answer is
taken from the final specifications of Adeney,
whereas your previous quotations was taken from
the preliminary specification. In the final specifica-
tion do you find any process described not employ-
ing chemicals? A. No.
XQ. 197. Then it appears, does it not, that the
“ third method of treatment ’’ of the preliminary
specification which you have pointed out as the non-
chemical process, was dropped, or omitted from the
final specification? A. The three methods men-
tioned in the preliminary specification are not So
mentioned in the final specification.
331
F. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 198. Now, confining yourself to the only
specification, namely, the preliminary specification,
in which a non-chemical method is mentioned, I un-
derstand it to be what is therein referred to as the
“ third method of treatment ’’ and that this third
method of treatment is throughout described as fol-
lows:
“The sewage or refuse liquor is allowed to flow
into a subsidence tank in which the heavier parti-
cles in suspension in the sewage or refuse liquor
may be deposited, the effluent from the subsidence
tank is allowed to flow into a second tank furnished
with borizontal filters and herein named the first
filter tank, by which the lighter particles in sus-
pension in the sewage or refuse liquor are sepa-
rated. The said horizontal filters are composed of
sand, quartz, coke, limestone, burnt clay, or any
other matter suitable for the purposes of the filter.
The eſłluent from the first tank may be treated in
any one of three ways as follows:
“ (3) The third method of treatment consists of
thoroughly aerating the effluent from the first filter
tank by converting it into a fine spray by means of
an air current and then allowing the aerated efflu-
ent to flow into the ‘subsidence and incubation
chamber’ for the purpose and object above de-
scribed of developing and multiplying the micro-
organisms in the sewage and refuse liquors and
destroying the organic matter in them.
“The (#luent from the ‘subsidence and incuba-
tion tank’ when the third of the above methods of
treatment is adopted, is non-putrefactive, when
the liquid is maintained at a suitable temperature
during all seasons, as we propose to do.
“The effluents from the ‘subsidence and incuba-
tion tank' flows into the last tank of the system
Which is also provided, similarly to the first filter
tank, with horizontal filters, the material of the
filters being sand, quartz, coke, limestone, burnt
1651
1652
1653
332
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
F. HERBERT SNOW.
clay, or any other material suitable for the pur-
poses of the filter.
“The Cffluent from the last tank may be dis-
charged into a river or water-course without any
dangers of poisoning the water or in any way creat-
ing a nuisance, or rendering offensive such river
GI. Water-cºurse.”
Is that correct? A. Yes.
XQ. 199. And do you mean to say that the action
in the so-called “subsidence and incubation ” cham-
ber or tank would necessarily be a septic action in
accordance with the above description notwith-
standing the statement in said description that the
effluent therefrom is “non-putrefactive ’’ and that
the sewage entering the same is thoroughly aerated
“ by converting it into a fine spray by means of an
air current?” A. Yes. It does not appear how
anaerobic fermentation could be prevented. The
object of the tank is to promote the development
and multiplication of the micro-organisms in the
sewage for the purpose of destroying the organic
matter in the sewage. In the said specification, it is
stated :
“The germs of such micro-organisms are gen-
erally contained in the liquor, but they may be spe-
cially bred and added to it.”
Anaerobic organisms can be bred and added in a
liquid to sewage, but it does not anywhere appear
that aerobic organisms can be bred and added in
liquid, or in any other way to sewage. Further-
more, the confining of sewage in liquid bulk in a
tank whose temperature is to be maintained at a
high even degree of itself implies putrefactive fer-
mentation. There is nothing inconsistent in the
statement in the said patent with my view of the
action in said third method in the subsidence and
333
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
incubation tank, that the effluent therefrom is not
putrefactive. This is quite likely to be the case
with effluents from septic tanks.
XQ. 200. In this Adeney process, upon what,
in the preliminary specification do you base your
statement that the temperature was to be maintain-
ed at a high degree, where no chemicals were used?
A. I had in mind the claim of the patent which
states the degree of temperature, but that claim
also involves the use of chemicals, and is not in the
preliminary specification. Confining myself to the
preliminary specification, the fact that it is the pur-
pose of the process to maintain a suitable tempera-
ture during all seasons, involves, in my judgment,
artificial means to achieve this object. Micro-or-
ganisms are known to diminish their activities in a
lower temperature and increase them in a higher
temperature, and I conclude, therefore, that it is
the intent of the process to maintain such a higher
temperature as will promote the activities to the
most suitable degree of these organisms which de-
stroy the organic matter in sewage when it is con-
tained within the body of the liquid.
XQ. 201. The Adeney patent does not say wheth-
er the “suitable temperature ?? is to be maintained
by heating or by cooling, does it? A. No.
XQ. 202. Nor does it say how long the sewage is
to remain in the so-called “subsidence and incuba-
tion ” chamber or tank, does it? A. My last answer,
and this one also, is confined to what is stated in
the preliminary specification and not to what is
stated in the final specification. My answer is, No.
XQ. 203. What effect would the preliminary
passage of the sewage through the “horizontal
filters” in the first filter tank have upon the sludge,
1660
| 661
1662
1663
1664
334
1665
1666
1668
1669
F. HERBERT SNOW.
So far as entering the subsidence and incubation
chamber or tank is concerned? A. It would fur-
nish a catch-pit for grit and intercept floating mat-
ters like paper, Orange peels, &c., and depending up-
on its construction wholly, admit other suspended
matters to passage through it.
XQ. 204. What do you understand to have been
the purpose of thoroughly aerating the sewage by
converting it into a fine spray by means of an air
current just before allowing it to flow into Adeney’s
subsidence and incubation tank? A. The purifica-
tion of the sewage to as great a degree as this pro-
cess would effect this purification, it having been a
common belief for many years, that the greater the
aeration the greater the purification of sewage.
XQ. 205. Do you think that that would be con-
ducive to the production of a septic action in the
subsidence and incubation chamber? A. Yes, most
decidedly.
XQ. 206. Why? A. Because it would freshen
the sewage, and it has hereinbefore appeared that
fresh sewage is better adapted to septic action than
stale sewage.
XQ. 207. Have you ever employed such a pre-
liminary thorough aerating of the sewage by means
of converting it into a fine spray by means of an
air current, as a preliminary to permitting it to
enter any of the septic tanks in the ten plants that
you have built since learning of the Cameron sys-
tem 2 A. No.
XQ. 208. Will you now please quote from each
of the claims here in issue of the Cameron patent in
suit which you have stated to be not infringed by
the Saratoga plant, the words that are not infring-
ed in your opinion, the claims in issue being 1 to 8
335
F. HERBERT SNOW.
inclusive, 11 and 12, 20, 21 and 22? A. In Claim
7, the words “ said outlet comprising a conduit,
having a longitudinal slot open across the greater
part of the width of the tank.”
In Claim 8, the following words, “An outlet con-
sisting of a pipe extending across the greater part
of the width of the tank and disposed above the bot-
tom and below the normal water level thereof, said
pipe having an opening in its wall throughout its
length for admitting the effluent.”
In Claim 6, the words “settling tank,” for this
element is entirely lacking in the Saratoga plant,
but is an essential element of Claim 6 which pro-
vides for the combination of a sewer, a settling
tank connected therewith and a septic tank connect-
ed with the settling tank.
XQ. 209. In answer 9 you stated that in the
Saratoga plant, the grit chamber is dispensed with ;
is the sewage at Saratoga pumped from the sewer
outlet up to the level of the tank? A. Yes.
XQ. 210. Do you mean to say that if a solid
substance like a spoon, for example, should come
along with the sewage, it would be pumped up to
the tank? A. I mean to say this; that any Sub-
stance that would flow along with the sewage from
the sewer system to the pumps would be passed
through the pumps and into the septic tank. A
spoon would not be likely to pass through the Sew-
ers to the pumps. There are screens at the pump
well such as are always common in all pumping
stations, to prevent a clogging of the pumps, but
these are not intended and would not prevent min-
eral matters, such as silt, &c., from reaching the
tanks. It is the intention to take everything that
will pass the pumps into the septic tanks.
1670
1671
| 672
| (573
! (574.
336
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
F. HERBERT SNOW.
XQ. 211. You state that a spoon would not be
likely to pass through the sewers to the pumps, but
my question is, suppose it did, would it be pumped
up to the tank? A. Yes, if it were possible for it
to reach the pump well, since the velocity through
the pumps and the force main is greater than in the
sewer discharging into the pump well, the spoon
could pass more readily from the pumps to the Sep-
tic tanks and there is no catch pit or any means
provided for the intentional interception of any-
thing passing through the force-main.
XQ, 212. I believe you have stated that the out-
let from the Saratoga septic tank consists of 96
holes extending in two rows across the end of the
tank. What, if any relationship in designing the
tank have you observed between the size or capa-
city of these holes and the flow of sewage through
the tank?
Adjourned to Wednesday, June 28, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 28th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Cross Examination of Mr. Snow Continued :
(Witness answers XQ. 212).
A. The total area of these holes is sufficient to
conduct away from the tank a volume of effluent
equal to any flow of sewage into the tank.
XQ. 213. If there are any tanks in the prior art
mentioned in your testimony which are “settling
tanks,” in the sense in which that term is used in
contradistinction to “septic tank ’’ in the quota-
tions made from your Pawtucket testimony in XQ.
134 of your present deposition, please state which
337
F. FIERIBERT SNOW.
of such “settling tanks’’ you consider to be the
nearest approximation to claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12
and 21 repectively? A. In the answer I am about
to make, the tanks herein referred to were used as
“settling tanks’’ in the sense specified in the ques-
tion ; but they may also have been used—or some of
them—as “septic tanks,” I having no means of
knowing whether in fact they were used as a “septic
tank º' or not.
With respect to Claim 5, which is the broad ap-
paratus claim of the patent for a tank with an out-
let submerged and open across the greater part of
the width thereof and connected with an aerator, I
will mention as the nearest approximation, British
patent, No. 3562 of 1868 to Thomas Smith and
another; British patent, No. 2760, of 1871, to James
B. Pow, and United States patent, No. 505,166,
September 19, 1893, to Oluf E. Meyer.
With respect to Claim 6, which comprises the com-
bination of a sewer, a settling tank or grit chamber,
and a septic tank, I will refer as near approxima-
tions to British patent, No. 232, of 1860, to Thomas
Walker, and British patent, No. 2329, of 1864, to
Thomas Walker and another; and British patent,
No. 742, of 1872, to John Baily Denton and another,
and to United States patent, No. 108,664, of October
25, 1870, to George W. Wigner; and to United
States patent, No. 138,250, dated April 29, 1873, to
Fritz Hille, and to United States patent, No. 280,-
545, dated July 3, 1883, to Silas Wilcox; also to
British patent, No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas Smith
and another. Placing these in the order of prefer-
ence, they are as follows:
Smith, second Walker patent, Wigner, Wilcox,
first Walker patent, Hille and Denton.
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
338
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Also the Burnham sewage works, and those at
Frankfort, Germany.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8; Claim 7, providing for
an outlet conduit with a slot its entire length, and
Claim 8, providing for the outlet to be a pipe, I
will name as the nearest approximation, and in-
cluding them in a group :
First, British patent, No. 2329, of 1864, to Walk-
er and another.
British patent, No. 3562, of 1868, to Smith and
another.
British patent, No. 2760, of 1871, to Pow.
U. S. Patent, No. 505,166, of 1893, to Meyer.
U. S. Patent, No. 580,793, of 1897, to Mitchell.
Second, British patent, No. 7174, of 1887, to
Gurtler.
Third, The tanks at the Worcester State Hos-
pital.
The Cheltenham tanks, and the proposed Austen
tank.
With respect to Claims 11 and 12; Claim 11 be-
ing the same as Claim 5, with a wide inlet added,
and Claim 12 being the same as Claim 7, with the
wide inlet added, I will specify as nearest approxi-
mations:
British patent, No. 2329, of 1864, to Walker and
another.
British patent, No. 3562, of 1868, to Smith and
another.
U. S. patent, No. 505,166, of 1893, to Meyer.
British patent, No. 364, of 1870, to Wigner.
U. S. patent, No. 184,099, of 1876, to Moore.
Taken in order of precedence, and :
The Clifton Union Works and The Austen pro-
posed tank.
339
F. HERBERT SNOW.
And respecting Claim 21, which is the same as
Claim 2, substantially, with further mention of or
use of the word “scum,” the approximations are the
same as I mentioned in my answer to Q. 33, because
I have nowhere in my direct examination, so far as
I now recollect, made any distinction in the kind
of scum found on a settling tank, from that found
on a septic tank. I can not, therefore, do so now,
and answer the question as put.
XQ. 214. Is the following an excerpt from the
report of your interview appearing in the Balti-
more News of May 22, 1905, and does it report what
you said with substantial correctness:
“As a rather extraordinary feature of the pres-
ent situation, Mr. Snow said that practically every
successful system of sewage disposal is claimed by
someone as a patented right. He declared that per-
sonally he does not believe these claims are well-
founded, but that there are several cases now pend-
ing in the courts which will decide the claims
finally. Baltimore should, he said, be prepared in
the event of its deciding to adopt some method of
disposal to have a claim made for royalty for use
under patents, but he added that Baltimore should
not worry very much over such a claim, but should
do as Other American cities have done and refuse
to pay any royalty.”
A. This is a correct quotation from the Balti-
more News, but it does not accurately or substan-
tially represent my views on the subject matter
therein contained.
XQ. 215. Do you now verify the correctness of
the excerpts quoted in the cross-questions? A. I
have not yet verified them, but I have no doubt they
are correct and they may be so considered unless I
later state to the contrary.
Re-direct Examination by Mr. Banning:
1690
1691
1692
1693
| 694
340
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
F. HERBERT SNOW.
R-d-Q. 216. What patent was sued on the Paw-
tucket case, referred to in your cross-examination?
A. The title of the case was “American Sewage
Disposal Company of Boston v. City of Pawtucket,”
U. S. Circuit Court, District of Rhode Island, on
Glover patent, No. 559,522, dated May 5, 1896.
R-d-Q. 217. In the course of your cross-examina-
tion, complainant’s counsel has made frequent and
extended quotations from your testimony in that
Pawtucket case. In view of this, I now ask you to
make any other, or further quotations from such
testimony that you consider necessary, particularly
to afford a proper understanding of the parts quot-
ed in your cross-examination as above—also making
any explanatory statements or suggestions in con-
nection there with that you consider necessary?
A. On page 442 I said:
“The object of the septic tank cannot be secured
in practice without the presence of large quantities
of water, in which those matters in a solid form
which are capable of being dissolved are dissolved
and carried off in the bulk of the liquid. If there is
not a sufficient quantity of water, these dissolving
actions would not be carried on to advantage. In
iny Opinion, the Water in a septic tank should be at
least seven feet deep to scoure good results.”
This statement defines the difference between an
Ordinary cesspool used in the sense of the old mean-
ing of the word “cess-pool,” and, the use of the
Word cess-pool as applieſl to the modern receptacle
of that name; for instance, such as cess-pools of the
Mouras type and of Waring and Phillbrick, and
others herein mentioned in my testimony which J
have cited as comprising septic tanks. In that
statement, when I said “seven feet deep,” I was re-
ferring particularly to tanks of large size, and I am
341
F. HERBERT SNOW.
of the same opinion now. Further, this depth is the
one which I think is necessary for an ordinary set-
tling tank of large size, that is, I should build a
settling tank of at least seven feet in depth.
On page 434, is the following:
R-x-Q. 245. You say that before Mr. Cameron’s
time the putrefactive process on a large scale was
frowned upon as a nuisance and not because un-
known, in your answer toR-d-Q. 224. I do not,
however, understand by that that you mean to
deny that the extent to which the solids might be
dissolved and putrefaction avail of in sewage dis-
posal, Was uworked out and unrecognized by sani-
tary crginers, or others, until after that date. Am
I correct in that? A. You are correct.”
I wish to reiterate that statement now. The ex-
tent to which solids might be dissolved and putre-
faction availed of in sewage disposal, had been
worked Öut and recognized and put to practical use
in America, in France, and in Italy. In America by
myself, and Waring, and Phillbrick, and by others
hereinbefore mentioned by me. In France by those
using the Mouras process, hereinbefore mentioned
by me. In Italy, by Pagliani, as hereinbefore fully
described. So, the process was recognized by sani-
tary engineers of the highest authority, prior to
Cameron’s time.
On page 428 is the following:
“IR-d-Q. 224. In your direct examination, and
again in answer to XQ. 174, you have said that you
believe that Phillbrick’s tank was intended to act
as a septic tank combined with means of purifica-
tion by oxidation, but in answer to XQ. 172 you
have said that you did not think that the origin or
adoption of the use of structures designed for put-
refaction in the treatment of sewage could be at-
tributed to Mr. Phillbrick’s article, especially with
reference to municipal sewage disposal. The two
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
342
1705
| 706
1707
1708
1709
F. HERBERT SNOW.
statements appear to be more or less inconsistent.
Please explain your meaning? A. The two state-
mets are consistent with the facts in the case to
which I have already testified, namely, that while
the dissolving actions which took place in the old
time cesspool were recognized and made use of by
Mr. Phillbrick, and even before his time, the appli-
eation of his principle to a municipal plant Was
first made by Mr. Cameron at Exeter in England.
Before this latter time the putrefactive process on
a large scale was frowned upon by sanitary ex-
perts because of the nuisance likely to be engen-
dei ed by its adoption, but not because the process
Wii's unknown, and since the Cameron septic tank
the attention of investigators in sewage disposal
lias been directed to this particular phase of the
sewage disposal problem. Therefore, I stated that
l did not believe that the adoption of structures
designed to treat sewage of municipalities by the
putrefactive process could be attributed to Mr.
I’hilliblick’s article.”
As making my meaning clear, I wish to add at
this time that Mr. Cameron's application at Ex-
eter, England, of the Mouras process drew atten-
tion of engineers, at the time when in the devel-
opment of the art their attention was easily di-
rected to the process, to ihe fact that it could be
applied to a municipality without necessarily pro-
ducing a nuisance.
On page 427 I said:
“Some septic tanks are operated to effect little
10 ore if any, than staleing action, and the effluent
from such tanks does not practically differ, so far
as the rate at which it may be applied successfully
to a sand filter, from the effluent from a settling
tank of considerable size in which the separation
of the solids from the liquids by plain subsidence
is intended. In a settling tank holding a day’s
supply of sewage, the staleing action which is un-
avoidable will produce an effluent from that tank
which, in my opinion, may be applied in as large
343
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Quantities to a given area of sand filter as the
effluent from the average septic tank.”
In other words, the main advantage of an ordi-
nary Septic tank over a settling tank is not in
the higher rates which the effluent may be ap-
plied to a sand filter under the conditions above
mentioned.
On page 424 I said:
“Its construction and method of operation cor-
responds with the construction and operation of
tanks purposely designed to secure septic action,
and since the solids intercepted in this tank are
retained until the tanks fill up or there is a very
considerable accumulation of deposits in them,
thſ, e is, in fact, some degree of putrefaction and
therefore my answer is in the affimative. I do not
wish to be understood as meaning that the Marl-
borough plans comprise the intentional use of Sep-
lic action to a degree which if abandoned in the
operation of the plant would render the said plant
inefficient or inoperative.”
I wish to emphasize the fact that the Saratoga
plant does not comprise the intentional use of
Septic action to a degree which, if abandoned in
the operation of the plant, would render the said
plant inefficient or inoperative. The plant would
be run just the same as it is operated now except
that the solids in the tank would be emptied out
frequently onto the filters especially prepared for
their reception. It seems to be the intent of the
patent in suit to avoid the formation of sludge.
Line 35 on page 2:
“By this invention crude sewage can be treated
for ſong periods without practically any sludge at
all forming in the tank.”
In Cameron’s first British patent it is stated:
“The solid portion of crude sewage is entirely
thrown into solution.”
I'71()
17 | 1
1712
1713
1714
344
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
F. HERBERT SNOW.
This, as I understand the subject, is problemati-
cal with any particular sewage. Every plant is,
of necessity, an experimental one and all that can
be hoped for is the utilization of the dissolving
action to the extent that it is practicable to uti-
lize them in that particular instance. The de-
fendants’ plant contains no elements or provis-
ions not used in the prior art in connection with
Settling tanks, and the defendants’ tanks can be
used as settling tanks only without detriment to
the operation of the plant as a whole. However,
the use of the dissolving actions is intended
therein, as the plant is now operated and has
been operated since being first started.
On page 424 I also stated:
“It is my opinion that the designers of the appar-
atus mentioned in the question knew of the lique-
fying, dissolving actions which took place in the old
tline cesspools and that they had this idea in mind
in the said designs, and intended to take advantage
of the said action in their respective apparatus, but
not to the degree which has since been found pos-
sible after the Cameron experiments were made
known.”
I wish to add to this statement that as I have
hereinbefore shown, Mr. Cameron had a limited
knowledge of Septic action at the time he was
granted his British patents. Since that time the
degree to which liquefaction could be carried out
in sewage of different kinds has been determined
by many experimentors, among which I have here-
inbefore mentioned the Massachusetts experi-
ments. Prior to that time there were the experi-
ments of Mouras and Muller, the former being
widely circulated in publications in France, Eng-
land and America.
345
F. HERBERT SNOW.
On page 419 is the following:
“XQ. 177. Referring to the statement by you,
R-319, “one of the first applications of the Phil-
brick design for the intentional utilization of the
putrefactive process in so far as it mascerated and
finely divided the solid matters was at the Law-
renceville School.” What is you authority for say-
ing that there was any “intentional utilization’ of
said process at Lawrenceville? A. My authority
for that statement was the declaration by the engi-
neer who designed and constructed the plant, Mr.
J. J. R. Croes, made by this gentleman on Novem-
ber 4, 1903, in an address by him before the State
Sanitary Association of New Jersey, at which time
and place I was present and listened to his re-
marks, and later at the same meeting conversed
With him further about it.”
On page 400 I said:
“I do not deny that Mr. Glover contemplated the
same sort of action in the settling tanks of the plan
he offered to the city of Brockton, in 1887, as he
claimed took place and destroyed the solids in his
cesspool. In fact, I remember that he laid consider-
able stress on the settling actions in the basins and
the value of the deposits for fertilizers, and that he
also had a good deal to say about the filtering Of
the sewage through the gravel walls and arches of
soft bricks. The bacterial action was not empha-
sized at this time by Mr. Glover. The whole appar-
atus is offered as a mechanical device and not as a
natural, living, organic process.”
I mention this at this time because I have
hereinbefore referred to Glover’s first patent
which was not the one in suit in the Pawtucket
case, as an instance of anticipation of the Septic
process. That patent and the plan referred to in
the above quotation were not the same.
On page 397 I said:
“The beginning of my confidence in the use of
putrefaction as a method of treating sewage on a
large scale was after Mr. Cameron had exploited
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
346
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
F. HERBERT SNOW.
his Exeter septic tank experiments, and as near
as I can recall about 1898. By this answer, I do
not wish to be understood as stating that I have
no recognition of the dissolving actions which
occurred in the old time cesspools; because I knew
of these actions and also of their application to
small household plants. The reason that the pro-
cess was not applied on a larger scale was that the
Opposition to the introduction of sewage disposal
'plants for municipalities was always from the
standpoint that their installation would create a
nuisance, and to allay this opposition, as far as
possible, projected plans intentionally eliminating
all features which would tend to promote putre-
faction, but included and made prominent those
features and facilities which embody the treatment
of the sewage while in as fresh a condition as pos-
sible. It was because of the bugaboo of the nui-
sance more than to any other cause that attention
was not paid to the carrying of the putrefactive
process to a stage greater than it had already been
used prior to Mr. Cameron's septic tank. When
Mr. Cameron demonstrated the practſcability of
the use of this process on a large scale, an impetus
was given to investigation of the subject, and it
was about this time that I began to consider the
use of putrefaction on a practical scale.”
I reiterate the statement, but by it I do not wish
to relegate Mouras’ published experiments in
British, American and French publications, and
the application of the process in practice in
France and Italy wherein the solids were said to
be all liquefied, to the background. Nor to War-
ing’s published statement that the decomposition
in the settling tank of his system was so great
that in some cases the said tank did not have to
be cleaned out, and his system had been per-
fected so that he would not hesitate to apply it
to villages and towns—all of which has been very
fully hereinbefore mentioned and described. But
347
F. HERBERT SNOW.
it was about the time Cameron riveted every-
body’s attention to the process as he had applied
it in Exeter that I began to pay marked atten-
tion to it.
On page 391 I was quoted as saying:
“‘The septic tank is a modern method, in the
sense that it was not recognized as a practical mode
of treating a large volume of sewage until about six
years ago. It is not a modern method in the sense
that the action peculiar to sewage confined in
receptacles has been known and observed for many
years.’”
In respect to this quotation I said:
“It should be understood that this discussion of
mine was given off-hand without preparation, and
that any mention of dates or years was to be under-
St000 as approximate only. I had in mind, in
using the words “six years ago,” reference to Mr.
Cameron’s recognition of this mode of treating sew-
age on a practical scale, which was in the year
1895; and I also had in mind ideas of my own upon
the subject which were crystallizing into form from
observations made and being made at Brockton.”
R-d-Q. 218. Referring to the quotation from
your Pawtucket testimony contained in XQ. 47
herein, did you in such quotation refer to the
‘‘septic process” or simply to the term “septic?”
A. I referred only to the use of the word “sep-
tic” and not by any means to the process which
had been known before Mr Cameron's time.
R-d-Q. 219. To whom was it known? A. It
was known to me, to the Massachusetts State
IBoard of Health, to Waring, Phillbrick, Glover,
Union and to those who had understandingly read
various American publications describing the Sol-
vent action in sewage, among which publications
I mention the Engineering News, the Sanitary
Record, Waring’s books and the various reports
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
348
1735
1736
1737
| 738
1739
F EIERBERT SNOW.
of the Massachusetts State Board of Health—all
of which have been hereinbefore mentioned. It
Was also known to Scott-Moncrieff and described
in his U. S. patent No. 530,622 of 1894. Also to
Mouras, Muller, Pagliani, Adeney, and to those
who read the various British, French and Ger-
man publications hereinbefore described, in which
the processes of these inventors were exploited.
R-d-Q. 220. How did it come about, then, that
Mr. Cameron received so much credit in reference
to the matter, particularly as shown in the pub-
lications referred to in your cross-examination?
A. By adroit business methods and advertising
at the time when people were looking away from
the antiseptic processes of treating Sewage which,
had hitherto prevailed largely in England to-
wards the opposite processes, as exploited by
Moncrieff, Adeney and Dibdin in England, and
by the Massachusetts State Board of Health in
America.
R-d-Q. 221. Briefly, what do you understand
the Exeter septic tank experiments were and
what did they demonstrate? A. There were
three experiments, each with a covered tank. The
first tank was small, built on the Mouras type and
without filtration, based upon which experiment
I understand Cameron and Cummin obtained
their first British patent, No. 21,142 of 1895. The
second tank was about twice the size of the first
one. Filters were attached. The third experi-
ment was the most important one, that one usu-
ally referred to publicly, and upon which, as I
understand it, British patent No. 23,042 of 1896
was granted to Cameron, Cummin & Martin, the
specification of this patent being worded consid-
349
F. HERBERT SNOW.
erably different than the specification of the
patent granted to the said Cameron, Cummin and
Martin by the U. S. Patent Offices, said U. S.
patent being the one in suit.
R-d-Q. 222. When did Mr. Cameron first pub-
licly state what he knew about his septic tank
action? A. In his testimony before the Royal
Commission on Sewage Disposal hereinbefore
mentioned by me in my answer to Q. 26.
R-d-Q. 223. Was his knowledge of the subject
any greater than the knowledge of others at that
time? A. No. The chemists and bacteriologists
who had been called into examine and report on
what was being accomplished in the Exeter tank,
and made a report in connection with an exami-
nation by the local government board of the Ex-
eter plant knew more than Cameron did about
what was taking place in the tank, and he
acquired much of his knowledge thereof through
these sources.
R-d-Q. 224. Did others also experiment with
the Septic tank process as well as Cameron, and
who? A. Yes; besides the Massachusetts experi-
ments there were those at Leeds, and also at
Manchester, in England; Muller and Mouras’ ex-
periments were the first, however. I should also
mention Scott-Moncrieff and Adeney’s experi-
ments, and those of Glover, which were con-
ducted prior to Cameron.
R-d-Q. 225. Did these experimentors call the
process “septic action?” A. Those prior to
Cameron, that is, Muller, Mouras, Glover, Scott-
Moncrieff, and Adeney, did not call it septic ac-
tion. And the Massachusetts experimentors did
not call it septic action until Cameron So named
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
350
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
F. HERBERT SNOW.
it. Afterwards, the Massachusetts experiments
Were called “septic tank experiments,” and so
Were those at Leeds and Manchester.
R-d-Q. 226. Referring to your answer to XQ.
80, as a matter of fact did the Massachusetts
State Board of Health lead or not? A. The
Board were far ahead of the most advanced
knowledge in the art as relating to the nitrifica-
tion of sewage, but as I have hereinbefore ex-
plained, Dibdin, Scott-Moncrieff, and Cameron
also took part in directing attention to specific
phases of the art which had been previously
known, but not wholly worked out.
R-d-Q. 227. Was the work of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health especially directed toward
the points now in controversy, particularly to-
ward “septic action,” or in what direction was
it pointed? A. I understand that the Massachu-
setts experiments were largely directed toward
the nitrification of sewage at first, and that their
energies were bent in that direction so exclusively
during the first three years that, not unlike an
express train, nothing could turn it in the oppo-
site direction until it had first arrived at its desti-
nation. In convering the nitrification route, va-
rious things were observed, such as the initial
and preliminary changes in the breaking down
of the organic solids in sewage by mechanical,
chemical and bacterial agencies, specified as both
aerobic and anaerobic. But these observed ac-
tions were not put to trial to ascertain the fullest
extent to which the septic action would be advan-
tageous until 1897. The Board did know about
the liquefaction process before, but this involved
putrefaction. In Massachusetts Municipal Sew-
351
F. HERBERT SNOW.
age Disposal Works the object sought was to get
the sewage disposed of in as fresh a condition
as possible. As I have previously stated, the
question of a possible nuisance made it difficult
to procure land for. disposal purposes. I speak
from experience at Brockton. In 1887 and 1891,
When we had to argue to get legislative sanction
to the right to take land for filtration purposes,
that the sewage would be in fresh condition when
applied upon the filter, and therefore no nuisance
from an odor would thereby be established. Again
in 1898 I had the same difficulty at Clinton, Mass.
It was in connection with this case that I talked
with Mr. F. P. Stearns, formerly Chief Engineer
of the State Board of Health, about septic tanks
for Clinton, but the possibility of objectionable
odors therefrom precluded the adoption of this
system there. At Brockton and at Clinton the
filtration areas comprised about twenty acres
each. The objection in the minds of the public
Was that these broad areas would become open
Cesspools and be a menace to the neighborhood.
R-d-Q. 228. Referring to XQs. 108 and 109,
did Cameron’s Exeter septic tank separate the
Solid from the liquid sewage? A. Yes.
R-d-Q. 229. Did it remove the solid as a solid
from the sewage as distinguished from its re-
moval by liquefaction? A. Yes.
R-d-Q. 230. Referring to XQ. 110, did Cam-
eron’s Exeter septic tank liquefy all the sus-
pended organic matter in the sewage? A. No.
Many of them passed out of the tank and were
deposited on the surface of the filter or passed
into the interstices thereof and therein accumu-
lated, reducing the capacity of said filters. In his
1750
1751
1702
1753
1754
352
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
F. HERBERT SNOW.
testimony hereinbefore referred to by me he
Stated that it was in September, 1896, that he
first observed that his tank would have to be
cleaned out some time, but he did not know when.
In this connection I will call attention to the spe-
cificatfon of the first patent which stated that the
solids would be entirely dissolved by the process.
R-d-Q. 231. In cross-question 113 there is a
quotation from an article in the Engineering
News by H. W. Clark, Chemist of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health, referring to the “So-
called septic tank system first in operation in Ex-
eter, England,” in which appear these words:
“Anyone who had ever had any experience with
or noted the changes taking place in an ordinary
cesspool, must have had their attention drawn to
this fact. We have not, however, ever considered
in the past that these actions could be utilized as
now proposed by the septic tank system.”
What do you understand Mr. Clark to have
meant by the last sentence of the language here
quoted? A. Simply this: That the absolute dis-
appearance of all the solids in sewage in liquid
form by natural dissolving actions in a tank, had
not been considered possible before Cameron
made his remarkable claims to this effect. It was
this remarkable claim with respect to the Exeter
septic tank that secured for it the attention it re-
ceived in England, and consequently in America.
Had Mr. Cameron not conducted his experiments
for the Exeter authorities, and had not the Smaller
experiments been adopted and put in practice
on a large scale there, they would not, in my opin-
ion, have become famous. Briefly, this is what
he did: He put Mouras’ process, pure and sim-
ple, to a test, and proved that it would work. He
353
F. HERBERT SNOW.
then got the system applied locally at the time
, when the world was looking for something of the
kind, and backed up by patents, judicious man-
agement, and fortuitous and extensive free adver-
tising, his system came heralded as a new process,
a Wonderful discovery, and the beginning of a
new epoch in Sewage disposal.
R-d-Q. 232. Referring to XQ. 116, what do you
understand the language from Mr. Clark’s article
therein quoted to mean? A. I understand it to
be, among other things, an explanation of why
the Massachusetts experimentors did not pay
more attention to the so-called “septic” action
before Cameron called it by that name. This
Statement seemed to be called for because the
idea was gaining credence among engineers that
the Massachusetts State Board of Health had
overlooked septic action and contact filtration,
which English experimentors were exploiting as
new discoveries. In this connection I will quote
from page 435 of Mr. Clark’s Report to the said
Board of Health in said Board’s Report for 1898:
“But, as oxygen is not present, the action by
which the organic matter is still further changed
is a putrefying one, and the sewage becomes very
ill-smelling on account of the generation and escape
of hydrogen compounds of carbon, sulphur and
phosphorus. Nitrogen is also set free in this putre-
fying process. The result of all these changes is
to decrease the amount of carbonaceous and nitro-
genous matter in the sewage. Sewage when in this
state is now known, since the results of certain
English experiments have been published, as
“septic sentage;” not a very appropriate term, but
One which we shall probably have to accept on
account of its general use at the present time.”
R-d-Q. 233. Referring to XQ. 121, are the meth-
ods of sludge disposal described in the language
:
.
©
© gº
Jº e º 'º'
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
Ç e
tº
º
e.,
354
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
F. HERBERT SNOW.
therein quoted from Rafter & Baker’s book all
the methods that could have been mentioned in .
1894; the date of said book? A. No.
R-d-Q. 234. What would you add? A. The
Mouras, Adeney, Scott-Moncrieff processes,
known at that time.
R-d-Q. 235. Are these referred to in any way
in Rafter & Baker’s book? A. Yes; on page
204:
“(4). That the arrangements for removing the
sludge be such as to insure its frequent removal,
for if left in the tanks until putrefaction sets in the
sludge is likely to rise to the surface, giving off foul
Odors.”
This shows that they, in common with many
others, myself among the number, were aboard
the non-putrefactive train of thought on the Sub-
ject. We knew of the other route, but consid-
ered this one the safer.
R-d-Q. 236. What do you understand Col. War-
ing to mean by the sentence last quoted from his
book in XQ. 122, namely:
“As a matter of fact, such preparatory treatment
opened the field for invention and improvement
that is well worth exploiting.”
A. He referred to the method of removing or
disposing of sludge by oxidizing processes prior
to the liquid sewage being filtered. In 1894, the
date of his book, the whole trend of thought and
attention of those pursuing the development of
the art of sewage disposai was directed towards
the accelerated processes of oxidation. It was
at this time that Col. Waring undertook his ex-
periments at Newport on forcing air through
strainers to oxidize the accumulated matter
strained out through the sewage. He had previ-
355
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ously, as I have hereinbefore stated and shown,
Worked out the putrefying process of dissolving
sludge and found it practicable. But he preferred
the oxidizing process as safer. His reasons were
the same as I have stated in my answer to R-d-Q.
227. *-
R-d-Q. 237. In XQ. 123, quotations were made
from Dr. Ridell’s book; will you please state
whether the following are excerpts from the same
book (p. 162):
“Pasteur proved that fermentation and putre-
faction did not take place in the absence of living
organisms, which he divided into aerobic, or thriv-
ing in the presence of oxygen, and anaerobic, or
growing without it. Their life history and char-
acter have since been elaborated by Koch and a
number of other Observers.”
On page 164:
“The earliest modern initiation of the bacterial
treatment of sewage appears, as Mr. Reechling has
pointed out, to be due to Dr. Alexander Mueller,
who came to the following conclusions; e tº º
tº gº It would seem from this, that Dr.
Mueller realized the importance of a preliminary
change first taking place.”
On page 165:
“About the same time the ‘Mouras automatic
scavenger, was inaugurated in France. According
to the Cosmos Les Modes, December, 1881; Janu-
ary, 1882; ‘This mysterious contrivance, which has
been used for 20 years, consists of a closed vault
with a water seal, which rapidly transforms all
the excrementitious matter which it receives into
a homogeneous fluid, only slightly turbid, and hold-
ing all the solid matters in suspension in the form
of scarcely-visible filaments. The vaults itself
emptying, and continuous in its working, and the
escaping liquid, while it contains all the Organic
and inorganic elements of the faeces, is 'almost
devoid of smell, and can be received into watering
carts for horticultural purposes, or may pass away
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
356
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
F. HERBERT SNOW.
into the sewer for use in irrigation.” As to the
theory of the action, it is said, ‘May not the unseen
agents be those vibrions or anaerobics which,
according to Pasteur, are destroyed by hydrogen,
and only manifest their activity in vessels from
which air is excluded.” A later article of January,
1883, by the Abbe Moigno, gives formulaia for the
dimensions of the tank, estimating its superficial
area as preferably 1-10 metre, or about 1 square
foot per person. The Exeter tank, I may remark
in passing, works out to about 0.6 square foot per
person.”
Page 208:
“We next come to processes that rely for purifi-
cation on the natural action of bacteria without
extraneous aid. This idea had been indicated in the
“Automatic Scavenger” of Mouras whſch we have
already described, and could also be gathered from
the Massachusetts investigations, but prior to the
latter, in 1890, Scott-Moncrieff made a number of
experiments with regard to the observed rapid put-
refaction of organic matter in sewers. If this
action, which was now known to be due to liquefied
bacteria, could be intensified and regularly con-
ducted within a small area, it promised to eliminate
the sludge difficulty.
“It had long been known that in the slow filtra-
tion of sewage, more particularly when the direc-
tion was upwards, so that little or no mixing with
air occurs, very considerable changes in the organic
matter were brought about, entirely unconnected
with oxidation. Thus in Frankland’s experiments,
as early as 1870, when a strong London sewage was
made to traverse, ‘continuously upward so as to
exclude aeration,’ a layer of sand, the analysis of
sewage and effluent given is the most instructive
as the meaning of it was not understood at the
time. e e º e o e e º e º 'º
That is to say, the anaerobic bacteria have acted in
the usual way:
“Mr. Moncrieff began on a practical scale in 1891
by constructing at Ashted a bacterial tank into
357
F. HERBERT SNOW.
which the crude sewage was admitted from below
and gradually passed upwards over the surfaces of
a bed of stone. He found that the liquefaction of
the solids was so effective that the whole sludge of
seven years from a household of ten persons was
absorbed on nine square yards of land, causing no
distinction in appearance between this soil and
that surrounding. The space between the under.
grating of the tank had a capacity of less than five
cubic feet, and would obviously have filled up in a
short time but for the liquefying action that had
taken place.
“In 1892 his process was examined by Dr. Hous-
ton and later by Dr. Sims Woodhead and myself.
Dr. Houston’s report of 1893 is practically the first
literature on the purification of sewage as a whole
bacteriologically, without deposition or chemicals
and with hydrolosis by micro-organisms of the
grosser organic matter as a prelude to further
treatment, a point which is not mentioned in the
Massachusetts Report.”
On page 242:
“It has been remarked that a really anaerobic
treatment in the first stage, like Cameron's or Mon-
crieff’s, requires no fall, the sewage simply flowing
in below and flowing out above.”
A. Yes, but the pages given are those of the
first edition of the book, May, 1900, while the
language quoted in XQ. 123 is from the Second
edition, published in 1901.
Adjourned to Thursday, June 29, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, June 29th, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Re-Direct Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
R-d-Q. 238. So far as regards the statement
contained in the first sentence quoted from M. N.
Baker’s book, in XQ. 124, does not the author
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
358
1785
1786
1787
| 788
1789
F. HERBERT SNOW.
appear to have overlooked Mouras’ exploited pro-
cess, or what is your view of this? A. Yes; in
Mr. Baker’s own paper in the Engineering News,
of April 15, 1882, hereinbefore quoted, the lique-
fying process was described in connection with
Mouras’ apparatus. The said statement above re-
ferred to of Mr. Baker’s overlooks Pasteur’s the-
ory of anaerobic action as applied by Mouras and
Muller and Scott-Moncrieff, and Adeney abroad,
and by Waring, Phillbrick and others in this
country.
R-d-Q. 239. Are the following excerpts from
Barwise’s book, referred to and quoted from in
XQ. 125 (p. 87) *
“During the last seven years the attempts of the
earlier experimentors to avoid the necessity for
precipitation by causing the suspended organic mat-
ter in sewage to become liquefied by the action of
bacteria, have been brought to a successful issue.
It was well known that an ordinary cesspool did
not require emptying as often as it should if the
solid maters poured into it accumulated ; and as
long ago as 1881, M. Mouras invented a ciosed tank
in which foecal matter and kitchen refuse disap-
pears as gases, or were transformed into a homo-
geneous, slightly turbid fluid, this result being due
to the fact that animal dejecta contains the fer-
ments necessary to liquefy them.
“M. Mouras and his system, in this country at
any rate, attracted little attention, and It was not
until the nineties that Scott-Moncrieff brought for-
ward his scheme o liquefy sewage by the aid of the
bacteria natural to it. It was left, \lowever, to
Cameron, of Exeter, to be the first to successfully
deal with the sewage of a town, by first liquefying
the sewage and then oxidizing or nitrifying it on
bacteria beds. Cameron did more to . Ivet public
attention on the new aspect of the sewage problem
than anyone else, by boldly calling his tank a “sep-
tic tank,’ thereby calling attention to the fact that
359
F. HERBERT SNOW.
purification was effected by encouraging the growth
of microbes rather than by killing them. There is
not doubt that the word ‘septic,” in connection with
the process of purification, took hold or the public
imagination, and extravagant ideas prevailed of
the purification which was effected in septic tanks.
“The exaggerated popular notion was that “the
microbes ate each other up, and nothing but innoc-
uous fluid remained.’
“Mr. Adeney, of Dublin—to whom we owe the
word “bacteriolysis’—has suggested that the puri-
fication of sewage could be effected by the action of
micro-organisms by adding a sufficient quantity of
nitrate of soda to the sewage.
“Dr. Sims Woodhead found that in 1 C. C. Of Exe-
ter crude sewage there were one million organisms
which were anaerobic, or did not grow in the pres-
ence of air, 5% millions organisms which were
aerobic, or did live in the presence of air. Of the
one million anaerobic, 300,000 were found to be
liquefying organisms; and of the 5% million aero-
bic, 500,000 were also found to be liquefying; so
that the proportion of liquefying Organisms was
found to be greater among the anaerobic than
among the aerobic.
“The credit for first applying, on a practical
scale, the knowledge of the bacterioligists, that cer-
tain organisms had this power of liquefying Or-
ganic matters, belongs to Scott-Moncrieff, who, in
1891, liquefied the sewage from a household of ten
persons by means of a continuous upward flow tank
filled with coarse flints. It was five years later that
Mr. Cameron, of Exeter, introduced his septic
tank.”
It is well known that many bacteria have
the power of liquefying solids albuminous
matter; in fact, one of the Ordínary meth-
ods of distinguishing different species of
bacteria is to ascertain their action upon
such substances as gelatine. As many as
196 Varieties out of 440 well-known bac-
teria have this property of liquefying gela-
time.”
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
360
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
F. HERBERT SNOW.
(Page 89):
“Following on Cameron’s Exeter experiments
came the investigations of Colonel Ducat and Mr.
Didbin. Their experiments were very similar
“In either case, solids in suspension are arrested
in the upper layers of the filters, where they are
gradually liquefied.
“The question at once, therefore, arises, is any
form of septic tank necessary? If it is necessary,
do any advantages attach to the closed form con-
nected with the name of Cameron, of Exeter?
“Perhaps the best and most authoritative experi-
ments on purifying crude sewage, both berore and
after screening, with and without septic tank, are
those conducted by the Corporations of Leeds and
Manchester.”
(On page 96):
“As a result of these Manchester experiments
open septic tanks have been tried in many places,
and, provided that care is taken to properly sub-
merge inlets and outlets, and to have the tanks con-
structed with efficient scum-boards, the solids in the
sewage are liquefied as thoroughly as in a closed
tank. e e s 2 e º e º e º e
“As experience has proved the sludge does
accumulate, the tank should be so designed as to
permit of its ready removal. . . . . . .
“In addition to sewage being capable of liquefac-
tion in closed and open septic tanks, it may be
liquefied in the manner originally advocated by
Scott-Moncrieff, namely, by upward filtration
through tanks filled with coke breeze clinker, or
Other hard material. e e º e º 'º e
“As a liquefying arrangement, however, an anae-
robic bed acts well, and has its place in the scheme
of biological purification.”
A. Yes.
R-d-Q. 240. As quoted above, Barwise says
that: -
“As experience has proved that studge does
accumulate, the tank should be so designed as to
permit of its ready removal.”
361
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Have you any special information on this sub-
ject? A. Yes. From the “Royal Commission
On Sewage Disposal. Interim Report. Volume
of Appendices, 1902,” a copy of which has been
here produced. I have extracted certain data
and put them in form of a table which I herewith
present. They show “Experiments on Treatment
of Sewage in Closed Septic Tank and Contact
Beds” and “Open Septic Tank and Contact
Beds.” In this table the name of the place is
given, the population thereof, water supply in
gallons per capita, dry weather flow of sewage,
capacity of Septic tank, and number, facts as to
accumulation and removal of sludge from the
Septic tank, duration of the experiment, number
of gallons of sewage treated daily, the officer in
charge of the experiments, and facts as to wheth-
er the filter beds connected with the septic tank
accumulate sludge and “sludge-up.”
Referring to this compilation, I will call atten-
tion to the fact that there are eighteen places
noted that the average population is 188,000, the
least being 80, and the greatest 1,670,000, and the
average volume of sewage treated being 268,000
gallons in eleven places. In all the cases cited the
filter beds were reduced in capacity by the ac-
cumulation of solids passing out of the Septic
tanks, and in all of the septic tanks where obser-
vations were made and the experiment had been
sufficiently conducted there were accumulations
in the tank.
Counsel for defendant offers in evi-
dence the table referred to by the witness
in his foregoing answer, and the same is
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Data Com-
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
362
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
F. HERBERT SNOW.
piled from Royal Commission on Sew-
age 1)isposal Interim Report Vol. of Ap-
pendices, 1902, by F. Herbert Snow.”
R-d-Q. 241. Referring to XQ 126, what is the dif-
ference between a septic tank and a cess-pool, and
do you agree with Mr. Folwell’s definition? A. J.
do not agree with Folwell. The old-time cess-pool
Was commonly understood to be a receptacle either
tight or having loose walls through which the liquid
would percolate, built in the ground and covered
over, having an inlet for the sewage to flow in, but
no outlet for the sewage to flow out. The liquid
and other matters would accumulate therein until
the tank filled, and then it would either overflow
on to the ground above, or have to be emptied by
baling Out or pumping. The septic tank is an en-
tirely different structure. It is an intercepting
chamber, interposed somewhere in the line of flow
of sewage, so that in flowing into and out of the
tank, the solid matters are intercepted therein.
There have been many misapplications of these
terms by those not wholly competent through ex-
perience in the art and acquaintance with the liter-
ature thereof, to properly use these terms. And in-
advertently, even prominent writers have misued
these terms.
R-d-Q. 242. Referring to XQs. 161 and 162, were
the objections to cess-pools overcome by Mouras,
Phillbrick, Waring and others, prior to the Camer-
on patent in suit? A. Yes. The apparatus of
Mouras, Phillbrick, Waring and others, were not
cess-pools, but septic tanks, being intercepting
chambers interposed in the line of the flow of sew-
age through which, in passing into and out of the
363
F. HERBERT SNOW.
intercepting chamber, the sewage was separated
into two parts, the solid portion thereof being left
in the tank where it dissolved to a greater or less
extent, and the liquid portion flowing away out of
the apparatus.
R-d-Q. 243. In XQ. 188, an extended quotation
is made from your testimony in the Pawtucket case
in reference to Glover’s cess-pool, &c., if you wish
to add anything further on this subject, please do
so at this time? A. While it is true that the cess-
pools were built of loose stone, so that the liquid
would percolate into the adjacent ground, which
was gravelly, which would imply that there might
not be any liquid standing in the tank, for some
reason which I should have to infer, the first cess-
pool which I have hereinbefore designated as a sep-
tic tank, acted as such. During the numerous times
which I inspected it, it contained floating scum
above the inlet and outlet of the tank, resting upon
the liquid, and in its operation the tank acted the
same as it would, had the sides been cemented up.
I can only conclude from this that the ground had
become so waterlogged, or otherwise clogged, as
to act as a substitute for tight walls so built. One
reason why the second or overflow cess-pool was
built was because the first one acted like an ordin-
ary water-tight cess-pool and had to be pumped out,
but after the second one was built, the first cess-
pool became a septic tank and the second cess-pool
the one from which the liquid had no means of out.
flowing, except to percolate through the ground.
R-d-Q. 244. Referring to XQ 139, how do you
know there was septic action in the Lawrenceville
plant? A. Because I personally examined the op-
eration of that plant an ascertained for myself, and
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
364
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
F. HERBERT SNOW.
furthermore I find my opinion was corroborated
by that of Mr. Croes, the designer of the said plant
in his address at Lakewood, New Jersey, hereinbe-
fore mentioned by me in my answer to question
R-d-Q. 217.
R-d-Q. 245. Referring to XQ. 142, and similar
questions,. please make tracings of the inner lines
and the inlets and Outlets and water level of the
tank of the Cameron first British patent, and the
tank of the Mouras U. S. patent, and compare the
two tracings and features shown therein? A. I
have made a tracing of Mouras’ tank, 1882, and
Cameron's tank, 1895, and entitled the same, “Mour.
as and Cameron’s Tanks, Tracing by F. Herbert
Snow, June 29, 1905.” Both have an inlet consist-
ing of one pipe only, turned down below the surface
of the liquid, and both have one pipe outlet at the
opposite end of the tank from the inlet end, said out-
let pipe extending down into the liquid below its
surface.
R-d-Q. 246. Referring to XQs. 156 to 160, what
changes would a sanitary engineer, in the exercise
of his ordinary skill and judgment, naturally make
in using the apparatus of the Phillbrick or Waring,
or the Mouras patent, as a septic tank On a large
scale—say as large as the Saratoga plant? A. He
would do those things which had been common in
the art for a good many years where tanks have been
built on as large a scale as at Saratoga, in fact, the
things that were done in the Saratoga tanks; that
is, make the depth thereof sufficient to allow for
proper sedimentation and retention of the deposits
on the bottom of the tank, permitting thereby the
supernatant liquid to be drawn off without disturb-
ing said deposits, and also provides sufficient depth
365
F. HERBERT SNOW.
so that the floating matters would remain on the
surface and not be disturbed by the drawing off the
liquids between the floating matters on the top and
the deposits on the bottom of the tank. In these
respects, there would be no change from the Phill-
brick or Waring or Mouras apparatus, so far as the
elements are concerned, because they were included
in the said apparatus, but the dimensions of the
tank; that is, the length, breadth and depth, would
be adjusted to meet local requirements, which ad-
justment has always been common in the art of the
use of tanks. In conducting the sewage into the
tank at mid-depth and out of it at mid-depth, on a
large scale, which elements were contained in the
Phillbrick, Waring and Mouras apparatus, the en-
gineer in the exercise of his ordinary skill, would
adopt those means which had hitherto been used in
the art, such as conduits, extending the whole width
of the tank and having a slot or series of openings,
or by partitions, dwarf walls, baffle or scum-boards,
among which were chosen the means used in the
Saratoga plant.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the tracing made by Mr. Snow and
referred to in his answer to R-d-Q. 245,
and the same is marked “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Mouras-Cameron Tanks, Tracing by
F. Herbert Snow, June 29, 1905.”
R-d-Q. 247. If asked to sum the matter up in a
few words, what can you say as to whether Cam-
eron made any advance in the art through the pat-
ent in suit over the previous work of Waring, Phill-
brick, Mouras and others; and if he made any ad-
vance, please describe it as briefly as possible, and
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
366
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
F. HERBERT SNOW.
state whether it was of an inventive character, or
mechanical merely? A. I do not understand that
Cameron invented or discovered a process. The
use of a slotted pipe in the tank was novel, so far as
I am informed, and in the other claims of the pat-
ent in suit not in issue in this case, various me-
chanical appliances are described which are novel,
so far as I know and can state, at this time. Fur-
ther than this I have very fully answered the scope
of the question in my answers hereinbefore, and I
will again state that to Mr. Cameron is due the dis-
tinction of having first applied the well-known pro-
cess of liquefaction, previously utilized and fully
described in publications in several countries in
connection with household or institutional use, to
municipal use on a large scale.
R-d-Q. 248. Were any special changes required
in thus enlarging the use of the process of liquefac-
tion—that is, did the process continue the same
when applied to towns or cities as it was before
when applied to houses or institutions? A. It
was exactly the same process.
R-d-Q. 249. In XQ. 174 you were asked about
your Pawtucket testimony, particularly in refer-
ence to there being no purification in a septic tank.
The Cameron patent in suit states that the,
“object of the invention is to provide an artificial
method and apparatus for the liquefaction and
purification of sewage;”
and that
“the process of purification comprises the subjec-
tion of the sewage to the dissolving action of anae-
robic bacteria and subsequently to exposure to air
and light.”
In view of this, I now ask what further you said
in your Pawtucket testimony about purification in
367
F. HERBERT SNOW.
a septic tank; and in this connection you may make
any comments or statements considered necessary.
A. I will quote from page 409 of my Pawtucket
testimony:
“XQ. 144. On page 422 of the State Board of
Health Report for 1889 it is stated to be strongly
indicated ‘ that the greater the amount of organic
matter in sewage and in the septic tanks, the greater
w ill be the percentage reduction of organic matter
by the tank treatment.’ Is not this brief statement
and does it not involve partial purification of sew-
age. A. This quotation is correct, but the reduc-
tion of the organic matter in the tank by bacterial
action while it reduces the amount of organic mat-
ter does not accomplish this by a purifying process,
and hence this process is not considered as a purify-
ing one, either in whole or in part. If the question
relates to the fact of a partial purification being
accomplished as distinct from the definition or use
of the word purification as applied to the action in
the tank, my answer would be in the affirmative.
“XQ. 145. On page 426 of the 1899 Report, it is
stated, is it not, that at Lawrence, except for bac-
terial action within the tank, the twenty-six months
of operation would have filled the tank five times,
and that instead of that result there was only a
Small amount left in the tank? Did not that also
constitute partial purification of the sewage? A.
The statement is correct and the operation of the
tank comprised a partial purification of the sewage,
using the word purification as a layman might use
it and not in the sense in which the word is used
in the art of sewage disposal.”
The patent in suit, as I understand it, makes the
same distinction as I made in the Pawtucket Case
and now wish to make again, that is, that the pro-
cess of purification, comprises, when a septic tank is
used for the purpose described in the patent in suit,
two parts; first, the subjection of the sewage to the
dissolving action of anaerobic bacteria, and second,
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
368
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
F. HERBERT SNOW.
subsequently the subjection of the effluent to ex-
posure to air and light; that is, purification is not
effected in the septic tank.
R-d-Q. 250. Referring to XQ. 190, does the forin
of the apparatus have anything to do with septic
action, or rather, will such action occur in a sub-
stantial degree, for instance, in the bed of a stream?
A. Substantial septic action does often occur in
solids in the bed of streams. This proves that a
structure, such as those hereinbefore mentioned,
are not necessary for septic action; in other words,
no particular form of structure is necessary to Sep-
tic action.
R-d-Q. 251. Referring to XQ. 195, what about
the non-putrefaction of effluent from the septic tank
which you mention? A. In answering this ques-
tion, I will refer to my answer to XQ. 199, which re-
lates to the same case, and in relation thereto I will
refer to page 389 of the 1901 Report of the Massa-
chusetts State Board of Health, in which it is stated
that in order that a stable effluent may be produced,
it is only necessary that sewage shall have been for
a comparatively short period of time in thin layers
in contact with an abundance of air, and that aero-
bic bacterial life, shall have been active without
the added straining out of organic matter obtained
by sand or other filters of fine material. This re-
lates to rapid filtration, or otherwise, such as was
referred to in the said Adeney patent, and supports
my statement that a non-putrefactive effluent from
the said tank, either filtered or unfiltered, would
not be inconsistent. The aeration to render the ef-
fluent non-putrefactive, might be obtained in a
river into which it flowed.
369
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
R-d-Q. 252. Why have you not employed a pre-
liminary aerating of the sewage, as suggested in
XQ. 207. A. Because I have never found it neces-
Sary.
R-d-Q. 253. Why was the Adeney subsidence and
incubation tank effluent of the third method filter-
ed? A. I should say because without this filtra-
tion the inventor thought that the tank effluent
would be unsuitable for discharge into a river, &c.,
which would be the case undoubtedly where the ef-
fluent from the septic tank would be discharged in-
to a small stream of water of insufficient oxidizing
capacity.
R-d-Q. 254. In a number of places in the cross-
examination, particularly in questions 55 to 57,
you were asked about ten plants constructed by
your firm since 1897, I now ask you whether you or
your firm constructed any such plants before that
year. If so, please state fully, giving time, place
and other particulars? A. It is absolutely impos-
sible for me to answer this question, for this rea-
son, that during the years 1890 to 1898, in which
I was serving as City Engineer of Brockton, Mass.,
I was consulted by a good many people who sought
my advice with respect to the introduction of the
Phillbrick, Waring apparatus. I rendered them
such assistance as I could in consultation, but was
too busy with the manifold duties of my office to
attend to the detail of the construction of such
plants, and I can not say how many, if any of them
were built. In my answer to XQ. 76, I referred to
a tank constructed by me prior to 1897, which had
a non-disturbing inlet and outlet for the purpose
of promoting septic action. The tank I had in mind
is the one I built in, I think, 1894, after the Waring-
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
370
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Phillbrick type, at the residence of A. C. Thomp-
son, Brockton, Mass. Mr. Thompson was an inti-
mate acquaintance and in this instance, as a per-
sonal favor, I not only designed the plant, but per-
sonally purchased the material, laid out the work
on the ground and superintended its construction
and operation. This was an intentional use by me
of septic action. The tank was constructed in the
yard and connected with the main drain of Mr.
Thompson's private residence, serving only the
members of his household. It was kept in opera-
tion, as near as I can recollect, about two years,
until a sewer was built in the street, upon which
Mr. Thompson’s estate abutted, when the disposal
plant or tank was abandoned, and the property
connected with the street sewer. During these two
years the tank worked successfully and did all it
was designed to accompish.
R-d-Q. 255. In what respect and to what extent
did this tank which you constructed for Mr. Thomp-
son, embody, apply or carry out, the septic tank
process described in the Cameron patent in suit? A.
It carried out the process to the full extent. That
is, it liquefied the solids so that the tank did not
have to be cleaned out, so far as I know, and I fre-
Quently observed its operation.
R-d-Q. 256. Was that plant which you construct-
ed for Mr. Thompson, used openly in the ordinary
course and how many people knew about it, giving
names and present addresses, so far as you know?
A. There was no secret use of the process. It was
similar to hundreds of installations in the vicinity
of Boston and everywhere in the country. I have
hereinbefore quoted from Waring's book and Phill-
brick’s book which state that hundreds of these
371
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tanks had been in use. I do not know anyone but
Mr. Thompson, to whom I can positively refer as
having known the facts as to the design, consti uc-
tion and operation of this plant, Mr. Thompson's
address is A. C. Thompson, Brockton, Mass.
ReceSS.
R-d-Q. 257. If you have anything here present
published by Colonel Waring, relating to this sub-
ject, additional to what has already been referred
to, please refer to the same and quote therefrom as
you consider necessary? A. I have what appears
to be a re-print from the “American Architect and
Building News,” of an article by Mr. Waring, en-
titled, “Sewage Disposal for Isolated Houses,” in
which, under the heading, “Cleaning the Settling
Chamber,” appears the following:
“It is desirable to remove the deposits of the set,
tling chamber from time to time, as observation
may show to be necessary. No rule can be given
as to this. In some cases, the decomposition is so
complete that the chamber never accumulates much
deposit. In others it should be cleaned out
monthly. The proper relation between size of
chamber, amount of water discharged, and propor-
tion of foreign matter in the water can not be fixed
in the present state of experience with the appar-
atus.”
The date of this pamphlet is not given, neither is
the name of the printer thereof. On the cover are
these words, “Greenwich Construction Company.
System of Sewage Disposal for Isolated Houses.”
“Patented August 29, 1876; December 23, 1879;
January 27, 1880. Applications have been filed for
further improvements.” Within the pamphlet I
find, under the heading, “Patented Details,” cov-
ered by the patents and applications referred to,
“The interposition of a Grease-trap or Settling
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
372
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Chamber between the Flush-Tank and the House, to
hold back Solid matters until dissolved or mascer-
ated.”
Re-Cross Examination of Mr. Snow by Mr. Gif-
ford :
The right of objection having been re-
Served, complainant’s counsel now objects
to all alleged prior uses set up in the fore-
going testimony, On the ground that the
Same are not pleaded in the answer.
R-X-Q. 258. You have stated (Ans. 231), that
the Cameron system “came heralded as a new pro-
cess, a wonderful discovery, and the beginning of a
new epoch in sewage disposal.” But you have stat-
ed that this was because it was “backed up by pat-
ents. judicious management, and fortuitous and ex-
tensive free advertising.” What do you mean by
“free advertising ” in this instance? A. Refer-
ences in debate, and discussions of papers read be-
bore scientific societies and by word of mouth,
which obtained in this country with respect to Cam-
eron's claims, and public discussions, oral and
otherwise, elsewhere, all of which was in fact a
most extensive free advertising of Mr. Cameron
and his claims.
R-XQ. 259. By whom were such papers read and
before what societies and by whom were such de-
bates and discussions carried on ? A. There were
two public inquiries made at Exeter, by the officers
of the local government Board, in May and Novem-
ber of 1897, which were a matter of public import-
ance. Certain facts were made public at this time
with respect to the process and claims therefor,
which I think were the basis for the discussion, de-
bates and conversations between individuals in
373
F. HERBERT SNOW.
America, to which I have above referred. I recall
having read in an English publication of many de-
bates and discussions of papers, and of comments
by the press on the Cameron system. They preced-
ed similar discussions in America. What we got
here was second or third hand, at first. I know that
I was conversant with the Exeter system in 1898
to the extent that I prepared and read a paper for
the State Association of Engineers of Indiana,
which paper appears in the Annual Report of that
Society. I do not now recall the date or even the
title of the paper.
R-XQ. 260. By whom were the debates and dis-
cussions and comments of the press in England, to
which you have referred in your last answer, on the
the Cameron system in 1897? A. By engineers,
chemists, bacteriologists and public authorities, as
near as I can recollect now. I can give names and
dates and publications later, if you wish.
R-XQ. 261. In his testimony in the Pawtucket
case, Professor Folwell said (p. 145), as to the
Cameron process:
“The process was observed by a commission in
1897 and their conclusions published in that year
in England. The first publication in this country
making any reference to this septic tank which I
can find is that of the Engineering News of New
York City, on January 13, 1898. During the same
month a paper describing this tank was read before
the Brooklyn’s Engineer’s Club, but was not
printed in their publications until several months
later. In the March, 1898, number of the Journal
of the American Chemical Society Professor Kinni-
cutt gave a description of this tank. The 1898 Re-
port of the Massachuetts State Board of Health
refers to this process, but this Report did not ap-
pear until the later part of 1899. The most, if not
all, that of these American publications were due
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
374
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
F. HERBERT SNOW.
to visits made to the Exeter tank by engineers
from the United States.”
So far as you know is that statement so far as it
goes in accordance with the facts? A. Yes.
R-XQ. 262. Then, as I understand you, when in
answer 231 you attributed the fact that the Camer-
On system “came heralded as a new process, a
wonderful discovery, and the beginning of a new
epoch in sewage disposal,” to “extensive free ad-
vertising you did not mean advertising in the ordi-
nary sense of advertisement for commercial pur-
poses? A. No.
R-XQ. 263. Might what you have termed “free
advertising ” be truly termed the spontaneous dis-
cussions by engineers in this art, which arose spon-
taneously upon the publication of the Cameron
Exeter tank and the results obtained thergeby, such
discussions not having been sought by Mr. Camer-
On 2 A. Yes.
R-XQ. 264. If practicable, will you bring with
you to-morrow, the publication of your 1898 paper
in reference to the Cameron system? A. I will.
R-XQ. 265. What was the date of your examina-
tion of the Lawrenceville plant, referred to in your
answer 244, and also of the address of Mr. Croes,
referred to in the same answer? A. The date of
Mr. Croess’ address was November 4, 1903. I ex-
amined the Lawrenceville plant during the Winter
Of 1903-4.
The testimony of this witness as to the
statement of Mr. Croes, is objected to by
complainant's counsel as hearsay.
R-XQ. 266. Turning to your 212th answer, where
you say the total area of the 96 outlet holes in the
375
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Saratoga septic tank is designed to be sufficient to
conduct away from the tank a volume of effluent
equal to any flow of sewage into the tank. Why is
the total area of these holes limited to an equality
with the maximum flow of sewage into the tank;
why are they not made larger? A. Because there
was no need of making the area larger. And in
making this reply the answer is relevant to the in-
let as well as the outlet. I mean by this that if
there was any reason to make the inlet larger, that
same reason would apply to the total area of the
Outlet holes.
R-XQ. 267. Returning now to the language of
one of the three claims (6, 7 and 8) which you point
out as being those that in your opinion are not in-
fringed (answer 208) I understand that the par-
ticular word in Claim 7 to which, in your opinion,
the Saratoga plant does not conform, is the word
“slot.” In other words, if the words “series of per-
forations ° were substituted for the word “slot ”
in Claim 7, it would be made to conform with the
Saratoga plant; is that correct? A. Yes, my
answer now referring to Claim 7 only.
R-XQ. 268. What difference would it make to
the operation of the Saratoga plant, whether the
outlet be a series of perforations open across the
greater part of the width of the tank, or be a slot,
providing the total area of the perforations and of
the slot be equal? A. This difference, that the slot
would cause more agitation than the said perfora-
tions, the perforations being, in my Opinion, the
ideal way of conducting the effluent away from the
tank with the least possible agitation.
R-XQ. 269. Do you think that the difference in
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
376
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
F. EIERBERT SNOW.
agitation between that produced by an outlet con-
sisting of a series of perforations and that produc-
ed by a slot of substantially the same area, would
be sufficiently substantial to be considered import-
ant, and if so, in what way would its substantial
importance show itself in the results produced? A.
Allowing for an accumulation of sludge of the
thickness of 24 inches on the bottom and an accu-
mulation of floating material of the same thickness
on top at the outlet end of the tank, there would
be in the Saratoga tank practically four feet of
intervening liquid, and by a slot located half way
in this liquid there would be a vertical movement
from the scum downward and from the sludge up-
ward, concentrating in an increased velocity at the
slot, while if there were a series of openings arrang-
ed, as in the Saratoga plant, then this concentra-
tion would not be nearly as great; in fact it would
be entirely obviated. The greater the agitation, of
course, the greater the amount of solids that would
pass from the tank with the liquid.
R-XQ. 270. The words of Claim 8, to which you
think the Saratoga plant does not conform, are “an
outlet consisting of a pipe extending across the
greater part of the width of the tank and disposed
above the bottom and below the normal Water level
thereof, said pipe having an opening in its wall
throughout its length for admitting the effluent.”
If in place of the word “pipe” wherever used in the
above quotation, the word “conduit’’ were sub-
stituted, would this Claim 8, then, in your opinion,
conform with the Saratoga plant? A. No; because
the Saratoga plant does not contain a conduit or
pipe outlet in the tank.
377
F. HERBERT SNOW.
R-XQ. 271. Then, as I understand you, the rea-
son why you deny infringement of Claim 8, is be-
cause the pipe or conduit into which the effluent
of the tank flows primarily, is in the Cameron pat-
ent located within the end wall of the tank, while
in the Saratoga apparatus it is located outside of
said end wall; is that correct? A. That is one of
the reasons; and the further reason also that were
the conduit located within the tank, it would not
be a pipe having an Opening in its wall throughout
its length.
R-XQ. 272. I now turn to Claim 6, which in
answer 208 you said was not infringed, because of
the limitation imposed by the words “settling
tank,” is the force main between the pump and the
septic tank at Saratoga level its whole length, and
if not, how does it depart from the level? A. The
force main is laid with an ascending grade to a
point about 4,400 feet from the pumping station,
where a 4 inch air vent rising above the hydraulic
radiant is placed. From this point it drops to a
water course, where there is a blow-off, and then
rises continuously to the septic tanks. It can be
drained either to the pumping station or the blow-
Off.
R-XQ. 273. How steep is the ascent of this force
main at Saratoga from the blow-off to the septic
tank? A. I cannot state from recollection. The
level of the water in the septic tank is 18 feet above
the lowest elevation in the pump well of the water
there.
R-XQ. 274. The drawing that you have produced
of the Saratoga tank, particularly the figure mark-
ed “Section on line A-B,” shows the force main as
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
378
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
F. HERBERT SNOW.
emptying into a well, from which well the sewage
enters the pipe leading to the septic tanks. As I
understand it, the point at which this pipe leaves
the well, is above the bottom of the well; is that so?
A. The force main enters a chamber at the bottom
thereof, and the pipes leading out of the chamber
to the tank is above the bottom of this chamber.
T.XQ. 275. How far above? A. About two feet
and a half.
R-XQ. 276. I have here a publication entitled
“Journal of the Association of Engineering So-
cieties,” dated February, 1905, and in it is an ar-
ticle entitled “The Sewage Disposal Works at
Saratoga, N. Y., by F. A. Barbour, Member of the
Boston Society of Civil Engineers.” Is that the
Barbour that you have referred to in your testi-
mony as your partner? A Yes.
R-XQ. 277. Will you verify the correctness of
the statements in this article? A. Yes.
Complainant’s counsel offers in evi-
dence the article last referred to and
the same is marked “Complainant’s Ex-
hibit Barbour on Saratoga Plant.”
R-XQ. 278. Will you please continue your
answer to XQ. 213, so as to include claims 20 and
22? A. With respect to claim 20, this covers a
non-disturbing inlet and outlet, both with
branches or broadened mouths, and submerged,
with means for excluding air and light. I will re-
fer to the following:
British patent No. 7134 of 1887, to Gurtler.
U. S. patent No. 505,166 of 1893, to E. O. Meyer.
British patent No. 364 of 1870, to Wigner, and
to Austin’s proposed tank, and to the Tanks at
379
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Clifton Union, referred to in Austin's book. And
prefer to have them considered as approximations
in their respective order.
With respect to claim 22, which provides for
a submerged inlet and outlet in an enclosed struc-
ture excluding air and light, since the question ex-
cludes from my answer the tanks used as septic
tanks, but includes only settling tanks, I cannot
mention the many examples hereinbefore stated
of apparatus embodying the elements of this claim
with the word ‘septic” stricken out. But I will
cite as approximations the references given in re-
gard to claim 20.
R-XQ. 279. May the references cited in your
last answer, and in answer 213, and the claims to
which in those answers you have cited them, be
tabulated as follows:
Smith, Eng. to claims. .. 5 6 7 8 11 12
Pow, Eng. ‘‘ ‘‘ . . . 5 7 8
Walker, Eng. 232 “ . . . 6
Walker, Eng. 2329 “ . . . 6 7 8 11 12
Denton, “ “ . . . 6
Gurtler, “ “ . . . 7 8 20 22
Wigner, “ “ . . . 11 12 20 22
Wigner U. S. “ . . . 6
Hille U. S. “ . . . 6
Wilcox U. S. “ . . 6
Mitchell U. S. “ . . . 7 8
Moore, U. S. “ . . . . 11 12
Burnham & 4 e º º 6
Frankfort “ . . . 6
Cheltenham “ . . . 7 8
Clifton “ . . . 11 12 20 22
Austin “ . . . 7 8 11 12 20 22
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
380
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
F. HERBERT SNOW.
A. The Wigner English patent was cited in re-
Spect to claims 11 and 12 and not the U. S. Wigner
patent as shown in the above table. Meyer U. S.
patent was cited in respect to claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 12,
20, 22. Worcester to claims 7 and 8.
With these corrections and additions the table
is correct.
R-XQ. 280. Please mark by the reference let-
ter X On the drawing of each of the references
mentioned in the last answer, the particular tank
in each reference that you refer to as embodying
or approximating the subject-matter of the claims
against which you cite it; also please mark the in-
let into each tank with the letter X, and the ef-
fluent outlet therefrom with the letter X2.
Adjourned to Friday, June 30, 1905, 10 A. M.
New York, June 30, 1905, 10 A. M.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Re-Cross-Examination of Mr. Snow Continued.
A. (to R-XQ. 280) I have done this.
R-XQ. 281. Of all the tanks that you have re-
ferred to, in the prior art, state which ones you
consider to be the closest resemblance to the tank
shown in the Cameron patent in suit, having re-
gard not only to the form of the tank, but also to
the outlet and inlet openings. In answering this
Question please make no distinction between set-
tling and septic tanks. A. It is difficult for me
to arrive at a conclusion in answering this ques-
tion. I will mention British patent No. 3562 to
Thomas Smith, although there is not much choice,
if any, between this and others.
R-XQ. 282. And which of the three tanks that
381
F. HERBERT SNOW.
you have marked X on the drawing of that Smith
patent do you Select in answer to the last ques-
tion? A. The first large tank, which is referred
to in the patent as d.
The right of objection having been re-
Served, complainants’ counsel now ob-
jects to answers 254 and 255, and 256,
and 224, 225, 219, 217, as hearsay and
incompetent, insofar as they contain
any matter not shown by patents or
publications in evidence and duly
proved as prior to the patent in suit.
R-XQ. 283. Is the following an excerpt from
the Waring pamphlet, referred to in your answer
257:
“It is now clearly and generally understood that
the all-prevailing cesspool used for the disposal of
household waste is in every respect pernicious and
objectionable. It would hardly be too strong a
statement to say that the best cesspool is worse
than the worst sewer;-even when water-closet
matter is excluded, the condition is not much
improved. Thus far the cesspool has been the only
means of disposal generally available where there
WeI’e Il O Se WeI’S.
“The slowly growing and carefully matured ex-
perience of the past fifteen years has, however,
demonstrated the success of the system of sub-sur-
face irrigation, or the disposal of foul liquids by
open-jointed drain tiles laid near to the surface of
the ground—within reach of the roots of vegetation
—as not only a very great improvement on the cess-
pool but as being in fact as nearly perfect as the
conditions of the case will probably allow.”
And as to that portion of the Waring sub-sur-
face irrigation apparatus that you have referred
to as a septic tank, does said pamphlet contain
the following:
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
382
1905
1906
1907
1909
F. HERBERT SNOW.
“It is in fact a perfect system for the disposal of
household waste, practically and theoretically,
with a single limitation, viz.: It still involves the
retention of a cesspool of very limited size. It is
impracticable to allow the discharge of kitchen and
water-closet matter, including paper, to flow
directly into the flush tank; it would soon obstruct
the siphon and so much of it as passed on into the
drain would soon obstruct these. It is imperative
that such matters should be withheld until by mac-
eration or decomposition they will pass on in solu-
tion or in suspension in the liquid flow. In so far
as decomposition is necessary the settling basin is
in a less deegre subject to the theoretical objec-
tions that are made to the cesspool. It is how-
ever to be considered that this settling basin, which
is perfectly tight as to its walls, is so small that
the volume of water passing through it takes up the
products of decomposition and carries them on to
drains before they assume a condition at all com-
parable with that of the permanent cesspool. It is
found practically that the arrangement is inoffens-
ive and safe.”
A. Yes.
R-XQ. 284. In the Thompson apparatus that
you refer to in answer 264, what was the size of
the tank which you state was for the purpose of
promoting septic action? A. It had, I think, a
diameter of six feet and a depth of water or sew-
age of about three feet, the septic tank being di-
vided by a division wall into two equal parts, and
having a submerged inlet and a submerged outlet
to the tank.
R-XQ. 285. Was it substantially the same in-
teriorly as the diagram marked “Waring 1892”
on “Complainant’s Exhibit Tracings Prior Art
Systems?” A. Yes.
R-XQ. 286. Then the chamber on the outlet
383
F. HERBERT SNOW,
side of the division was a semi-circle of about
three feet in radius? A. Yes.
R-XQ. 287. Is the division wall that you have
just referred to that which in the Waring
pamphlet entitled “Sewage Disposal for Isolated
Houses,” and referred to by you in answer 257,
described as follows: *
“It was found, however , when it became a ques-
tion of disposing of the entire waste of a house,
including water-closets, baths, etc., that the flow
into the settling basin had at times different force
to so disturb its deposists as to cause a consider-
able amount of semi-solid matter to pass over into
the flush tank, leading in time to the obstruction
of the drains. This has been remedied by construct.
ing in the settling basin a division wall at right
angles to the line of flow and built to about the
height of the ordinary water-level. This wall
dividing the basin into two chambers, confines the
disturbance caused by the inflow to the first cham-
ber. The flow from this into the other chamber
being in a thin stream over the top of the wall does
not disturb the deposit and only the liquid passes
into the flush tank.”
A. Yes.
R-XQ. 288. What was the date of Mr. Cam-
eron's first public statement about his septic tank,
which you have stated in answer 222 to have been
his testimony before the Royal Commission? A.
The date of that testimony was October, 1898, but
that was not his first testimony before a public
hearing. He appeared before the Ilocal Govern-
ment Board the year previous, but I have now
nothing before me to show what his testimony was
at that time.
R-XQ. 289. Where did you obtain the infor-
mation about Cameron’s Exeter septic tank ex-
periments set forth in your answer 221? A. In
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
384
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
F. HERBERT SNOW.
the Report of the Royal Commission on Sewage
Disposal, hereinbefore mentioned.
In view of the last answer, answer 221
is objected to as incompetent and hear-
Say.
Recess.
R-XQ. 290. In answer 223 you mentioned “The
chemists and bacteriologists who had been called
in to examine and report on what was being ac-
complished in the Exeter tank.” When were
these chemists and bacteriologists called in and
who were they, and by whom were they called in
to examine the report on Cameron’s Exeter tank?
A. Dr. Theodore Thompson, M. D., Medical In-
spector under the Local Government Board; Dr.
German Sims Woodhead, Dr. Samuel Rideal, Mr.
William Joseph Dibdin, Dr. Dupre, Messrs. Tear-
man and Meor and Mr. Perkins, the Public An-
alyst. These experts were called in by Mr. Cam-
eron, on behalf of the Corporation of Exeter, and
as I understand it, made their reports during the
year 1897, to furnish reliable data to present to
the officers of the Local Government Board, who
conducted inquiries on May 26th and 27th, 1897,
and again on November 23rd to 27th, 1897.
R-XQ. 291. Was this the same Dibdin that you
have referred to in your direct testimony? A.
Yes.
R-XQ. 292. Have you brought with you the
paper that you, in answer 259, said that you read
before the State Association of Engineers of In-
diana, and if so, what was its date? A. I have
the said paper now before me, and it was read
385
IT. HERBERT SNOW.
before the Indiana Engineering Society at its 19th
Annual Meeting, Wednesday, January 25th, 1899.
R-XQ. 293. Are the following excerpts from
that paper:
“The organic compounds in fresh sewage are
complex and their resolution into organic form
may be very slow or it may be hastened by aiding
the bacterial action to break up the organic mat-
ters into the simpler forms. In this work there
may be said to be two general kinds of bacteria,
one the bacteria of decomposition—called aerobes,
and the other the bacteria of putrefaction, called
anaerobic, some of which can work in the presence
or absence of oxygen, and others of which can exist
in the absence of oxygen only. The products of
aerobic activity are mineral compounds; the pro-
ducts of anaerobic activity are strong poisons of
alkalodial nature.
“In fresh human dejecta there are millions, upon
millions of bacteria of various kinds. Immediately
upon the mixing of this matter with the water from
the plumbing fixtures of the house, a portion of it
is dissolved and held in solution, and the remainder
flows along in suspension and the aerobes asisted by
the anaerobes commence and continue the work Of
food assimilation until the supply of oxygen is
consumed, when the aerobes cease their work.
The hoardes of anaerobes then have full oppor-
tunity ..for their dangerous activities. Putrefac-
tion sets in in earnest and foul gases are gene-
, rated.
“Active putrefaction may begin a short time
from the entrance of the sewage to the sewer, or
it may be postponed until the place of disposal is
reached, depending upon the amount of dilution
and the velocity in the sewers.
Mr. Dibdin's method at Sutton, which is at-
tracting so much attention, because of high rates,
is, by the use of two sets of tanks, filled with a
filtering medium, one coarse and one fine. Into
the coarse filter the sewage is flowed after being
mechanically screened as perfectly as possible.
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
386
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
\
F. HERBERT SNOW.
From forty to sixty per cent. of the organic mat-
ter in solution is removed by the first tank. The
effluent is then further purified in the fine filter.
The time occupied in filling the first tank is three-
quarters of an hour; the sewage is then held for
two hours, during which time it is claimed the
anaerobes have opportunity to work; the empty-
ing requires an hour and a quarter, and the bed
is then given a rest of two hours. The aerobes
are supposed to do their share of the work during
this period. Six hours completes the cycle and
the charge is again repeated. The clarified sew-
age is then applied to the fine grained filter. About
900,000 gallons per acre are thus treated. The
process in the first tank is claimed to be both pu-
trefactive and oxidative. About eighty-five per
cent. of the organic matter is removed by both
tanks.
“Whether these high rates can be maintained
indefinitely remains to be seen. The plant has
not yet got beyond the experimental stage.
Mr. Donald Cameron’s septic tank at Exeter
absolutely excludes all air and light. The putre-
factive bacteria rapidly change the solids into
liquid forms, the gases are not provided avenues
to escape, only such as they make for themselves
and the contents of the tank is a seething mass of
rottenness of the worst kind imaginable.
‘‘It is claimed that the effluent is not more of.
fensive than ordinary strong sewage. How this
process would work on a large scale nobody actu-
ally knows.
“If you tell the average city or town official
that the new reason for storage of sewage is di-
ametrically opposite to former ones, and con-
ditions are now sought in receptacles which have
hitherto been scrupulously avoided, the knowledge
will come to him as a startling revelation of the
extremity to which, a crank is willing to go, to
improve on present conditions, and the public is
quite likely to look at it in the same light.
When we stop to reflect that the detention of
387
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Sewage has only been tolerated to prevent or
abate some greater nuisance—for instance, where
outfall sewers emptying into tidal waters have
been made purposely larger, or reservoirs for the
temporary retention of great quantities of sewage
have been required, to prevent objectionable mat-
ters setting back with the incoming tides and de-
positing or becoming stranded where they would
cause trouble, or where chemical precipitation
tanks have been provided to render the water of
Some stream or bay less foul, or where storage
has been provided to facilitate the application of
Sewage to disposal areas, in each and every case
of which the trouble to be avoided was greater
than any annoyance the detention of sewage
Would likely occasion, and when we stop to still
further reflect that these receptacles at best have
been objects of constant suspicion and attention,
and that the prevailing idea has always been to
hurry away the objectionable matter from beyond
the populated district, and places that people fre-
quent, before it had time to do much harm, since
obviously sewage kept in motion has the least op-
portunity to deposit, putrefy and cause trouble of
any kind, the difficulty in the way of a rapid adop-
tion of the septic tank method in its most radical
form appear formidable. Nevertheless, public
Sentiment may have to give away.
‘‘We stand like the child before the teacher.
We begin to understand some of nature’s ways
and apply her laws to our necessities. Some great
innovation may mark with distinction the pro-
gress of sewage purification in the next decade.”
A. Yes. *
R-XQ. 294. In answering question 172, what did
you mean by the qualification “I should have to
modify the answer if the question involved any
structures for the purpose of facilitating nature’s
process of purification?” Did not question 172
give with substantial correctness the history of
house-wastes from the time they leave the house
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
388
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
F. HERBERT SNOW.
drain and enter the sewer in the Saratoga septic
tank System, for example? A. Yes, in the Sara-
toga plant, but it would not be true were contact
filters used, or were the tanks used as mere set-
tling tanks and the sludge daily applied to fil-
ters.
R-XQ. 295. Turning for a moment to the Ad-
eney English patent, you stated in answer 206
that “fresh sewage was better adapted to septic
action than stale sewage.” I do not understand
how this can be so, in view of the fact that you
have stated that it is not until the supply of oxy-
gen is consumed and the aerobes cease their work,
that the anaerobes have full opportunity for their
activities and putrefaction sets in in earnest.
Will you please explain? A. The terms “fresh.”
and “stale” are relative only. For the purpose
of the answer substituting in the place of stale
the word Septic my meaning may be more evident;
that is, a septic sewage may comprise a sewage
in which the hydrolytic changes have been car-
ried to that degree which produces toxins, and in
this condition the further subjection of the liquid
to marked anaerobic environment is known to re-
tard, rather than hasten liquefaction. In fresh
Sewage there has been no opportunity for the pro-
duction of products of anaerobic activity, sensibly
inimical to liquefaction, therefore the statement
appearing in the answer referred to.
R-XQ. 296. If the sewage just before entering
the Saratoga tank should be thoroughly aerated
by converting it into a fine spray by means of an
air current, would not the free oxygen thus ad-
ded to the sewage be the cause of aerobic action
389
F. HERBERT SNOW.
upon entering the tank? A. I think it would
promote the activities of the aerobic liquefying
organisms in that part of the tank.
R-XX). 297. Have you ever tried any experi-
ments to determine how long such aerobic activ-
ity would under those conditions continue in a
given portion of the aerobic sewage after entering
the tank before putrefaction would set in in ear-
nest in that portion of the sewage? A. No, no
conclusive experiments. I have observed an
aerated Sewage, after it has passed into a septic
pool and a Sewage not aerated after its passage
into a septic pool, but I do not consider that the
knowledge obtained thereby is relative to the
Question as put, because the aeration was not as
thorough as that described in the question.
R-XQ. 298. Suppose you were not starting with
a septic pool of sewage, but simply with an
empty tank, and that you should thoroughly
aerate all the sewage that flowed into the tank,
by converting it into a fine spray by means of
an air current. In view of the free oxygen thus
added to the sewage, can you say how long the
action in the tank would be aerobic or how long
it would be before the supply of oxygen would be
consumed and putrefaction set in in earnest? A.
It would depend very largely upon the quality of
the sewage thus aerated and its capacity to ab-
sorb oxygen . I can state how long it will take a
sewage containing free dissolved oxygen to lose
that oxygen and become putrid under the condi-
tions named in the question.
R-XQ. 299. In answer 9 you stated:
“In the patent in suit, Figures 1 and 2, 5, 8, 9,
10, 11, only two such pipes 17 are shown in the
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
390
1945
1946
1947
| 948
1949
F. HERBERT SNOW.
Wall of the outlet end of the tank, thereby con-
centrating the flow of the tank at two points,
Whereas in the Saratoga plant the flow is not con-
centrated out of the tank, but is divided and
passes out through 96 pipes.”
Is not the concentration of the flow of the tank
of the patent in suit at the two pipes 17, prevented
by the following statement of the specification (p.
2, 1, 94) *
“It is necessary to discharge the contents of
the tank or vessel along an extended line lest the
flow should be concentrated to a point or points
of discharge and so stir and carry away the float-
ing matter. The outlet therefore consists of a
pipe or conduit 10, which may or may not be
closed at its top, following the line along which
it is desired that the contents of the vessel or tank
A should be discharged and having throughout
its length or a part thereof a slot or aperture by
which liquid may enter the said pipe or conduit.
Such slots or apertures may diminish in size to-
ward the outlet or outlets from the said pipe or
conduit, so as to avoid an excessive rate of flow
thereinto near such outlet or outlets, thus main-
taining a uniform flow into such pipe or conduit
throughout its length. The slots or apertures
may be placed in any position along said pipe or
conduit 10 so as to admit liquid into the tank in
a downward, upward, horizontal or oblique direc-
tion, as may be desired. . . . . The slot or
apertures may also be provided with a strainer
for the exclusion of solid matter.”
A. Yes, when the outlet consists of a pipe
with the said graduated slot, as shown in Figure
10 and Figure 11. But most decidedly no, when
the outlet conduit is the same as shown in figures
9, 8, 5, 2 and 1, in which figures the outlet conduit
is shown to consist of what I call a “partition’’
or “baffle-board.” Parallel to the end wall of
the tank and extending down from above the nor-
391
F. HERBERT SNOW.
mal water level to about mid-depth of the tank,
to a point very near a projection into the tank
and to the line of Said baffle board of the said
wall, forming thereby with the baffle board a slot,
and conduit, conducting the liquid from the tank
along the whole width thereof to two pipes 17, ex-
tending through the end wall of the tank. By
this construction I do not understand that there
would be any other than a concentration of flow
at the said outlet pipe 17, although the opening
into the said conduit 10 would extend the greater
or entire width of the tank.
R-XQ. 300. Even in Figures 9, 8, 5, 2 and 1,
would not the outflow through the slot between
the baffle board and projection be distributed
along the whole length of that slot if that slot
were narrow enough to require its whole length
for accommodating the flow of sewage through
the tank. A. Yes, but this flow into the conduit
would be greater at the pipes 17, or near them
than away from these pipes, so there would be
an increased velocity and hence concentrated flow
at these particular points.
R-XQ. 301. Isn’t it likewise true that in the
Saratoga plant there was an increased velocity of
the flow through those 96 perforations that are
nearest the outlet from the conduit into which
they lead? A. I think not, to any appreciable
extent.
R-XQ. 302. Do you mean to say that if the slot
in the patent in suit were so narrow as to require
its whole width for accommodating the flow
through, the tank that there would be a concen-
tration of the flow through it adjacent to the out-
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
392
1955
1956
1958
1959
F. HERBERT SNOW.
lets from the conduit into which it leads, but if
the same slot were divided up into perforations;
or Were covered by a strainer, such concentration
Would not occur? The total area of the apertures
through the strainer or of the perforation being
the same as that of the slot. A. I fear I fail to
comprehend the question. The strainer, I think,
might well be eliminated from the question, be-
cause the apertures or slots would operate the
same with or without it, if the strainer did not
clog up. Obviously, if the slot must be narrow
and the whole width of the tank there would be
greater velocity to it than if the slot were very
wide and extending the width of the tank. If the
Outlet conduit, such as is shown in Figures 9, 8, 5, 2
and 1 of the patent, was used in one of the Sara-
toga tanks, the slot or opening being the same
area of the ninety-six holes now used in the Sara-
toga end wall, then I mean to say that there would
be a concentration of flow in the former and com-
paratively none in the latter.
R-XQ. 303. If, instead of the perforations into
the outlet into the Saratoga plant, you should sub-
stitute a slot covered by a strainer, the total area
of the apertures through the strainer being only
sufficiènt to accommodate the flow through the
tank, why would there be a concentration of the
flow which, does not exist with the perforations
existing in the Saratoga tank? A. The strainer
might consist of a sand filter, as the question is
put, and would constitute an impediment to the
flow of the sewage throughout the whole length
of the conduit, would be sure to clog up for parts
of or its whole length, thereby causing a concen-
393
F. HERBERT SNOW.
tration of flow at one or more points or the cessa-
tion of the flow entirely. I therefore fail to com-
prehend the meaning of the question as put. If
by a strainer is meant a structure not intended
to strain out the minute particles which pass in
the effluent from the Septic tank, but a structure
With a series of holes, whose office is not to strain
Out Suspended matters in the effluent, although it
may be termed a strainer, then the use of it would
be superfluous, and eliminating it from the ques-
tion, my answer is that a slot being only suf-
ficient to accommodate the flow through the tank,
would, for the reasons I have given in my last
answer, have a concentration of flow which does
not exist in the perforations existing in the Sara-
toga plant.
R-XQ. 304. I have always understood that a
liquid will endeavor to take the shortest course to
its outlet, but if on the way to its outlet it be com-
pelled to pass either through, a row of perfora-
tions or a slot, the extent to which it will be com-
pelled to distribute itself, either along the row of
perforations, or along a slot, will depend upon the
rate of flow in comparison with the size of the
perforations or slot, the flow in either case being
preferably through that part of the perforations
or slot affording the shortest course to the outlet,
and being compulsorily extended along the line of
perforations or slot as far as the rate of flow re-
quires. If you differ from this statement, will you
please state the reason why? A. I will answer
by an illustration, the case being that of defend-
ants’ plant. The effluent from the tank passes out
through a series of holes in two horizontal rows
1950
1961
1962
1963
1964
394
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
F. HERBERT SNOW.
extending the whole width of the end wall, into
a chamber adjacent to the tank, in which the ef-
fluent stands at the same level as the level in the
tank. The effluent is drawn from this chamber,
not at the bottom or mid-depth, but at its extreme
top, by a device called a weir, over which sewage
effluent flows by the force of gravity, there being
required an inclination on the surface of the ef-
fluent in said chamber to operate this weir. The
movement of the water or effluent in this chamber
is therefore largely on the surface, because of the
size of the chamber and proportions of the weir;
hence it follows that there is a very much larger
area to distribute the velocity of flow out of the
tank, and the effluent therefrom is aot drawn to
a Sensible degree more rapidly from the openings
into this chamber which are nearest the weir, but
more uniformly through all the openings into said
chamber. While in the case of the conduit in
Figures 9, 8, 5, 2 and 1, the effluent is all col-
lected into two pipes, located at the same level
with the slots in the conduit and hence there is
not as large an area to distribute the velocity in,
and necessarily there must be more concentration
of flow.
Baffle boards for the purpose cited in the patent
in suit of serving as a non-disturbing outlet, have
been used in the art for a long time, and the rea-
son we did not use them at Saratoga was that we
considered the series of pipes adopted as preferable
and more to the purpose.
R-XQ. 305. In view of your last answer, if every-
thing else remained the same, inclusive of the cham-
ber and weir, to which you have referred in the
395
IF. HERBERT SNOW.
Saratoga apparatus, but a slot should be substitut-
ed for the two rows of perforations, such slot being
narrow enough so as to require its whole width so
as to accommodate the rate of flow, would not the
flow pass through the whole length of the slot for
the same reason that it passes through the whole
length of the opening? A. Yes.
It-XQ. 306. I do not understand your answer
229, which seems to say that in the Cameron tank
the solid was removed from the sewage as solid as
distinguished from its removal by liquefaction. Do
you mean by this that preliminarily to the liquefac-
tion of the solid in the tank it is removed from the
liquid in the sense that it setlles to the bottom or
rises to the surface, and not in the sense of being
taken out of the tank? A. I meant, first, that
there was a grit chamber in the tank to intercept
matters of a gritty character, and that among them
there were organic matters which in time were
bodily removed from the liquid in the tank and
from the tank itself. Next, that not all the solid
matters were liquefied, but they were intercepted
and gradually accumulated, requiring a considera-
tion of the question what to do with them when the
tank became full, or they required being removed
as a solid from the tank. Hence, my answer that
the Exeter tank removed from the solid as a solid
from the sewage as distingished from its removal
by liquefaction.
R-XQ. 307. Do you mean to say that the tank
did become full? A. NO.
R-XQ. 308. Do you mean to say that liquefaction
was not the cause of its not becoming full? A. I
can not say whether the septic tank ever filled up
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
396
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
F. HERBERT SNOW.
or not. If I have known, I have forgotten. If it
has ever been cleaned out, it was because liquefac-
tion was not sufficient to dissolve the solid matters.
It-XQ. 309. Do you find the quotations that I
made in XQ 123 from Rideal’s book, edition of 1901,
also in the edition of 1900, from which you have
Quoted? And if so, on what page? A. I do. On
pages 213 and 214.
R-XQ. 310. And immediately following the first
paragraph that I quoted from Rideal in question
123, does the following occur in reference to Camer-
on’s septic tank, and its comparison with such filter
tanks as those of Dibdin and Scott-Moncrieff :
“In this way the sewage becomes mixed and
averaged, and the bacteria have a chance of work-
ing during the passing through the 65-foot length
of flow which the sewage traverses at the rate
of little more than 2 feet per hour. No obstruc-
tion is present, and the entire space is available,
differing from what we have seen of tanks parti-
ally filled with stones or coke. In the latter the
dimensions must either be larger in proportion,
or the sewage must pass at a greater rate, the
bacteria also are not so freely distributed
through the liquid. From the inspection cham-
ber (in the septic tank) it is seen that a leathery
scum from two to six inches thick, according to
the position, collects on the surface and renders
the whole anaerobic. Below this is a Zone of fer-
mentation, in which the sewage is mainly clear,
but bubbles of gas keep the liquid in a state of
quiet admixture. At the bottom of the tank there
is a layer of the dark faecal matter previously re-
ferred to (p. 81), which is so small in amount that
during a period of a year's working it does not
require to be removed.”
A. It does.
R-XQ. 311. Why do you understand that the
three or four basins, described in Muller German
397
F. HERBERT SNOW.
patent, 9792 of 1878, were “lifted out of the
ground;” as stated in said Muller patent? A. To
admit of their continuous discharge on to the filt-
€I’S.
R-XQ. 312. On your table, marked “Data com-
piled from Royal Commission on Sewage disposal,
Interim Report,” have you any personal knowledge
showing that the tanks at Manchester were Camer-
On tanks in the sense of being constructed by Cam-
eron? A. I know only what I have read, and have
been told by those who have visited them.
The words “Cameron tanks,” on the
table referred to, is objected to as hearsay.
Adjourned to Saturday, July 1st, 1905, 10:30
A. M.
New York, July 1st, 1905, 10:30 A. M.
Met, pursuant to adjournment.
Present, counsel as before.
Re-Cross Examination of Mr. Snow Continued :
R-XQ. 313. What is the reason, as you under-
stand it, that in any septic tank similar to that at
Saratoga there is any solid matter at all that ever
has to be removed otherwise than by running off
with the effluent? A. There may be a good many
reasons, some sewages may not be at all adapted
to septic action and in that case the tanks would
fill up very rapidly. In other cases, as has been ob-
served in practice, the solids accumulate very rapid-
ly for no known reason. The leading exponents of
the art are at loggerheads upon this very question.
Success has attended the operation of our plant,
possibly by accident, and possibly through the ex-
cellence and skill in design and the exercise of good
judgment based upon our observation and experi-
1980
|981
1982
1983
1984
398
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
F. HERBERT SNOW.
ence. As I have hereinbefore stated, at this time
in the development in the art, every septic tank may
be considered an experimental one.
R-XQ. 314. Does in-organic matter in some cases
constitute any part of the solid matter that has to
be removed otherwise than by running off with the
effluent? A. Yes, quite a considerable part in some
CàSéS.
R-XQ. 315. So that in cases where the composi-
tion of the sewage contains a greater per cent age
of in-organic or mineral matter, the solid matter
that has to be removed otherwise than by running
off with the effluent, is, all other things being equal,
likely to be greater? A. Yes.
Re-Cross Examination Closed.
Re-Direct Examination :
R-d-Q. 316. What was the title of your address
before the Indiana Enginering Society, en January
25, 1889? A. American versus English Progress
in Sewage Purification.
R-d-Q. 317. When was this address prepared?
A. During the week of January 14th to 21st. 1899.
R-d-Q. 318. How long had you had in your pos-
session the data upon which you based the state-
ments made in this address? A. Some of it I ob-
tained in 1897, and the rest during 1898.
R-d-Q. 319. Are the following excerpts of the
said paper?
“Of late we have heard a great deal about the
accelerated processes of sewage purification, par-
ticularly with reference to preliminary treatment
in the septic tank or bacterial filter,
“Very satisfactory results are claimed for
these methods in England, notably at Exeter and
Sutton. Familiarity with their writings and dis-
cussions leads one to conclude that the English
399
F. HERBERT SNOW.
experts are not generally well informed of Ameri-
can progress, and even some American writers
have overlooked what has been ascertained at
home of the fundamental principles of sewage
purification, and the extent to which this knowl-
edge has been applied in actual practice.
“Since then we have proved conclusively that
by a separation of the suspended and dissolved or—
ganic matters in the tank, through sedimentation,
the upper layers of the tank contents—stale sew-
age—can be applied to the filters and decomposed
at very high, rates, requiring no raking of the Sur-
face or the beds from spring to fall; and that the
lower layers of the tank contents called sludge,
can be most successfully and economically treated
by application in slower rates to particular fil-
ters.”
“We see, therefore, that the distinction between
fresh and stale sewage was made at that time, the
changes brought about by putrefactive action
were noted, and also the increased tendency of
stale sewage to clog the filter.
“The economy of staling the sewage and separ-
ating the suspended matters and applying the
sewage and sludge, as above described, is there-
fore made apparent.
“That the capacity of a filter depends upon the
arrangement of the constituents of the Sewage, as
well as the amount of these constituents, was
Rnown by the State Board of Health and practi-
cally applied at Brockton months before the world
knew anything about the Exeter Septic tank ex-
periments.
‘‘How much stale sewage can be applied in
twenty-four hours on an acre at Brockton has
never yet been ascertained, principally for the
reason that the flow of sewage has not been
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
400
1995
1996
1997
1998
F. HERBERT SNOW.
enough to require pumping more than three hours
each day.
“Each bed is usually dosed at the rate of 3800
gallons per minute for between twenty and thirty
minutes. Because of lack of sewage twenty-four
hours elapses before the dose is repeated.
‘‘We have been able to apply 140,000 gallons
of stale sewage in thirty-five minutes to some of
the beds, and in four hours every sign pointed to
conditions favorable for a second dose. This
would be at the rate of 840,000 gallons per acre
daily.”
A. Yes.
Examination of witness closed.
Adjourned subject to notice.
1999
401
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, NORTH-
ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY.,
Complainant,
against
VILLAGE GE SAEATOGA SPRINGS, AND tº Equity
THE SEwen, WATER AND STREET | * *
COMMISSION OF SARATOGA
SPRINGS,
Defendants. J
Testimony on behalf of the defendants for final
hearing, taken at the office of Messrs. Banning &
Banning, Marquette Building, Chicago Illinois, be-
fore Oscar W. Bond, Notary Public.
Chicago, August 2, 1905, 10:00 A. M.
Met by agreement of counsel: Present, Mr.
George P. Fisher, Counsel for Complannant; and
Mr. Ephraim Banning, Counsel for Defendants.
Arthur N. Talbot, a witness produced and sworn
on the part of defendants, deposes and testifies as
follows in answer to questions by Mr. Banning.
Q. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. Arthur N. Talbot, 47 years, Ur-
bana, Illinois. I am professor of municipal and
sanitary engineering in the University of Illinois,
and a civil engineer. •
Q. 2. Please state what experience you have had
as a sanitary engineer, what societies you are a
member of, etc. A. I took the course in civil engi-
neering in the University of Illinois, graduating in
1881. The course was four years. From 1881 to
1885 I was engaged in civil engineering work on
railway construction, location and maintenance.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
402
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Since 1885 I have been connected with the Univers-
ity of Illinois, first as assistant professor of engi-
neering, and since 1890 as professor of municipal
and Sanitary engineering. Since 1885 I have at va-
rious times been engaged in engineering work, in-
cluding the designing and construction of sewer-
age Systems and Sewage disposal plants. I have
at various times visited Sewage disposal plants
for the purpose of acquiring information concern-
ing them. I have been a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers since 1888. I am a
member of the Western Society of Engineers, the
Illinois Society of Engineers and Surveyors, the
American Society of Municipal Improvements,
the American Water Works Association, and the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Q. 3. Please state where you have examined sew-
age disposal plants or seen them in operation? A.
Without attempting to enumerate all that I have
visited I will mention that in the summer of 1892
I spent three weeks in Massachusetts inspecting
sewerage construction, sewage disposal plants and
water works systems. At that time I visited plants
at Marlborough, South Framingham, Worcester,
Westboro, and other places, and also made a visit
to the experiment station of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health at Tawrence. In 1900, while
in England, I inspected a number of sewage dis-
posal plants including the ones at Exeter, Yeovil,
Manchester, Leeds, Accrington and Sutton.
Q. 4. Have you had anything to do with the
construction of sewage disposal plants at Urbana
and Champaign, Illinois? A. Yes.
403
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Q. 5. Please state fully, what you had to do with
the construction of such plants when and how the
same were constructed, how they operated, etc. In
answering this question you may refer to any docu-
ments, papers, or data in your possession. A. In
May, 1894, I was employed by the City of Urbana,
Illinois, to design and have charge of the construc-
tion of a sewerage system for a part of that city.
Included in this work was the problem of the dis-
posal of the sewage in the future. Upon my recom-
mendation the city purchased a tract of land within
the city limits through which a small creek flowed.
My recommendation was the construction of a tank
immediately to be followed as soon as the circum-
stances made it necessary with the construction of
some form of artificial sand filter bed. I designed
this tank, which was then called the settling tank,
or merely the sewer tank, and it was constructed
under my direction in October and November, 1894.
It was connected with the sewer and put into opera-
tion in November of that year. This tank was 22
feet long, four and a half feet wide, and about four
feet deep below the flow line of the sewer. It was
built of brick and was covered with a heavy plank
cover, an inlet chamber contained a gate for shut-
ting off the flow, and another gate was connected
with a by-pass, through which the sewage could be
discharged directly into the stream. At the outlet
end a weir wall extended entirely across the tank,
and the sewage passed through a shallower cham-
loer to the outlet pipe at the end of the tank. A
wall of brick was built across the tank near the mid-
dle and extended down into the tank about 15
inches below the level of the sewage. A baffleboard
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
404
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Was placed across the tank about three feet from
the inlet end and extended from above the surface
Of the Water to a point about 12 inches below its
level. A similar baſilleboard was placed about three
feet from the discharge weir before mentioned. A
Sludge gate was built into the brick Wai I near the
middle of the length of the tank and at the bottom,
but this was not connected with an outlet, being
Sealed up. The sketch which I have here is the
Original plan from which the masonry work was
constructed. It was drawn by my assistant, M. S.
Ketchum, who is now professor of civil engineering
in the University of Colorado, from a preliminary
Sketch made by me. It was built substantially as
shown, but the inlet chamber was made with a flat
bottom. No complete plans were made as the work
of construction was done directly under the super-
vision of my assistant. The cover and baffle boards
were put in by the superintendent of streets of Ur-
bana. The dates of construction I have verified by
reference to memoranda made at the time. There
is no date on this sketch, but I know of my own
knowledge that it is the sketch made at that time.
It has ever since been in my possession, and it has
not been altered in any way.
The operation of this tank proved quite satisfac-
tory. The effluent was quite clear and no nuisance
was caused in the creek into which it was dis-
charged. The people of Urbana who had been ap-
prehensive of trouble from the discharge of the
sewer were pleased with the result.
In June, 1895, I was engaged by the City of
Champaign, Illinois, to design a sewerage system.
The city of Champaign adjoins the city of Urbana
405
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
on the west, and its natural drainage is down a
small stream commonly known as Boneyard
Branch, which flows easterly entirely through Ur-
bana and discharges into the creek before mentioned
as the outlet of the Urbana sewerage system. To
get to this creek and have a gravity flow, it was
necessary for the city of Champaign to secure a
right of way for its outlet sewer through the streets,
alleys and other property in the city of Urbana.
My first services were to assist in securing an Ordi-
nance giving the right of way for this outlet sewer.
At this time, in 1895, there existed a tile drain
along the Boneyard Branch, in Champaign, which
discharged into that stream within the limits of
Urbana. This tile carried the discharge of many
water closets, sinks and cesspools connected with
buildings in Champaign. The discharge of this
tile during times when the Boneyard Branch would
otherwise be entirely dry created a considerable
nuisance in the Boneyard Branch in the west part
of Urbana, producing foul odors, and was a source
of annoyance to residents in the neighborhood. This
condition had existed for several years, and had
been a source of damage suits against the city of
Champaign. The city council of Urbana were
averse to granting the right of way with the con-
ditions then existing, finally it was agreed that the
city of Champaign should construct in East Side
Park, a small park lying within the limits of Cham-
paign and through which Boneyard Branch passed,
a tank similar to the settling tank used with the
Urbana sewerage system. The city council were so
well satisfied with the operation of the Urbana
sewer tank that they felt that the construction of
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
406
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
this tank in Champaign would remedy the condi-
tion complained of. A tank was built in East Side
Park June 13 to 15, 1895. This tank was about 32
feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet below the water
level of the tile. It was constructed by making an
excavation, lining the sides with two lengths of 16
foot boards and bracing across. The ends were
boarded up in a similar way. A screen of wire
netting was placed across the lower end, and one or
more baffle boards were placed across the tank ex-
tending from above the water surface to a depth of
about ten inches below the water level. The top
was covered with a board cover. The tile drain
before mentioned was connected at the upper ends
and at the lower ends so that the flow of this drain
would pass through the tank. I do not recall the
exact construction at the lower end of the tank,
but there was some device for maintaining the level
of the water over which the flow passed, and there
were no drawings made for this tank, but it was
constructed under my direction by the superintend-
ent of streets of Champaign with city labor. On
July 8th, 1895, the city council in the city of Urbana
passed the ordinance giving the city of Champaign
the right to construct and maintain the sanitary
sewer across and through the city of Urbana. I
have a printed copy in my hand of the Ordinance
passed by the city council of the city of Champaign,
July 16, 1895, which embodies the ordinance of the
city of Urbana, just referred to, and on which this
date of July 8, and approved July 9, appears.
During June and July, 1895, I designed the
sanitary sewerage system for the city of Champaign.
A tract of ground was chosen just outside and ad-
407
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
joining the city of Urbana on the east and through
Which the Small Creek before referred to flowed.
This property was selected because its topographi-
cal features were such as would enable the construc-
tion of Sewage disposal works, and because it was
beyond the limits of the city of Urbana, a condition
which was specified by the Urbana council. Includ.
ed in the design of the sewer system were two
tanks, then called by me “separating tanks.” The
ordinance for the Champaign sewerage system was
passed August, 6, 1895, and approved August 9,
1895. It contains this provision for the separating
tanks:
“Section 7. Two separating tanks shall be con-
structed at the lower end of said sewer on the dis-
posal ground. They shall be each eight (8) by
forty (40) feet in size, and shall be built to a depth,
of five (5) feet below the bottom of the grade of
the outlet sewer. The walls shall be built of hard
burned brick laid in cement mortar and shall be
plastered on the inside and outside The bottoms
shall be of concrete or brick masonry. They shall
be covered with a substantial cover and shall
be provided with such partitions, screens, gates
and effluent pipes as will be necessary for the
proper separation of sludge from the sewage, and
for the purpose of removing the same.’’
The construction of the Champaign sewerage;
system was continued over several years, due to
difficulties in making bonds salable and to the fail-
ure of contractor after contractor to complete the
work. Although the assessment for the improve-
ment was approved by the court and bids received,
and contract awarded for the lines for the Sewer
system, before the end of November, 1895, and,
although the contractor came on the ground ready
to begin work, it was finally concluded in March,
2030
2031
2()32
2()33
2034
408
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
1896, that it would be necessary to wait until the
receipt of the next general tax funds. The contract
was let a second time in August, 1896, and the new
Contractor began work. He failed to ºush the work
vigorously and in November, 1896, gave up the
work entirely. The council advertised again for
bids and the contract was let to a third contractor,
Who finally allowed the amount of one thousand
dollars which he had deposited to be forfeited to
the city. The work was then let to a fourth con-
tractor who began the work of sewer building in
June, 1897, and continued until September, when
he failed in the work. The surety company, his
bondsman, then took up the work and let it to a
fifth contractor who began work in November, 1897.
This company finally failed and its bondsman next
took up the construction, subletting it to another
firm. The separating tank at the outlet had not
been included in any of these contracts, and no
work was done upon it because it could not be of
service until at least the Outlet Sewer was com-
pleted. It was built in August, 1897, under my
direct supervision, and by a force of city laborers.
So far as the tank proper is concerned. The Walls,
roof, doors and other features of the superstructure
were put in by local contractors. The outlet Sewer
was completed in October, 1897, and was connected
to the separating tank November 1, 1897, by R. P.
Brower, then city engineer of Champaign.
The tank was constructed substantially as de-
scribed in the sewer ordinance. Most of the tanks
walls, however, were, because of ease of construc-
tion, built of concrete, and instead of a flat roof
at the surface of the ground as was at first con-
409
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
templated, the Walls were run up high enough to
admit doors and easy passage into the structure,
thus forming a building over the tank. The draw-
ing which I have here shows the plan of construc-
tion originally contemplated, except that the roof
is not shown. A second drawing shows the changes
Which Were made before construction. In addition
to the change in the side walls and position of the
roof, the cross wall at the bottom of the tank was
Omitted and the building was made longer to pro-
vide space for a small steam engine. This first
drawing is marked “Separating Tank for Cham-
paign Sewerage System.” Another variation in
construction from this plan consisted in Inaking the
bottom face of the cross wall at the middle of the
tank horizontal instead of arched. The second
drawing is marked “Separating Tank Champaign
Sewerage System.”
The dates in the foregoing statements of the Ur-
bana Sewerage System and the Champaign Sewer-
age System are taken from memorandum diaries of
the progress of the work under my charge which I
here have, the entries all being made at the time.
The University of Illinois is located between the
cities of Champaign and Urbana and within the
corporate limits of the latter. The growth of the
university and the need for further improvement
made the university authorities desircus of having
sewer systems constructed in the two towns. As
one of the difficulties in the way lay in the fact
that the outlet of the sewerage system must be a
small creek, I had given some thought to a treat-
ment of the problem which would come within the
means of the cities as they would be likely to make
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
410
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the expenditure. As the stream was not used as a
source of water supply it did not seem necessary to
provide the complete treatment which was advo-
cated in some parts of the country, and I felt that
if something could be done which would partially
purify the sewage and which could at a later date
be extended as necessary, and even connected with
a set of filter beds or other method of final purifica-
tion, this would meet the requirements of the situ-
ation. In July, 1892, I saw work on the construc-
tion of a sewage disposal plant for Weſlesley Col-
Hage, Wellesley, Massachusetts, and was told by
Captain Henderson, the engineer in charge of the
construction, that their plans for the construction
of a settling tank were suggested by Mr. Noyes,
then city engineer of Newton, Masachusetts, who,
according to my memorandum, made at the time to
which I now refer, “is authority (H. says) for the
statement that at a school house in Newton where
top was sealed no deposition of sludge occurred—
all matter being gradually reduced to fine enough
composition to be carried off into the under drain.”
I went to Newton soon after, but Mr. Noyes was
away from town. I afterward wrote to him asking
for particulars of the installation referred to by
Captain Henderson, and received the foſlowing let-
ter which I here produce, in an envelope which I
hereby identify, and which is postmarked “West
Newton, Mass., Mar. 18, 1893,” viz.:
411
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
“Subject
In reply to your favor of
Albert F. Noyes,
City Engineer,
City of Newton, Office of City Engineer.
City Hall, West Newton, Mass., March 18, 1893.
Arthur N. Talbot, Esq.,
Champlaign, Ill.
Dear Sir:-
Your favor of the 10th inst. was duly received,
as was also one of some months ago, inquiring
in regard to a covered sewerage receiving tank,
which was described to you by Capt. Henderson.
I would say that I laid your first letter one side,
in order to look up information which would
make the facts more clear, and like everything
that is put off from day to day, it is not done.
Now I will attempt to extend to you the informa-
tion which you desired.
I would state that in 1882 there appeared in
the Engineering News, in Volume 9 under date
of April 15, 1882, a description of the Automatic
Vault Cleaner, and a design by one, M. Mouras,
a copy of which I send you, thinking that pos-
sibly you may not have the volume referred to.
At that time we were designing for the drain-
age of a dwelling for the Engineer and Fireman
at the Pumping Station, which had to be taken
care of by sub-surface irrigation, and thought it
a good chance to apply the plan to the drainage
of the house.
The construction of the tanks were already
contracted for, and not wishing to change the
plans so as to make an extra charge, I used the
original small settling tank, as you will see by the
blue print which I send you, as a receiver, and
while it showed that undoubtedly the merits
claimed by M. Mouras were correct, the receiv-
ing chamber was not large enough to provide
liquid enough for taking care of the grease from
the kitchen waste from the two families, which
in this case was excessive. We opened it over
five years ago, and found a considerable depth of
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
412
2055
2()56
2057
2058
2059
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
grease, but no other solid, and the grease was not
especially rancid.
We were designing at the same time to take
care of the drainage from two school houses, and
a nose house, an average of about 250 persons. In
this case there was no kitchen waste. This was
put in, in 1882, and about 1889 was opened and
found to be as claimed by the writer. It has not
Since been opened.
The distributing pipe system has worked per-
fectly satisfactory and there has been no trouble
from filling up except in a very few points, say
one or two feet at the extreme ends, we found a
mould which appeared to be more of a deposit
from the common angle worm, and to which, I as-
Sume from appearences it was due.
I have not had a chance to give it a reaſ good
test or any drainage system, but assume that to
work satisfactorily the sewerage ought to be de-
livered into the tank fresh.
It will give me pleasure to extend to you any
further information which I can, and which you
may desire.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT F. NOYES, City Engineer.
I looked up these references and also exam-
ined drawings and descriptions of various tanks
in connection with the different sewerage systems,
including those at Medfield, Massachusetts, and
Lawrenceville, New Jersey. I finally concluded
when making plans for the Urbana sewerage Sys-
tem that a tank of the kind built for that town
and previously described would be quite effective,
and that it would serve the purpose and make Suf-
ficient purification until the quantity of Sewage
and the extension of the sewer system would make
other construction necessary. The tank was ar-
ranged so that a second tank could be built on
the west side of it without interfering with the op-
413
ARTHUR. N. TALBOT.
eration of this one. It was at first expected that
this tank might require frequent cleaning, as was
done in some places. After the Urbana tank had
been in operation for some months it was con-
cluded best to clean it. A small tank placed on
a wagon had been provided, together with an or—
dinary Sewer diaphram pump. The street super-
intendent of Urbana, Charles Sell, was instructed
to pump out the tank. Contrary to his expecta-
tion he found that the job was not a serious or
unpleasant one. The tank was easily pumped out,
and the contents were discharged on the surface
of the ground adjoining the tank. The liquid
portion. Soon seeped into the ground, leaving only
a thin coating of black earth-like material which
had little odor. I should have said that upon
opening this tank it was found that there was a
Scum over the surface and that the lower por-
tion of the tank contained a thin liquid-like thin
mud. It was also seen that there was gas aris-
ing, but the tank was free from obnoxious Smells
Such as are found where offensive putrification
goes on. The matter taken out of the bottom of
the tank resembled the description given in Mr.
Noyes’ letter. It was evident, both from the ap-
pearance of the tank and from calculations made
on the amount of solids which must have passed
into the tank, that there was some change going
on in the tank. I may add that at this time, the
spring of 1895, gaugings made on this sewer by
students in my classes, showed a daily flow of
from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand U. S.
gallons per twenty-four hours. I hoped to make
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
414
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
a study of the full operation of the tank, but the
large amount of engineering work which I then
had on my hands in connection with my duties
With the university, both in the class room and
outside, made it impractical to do this. I had
even talked about the action of the tank with Dr.
T. J. Burrill, Vice-President of the University of
Illinois and Professor of Botany, and we went
out to the tank to make an examination. We
found, however, that the earth had washed down
from the side hill or bank as to cover the entire
tank, so as to make it inaccessible without dig-
ging the earth away, and as it was expected then
that the Champaign tank would be constructed
Soon, it was thought best to wait for the comple-
tion of that tank, as the arrangements for it would
make it quite easy of access. As before stated,
Sewage was turned into the Champaign separat-
ing tank November 1, 1897, and on November 6,
according to my memorandum here, I took Dr.
Burrill to the Champaign separating tank for an
investigation. He took samples from the tank.
He had said that with the action going on in the
tank the gas evolved must be inflamable, and So
we stirred up the bottom of the tank and lighted
it with burning paper, and found that it burned
readily. Later Dr. A. W. Palmer, professor of
chemistry, collected a sample of the gas and made
an analysis of it.
In designing the tank for the Urbana Sewerage
system I had in mind a steady slow movement of
the sewage through the tank, and arrangements
for making the flow into the tank as Smooth and
415
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
free from agitation as necessary, and to have the
outlet so disposed that the flow over the weir
would be even and distributed over the whole
width of the tank. This arrangement was to make
little variation in the level of the sewage in the
tank and to get the flow distributed as far as pos-
sible over the cross section of the tank. The baf-
fle boards aided in this and also held back float-
ing solids. I had in mind the protection of the
tank from light and air as it seemed to me that
the settling tanks which were exposed to light
and air had given off offensive gases. I knew
that this slow velocity through the tank would
hold back solids in suspension by subsidence, but
I did not know how large the tank should be for
any given quantity of Sewage.
In the design of the tank at the outlet of the
Champaign sewerage system I had in mind the
same condition. This tank was provided at the
inlet with an enlarged or flaring mouth, flaring
sidewise and downward at the same time. Be-
sides the inlet sewer pipe was dropped below the
regular grade of the sewer so that for a small
depth of sewage in the sewer the Sewer pipe at
the inlet would be filled to a greater depth, and
thus make the area cross section of flow at this
point greater than back in the main sewer, and
thus reduce the velocity of flow into the inlet of
the tank, thereby providing freedom from dis-
turbance and agitation and distributing the flow
better over the cross section of the tank. The
weir at the outlet end of the tank was made with
an angle iron to better distribute the flow over
the entire width of the tank and to allow more
2070
2()71
2072
2073
2074
416
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
complete agitation as the water went out of the
tank. Of course the construction of the building
over the tank gave better facilities for access and
for such cleaning of the tank as might be found
necessary.
Counsel for complainant offers in evi-
dence the following drawings and papers
referred to by the witness in his fore-
going answer, viz.:
1. The sketch stated to have been
drawn by Mr. M. S. Ketcham, showing
the design of the first tank constructed
at Urbana; and the same is marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Urbana Tank Novem-
ber, 1894.”
2. The drawing of the second Cham-
paign tank, having on it the words “Sep-
arating Tank for Champaign Sewerage
System,” and the same is marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Champaign Tank,
Drawing No. 1.”
3. The drawing of the second Cham-
paign tank having on it the words “Sep-
arating Tank Champaign Sewerage Sys-
tem A. N. Talbot M. Am. Soc. C. E.;”
and 'the same is marked “Defendants’
Exhibit Champaign Tank, Drawing No.
2.”
4. Letter from Albert F. Noyes, City
Engineer, City of Newton, Massachu-
setts, dated March 18, 1893, as quoted by
the witness in his foregoing answer.
4.17
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
5. Ordinance of the City of Cham-
paign, Passed and Approved July 16,
1895, embodying ordinance of the City
of Urbana, Passed July 8 and Approved
July 9, 1895; and the same is marked
“Defendants' Exhibit Ordinance No. 1.”
6. Ordinance of the City of Cham-
paign, Passed August 6, 1895, and Ap-
proved August 9, 1895, and the same is
marked “Defendants' Exhibit Ordinance
No. 2.”
Complainant’s counsel objects to such parts of
the foregoing answer of the witness as relate to
constructions and modes of operation that he has
asserted to have had in mind and which do not
appear to have been embodied in practical form.
Counsel also objects to the answer and to the ex-
hibit concerning the Urbaná tank as not being
the best evidence, it not appearing that such tank
is not at present in existence and capable of be-
ing illustrated by a drawing made in strict ac-
cordance there with. Counsel for complainant ob-
jects to the testimony of the witness respecting
the first Champaign tank, as it is not the best evi-
dence with respect thereto, it not having been
shown that no drawings were made from such
tank, or that said tank is no longer in existence.
Counsel for complainant also objects to the ex-
hibits illustrating the second Champaign tank and
the testimony concerning said exhibit drawing as
it has not been made to appear that said draw-
ings are the best evidence or best reproductions
obtainable of said tank.
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
418
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Complainant's counsel waives the absence of
certification upon the exhibits of ordinances in-
troduced in evidence.
Q. 6. Please state more specifically what you
know about the three drawings referred to in your
last answer and now offered in evidence as “De-
fendants' Exhibit Urbana Tank, November,
1894;’’ ‘‘Defendants' Exhibit Champaign Tank,
Drawing No. 1;” and “Defendants' Exhibit
Champaign Tank, Drawing No. 2,” particularly
as to time when the same were made, and as to
how far they correctly represent the constructions
with which you connect them, respectively? A.
The drawing marked “Defendants' Exhibit Ur-
bana Tank, November, 1894,” is as stated in my
answer to the previous question the original plan
from which the masonry work was constructed.
It was drawn in October, 1894, from a preliminary
Sketch made by me, and further directions con-
cerning the design. The preliminary sketch is
here submitted. The inlet chamber was made
with a flat bottom and without the curved invert
shown in the sketch, “Defendants' Exhibit Ur-
bana Tank, November, 1894.” The cross wall at
the top of the tank is shown in the elevation on
this drawing, but not in the plan, and the notches
shown in plan at the middle of the tank were
omitted. This cross wall was put in instead of
the baffle boards first planned for the middle of
the tank, in order to stiffen the side wall. The
inlet gate and the timber work constituting the
cover of the tank is not shown on this drawing,
nor are the baffle boards heretofore described, nor
the outlet pipe to which it was connected with
419
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the tank. This drawing shows the masonry work
of the tank. As before stated, the baffles and
the roof were put in by the superintendent of
streets of Urbana. The preliminary sketch was
not used during construction, but was for the pur.
pose of explaining to the draftsman the features
of the design as I wanted them. It merely hap-
pens to be among Some of my old papers.
The Exhibit marked ‘‘Defendants' Exhibit
Champaign Tank, Drawing No. 1,” I am not able
to give the exact date of. It was drawn during
the first half of 1896. This is not the drawing
from which the tank was finally built, but is re-
ferred to as showing the progressive steps of the
work. The roof is not shown on this drawing.
The Exhibit marked “E)efendants' Exhibit
Champaign Tank, Drawing No. 2,” was drawn in
December, 1897, or in the early part of the year
1898. It shows the tank as it was constructed.
These two drawings were made by Ralph P.
Brower, the first named one, before he became City
Engineer, and the latter one while he was City
Engineer of the City of Champaign.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the preliminary sketch referred
to by the witness in his foregoing answer,
and the same is marked “Defendants’
Exhibit, Professor Talbot's Preliminary
Sketch.”
Adjourned until Thursday, August 3, 1905, at
10 o’clock A. M.
Thursday, August 3, 1905, met pursuant to ad-
journment; present as before.
209()
2091
2092
2093
2094
420
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Q. ſ. Please state how igng the several plants
at Urbana and Champaign referred to in your
foregoing answers were used, and how extensively
and particularly how they were used with ref-
erence to each other—that is, whether they were
the same in operation or diſſerent; what their ac-
tion was with reference to sewage; whether they
are still in existence, etc. A. The tank at Urbana
Was put in opration in November, 1894. When it
was opened to be cleaned in the spring of 1895
there was found to be a coating of scum on the
top and a deposition of matter in the bottom,
which I have always called sludge This sludge
was materially different from the floating or-
ganic matter of sewage. When this sludge, which
was of a thin consistency, was pumped out and
deposited on the surface of the ground it was
found to be comparatively free from odor. In
fact, the absence of what I have always called
putrefactive action, using that word as I had been
taught to use it, to mean offensive decomposition,
was a marked feature of the condition of the
plant. Instead of finding a stinking cesspool, the
tank was comparatively free from offensive
odors. The effluent was quite clear and free from
floating solids. This was what we were trying to
secure. Our purpose was to get a clear effluent
and one that would not cause a nuisance in the
stream below. The discharge of this effluent into
the stream caused no noticeable effect along the
banks or in the neighborhood. While I could see
that there was some kind of action going on in
the tank which included the formation of gas, my
study and work with sewerage and water supply
421
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
engineering had been with the constructive and
hydraulic side, rather than with the chemical and
biological side. At that time I had given little
attention to bacteriology, and I was not particu-
larly interested in that side of the question, and
my attention was therefore given to the appear-
ance of the effluent and the general condition of
the tank. We found that we were getting rid of
the Solids in suspension and my estimates of the
amount of suspended matter carried by the Sew-
age made at that time showed me that the amount
of solid matter in the sludge was considerably less
than the amount of solid matter carried in the
sewage; and this was the first element of the prob-
lem for towns situated like Urbana and Cham-
paign, and was of considerable interest to me.
During the spring of 1895 and up to the time the
ordinance for the Champaign Sewerage System
was written the flow of sewage in the Urbana out-
let sewer amounted to from ten thousand to
twenty thousand U. S. gallons per 24 hours as
shown by gaugings made by my students during
this time. This was in the spring and early Sum-
mer of 1895. At that time there were about four
miles of sewer connected with the outlet Sewer,
but most of the sewage came from the buildings
of the University of Illinois, as there were but few
connections made at that time from houses out-
side. The line of sewer from the university to
the outlet was about two miles in length, and was
laid on a very flat grade, a part on a grade of one
in nine hundred and the remainder of one in
eleven hundred. This low grade, together with
the small flow in the sewer, resulted in a low ve-
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
422
2105
2106
2107
2 || 08
2109
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
locity and the sewage required considerable time
to reach the outlet after it left the buildings. The
tank remained in operation, so far as I knew, un-
til recently. I am informed that it was discon-
nected from the sewer in July, 1905. I visited
this location August 1, 1905, and found that the
Walls had been broken down, gates removed,
cover broken, and other changes made showing
a general delapidated condition. As the univer-
sity grew in numbers, and as the city of Urbana
grew and the sewerage System was extended, and
more fully used, the amount of sewage passing
through the tank and the quantities of Solids
passing into it became so great that while the
same kind of an action went on in the tank as
before, the tank became less and less efficient.
For the first three or four years of its operation
I examined it occasionally and was able to See
that the quantity of sewage passing through it
was becoming too great for its size. The retained
solids were not reduced in the same way and the
odors arising from the tank were noticeably dif-
ferent and markedly stronger. The suspended
solids were carried through the tank for a much
larger extent, and the tank itself became so filled
with solids that the material coming from the
sewer was carried on through the outlet.
The operation of the tank was not under my
charge. The superintendent of streets cleaned it
two or three times a year during the years '95
and '96, when I had knowledge of it. I do not know
definitely of the method of handling it since
1896. The tank was known to the public and
was visited by members of the city council of
423
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Urbana, and of the city council of Champaign, by
students of the university, and other people. Any
One could see it who desired to. º
The tank before mentioned as the first Cham-
paign tank was put in operation in June, 1895,
and continued to discharge into the same tile out-
let until the Champaign outlet sewer and the sec-
ond Champaign tank were put in operation, No-
vember 1, 1897, when its outlet was connected
with the Champaign sanitary outlet sewer, and
its discharge also passed through the second tank.
It was disconnected from the sewer system upon
the final completion of the Champaign sanitary
sewer system some time in 1898 or 1899. By this
time the houses formerly discharging into it had
been connected with the new system of sewerage
and the object of its use had passed. I am in-
formed that the whole was filled in two or three
years ago when improvements were Inade in the
park.
So far as its operation is concerned, I can only
say that the sludge which I saw on the ground
when the tank was cleaned out resembled that
taken from the Urbana tank, and that the general
condition was similar. The conditions along the
bank of Boneyard Branch below the point where
the tile outlet discharged were improved, and the
residents were pleased with the change made.
There were other tiles having house connections
of a similar nature which discharged into the out-
let tile below East Side Park, and hence the situ-
ation along Boneyard Branch was not entirely
good. The tank was in a public park and its con-
struction and use were known of by the public.
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
424
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
The Second Champaign tank was put in use
November 1, 1897. I visited it November 3, 1897,
and have a memorandum to the effect that it was
operating very successfully, and that the effluent
was good and the floating sludge was forming.
On November 6, 1897, as previously stated, Dr.
Burrill took samples from the tank and the tank
was stirred up and gas ignited. The action of
the tank, as I found by inspections afterwards,
was quite similar to what I had observed in the
Urbana tank. A floating sludge or scum formed
on top and a heavier sludge formed at the bottom,
and the effluent was clear and quite free from
solids in suspension. As the construction of the
building was such that there was easy access in-
Spection of its operation was much more easy
than was the case with the Urbana tank, and I
took the opportunity at different times to get
samples of the effluent and of the sludge at the
bottom and at the top. Provision had been made
for a pump to clean the tank whenever it became
necessary.
It was first cleaned out in 1898, about six months
after it was put into operation, and during the fol-
lowing year it was cleaned out about three times.
It was my thought then that frequent cleaning was
advantageous, and it probably did not need clean-
ing so often. This tank was visited by many people
and its efficiency greatly surprised them. The
Champaign sewerage system was not entirely com-
pleted until 1899, and from January, 1898, to the
present time there has been a large increase in the
population of the city, and in the number of con-
nections made from houses to sewers, and the Sys-
425
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
tem has been extended to other parts of the town.
The tank continues to operate. With the increased
amount of Sewage and the much larger quantity of
Organic solids reaching the tank the capacity of the
tank has been exceeded for efficient work and While
the same activity goes on in the tank, yet its size
is not sufficient to reduce the organic solids in sus-
pension to the same extent that it did at the begin-
ning. At the time this tank was put in operation
the flow of sewage at the time when large amounts
of ground water were not reaching the sewer was
less than one hundred thousand U. S. gallons per
day. With the growth of the sewer system and con-
nection this flow increased until there is now four
hundred thousand or five hundred thousand gallons
per day passing through the sewer. In addition to
this there have been at times considerable quantities
of ground water reaching the sewer.
I do not know the present flow through the Ur-
bana outlet sewer, but I judge it must be at least
two hundred thousand gallons per day.
The cubic capacity of the Urbana tank below the
ordinary level of the water in the tank was about
two thousand eight hundred gallons. The cubic
capacity of the first Champaign tank below the level
of flow through the tank was in the neighborhood of
six thousand eight hundred gallons. The cubic
capacity of the second Champaign tank below the
level of flow through the tank was about twenty-two
thousand gallons. This refers to the combined
capacity of the two tanks which I have heretofore
spoken of as the second Champaign tank. The gen-
eral principles of the design of these tanks so far
as form, shape of inlet and outlet and general posi-
tion of the parts is the same as I have since used
in the design of tanks for the same purpose. I do
2120
21.21
2122
2123
2124
426
2125
2126
2197
2128
2129
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
not know exactly what the amount of the discharge
of sewage through the first Champaign tank was,
but, according to the best of my recollection, it was
during the dry period of the year less than fifty
thousand gallons per day, and part of this was
ground water.
Q. S. What effect does too great a flow of sewage
through a tank of the kind you have been describ-
ing have with reference to solids in suspension with
reference to the effluent, etc. A. In the operation
of such tank by reason of differences in specific
gravity under the conditions of slow and regular
flow through the tank, solids in suspension in the
sewage rise or fall and are retained, while the
liquid portion of the sewage passes on through the
tank. This retained solid matter is both inorganic
and organic. The inorganic matter in general of
course is not modified. Under the conditions of
darkness or absence of sunlight of ill ventilation or
absence of aeration and the presence of moderate
heat the biolytic activity of the class of organisms
known as bacteria reduces or decomposes the re-
tained organic matter, the process being combined
with chemical decomposition going on under these
conditions. The time required for the reduction of
this retained organic matter does not depend upon
the time taken for the liquid portion of the sewage
to pass through the tank. The time required for
this reduction and the resulting size of the tank
depend upon many conditions, and among these
are the character of the sewage including its
strength, amount of solids in suspension, amount of
or freedom from manufacturing wastes, time elaps-
ing between the point of discharge into the sewer
427
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
and the tank, and changes going on during this
period. The biolytic activity is different at dif-
ferent depths in the tank, the greater amount being
in the Zones near the top and bottom of the tank.
The horizontal area of these zones, therefore, has
a bearing upon the ability of the tank to reduce
larger or smaller amounts of organic matter. The
velocity through the tank must be slow enough, not
only to permit the subsidence of mattels in suspen-
sion, but also not to interfere with the biolytic activ-
ity by disturbing the growth of the organisms.
When the floating solids are carried into the tank
in such large quantities that they fill up the zone
of activity so completely as not to permit the organic
matter which has previously been retained but not
yet completely acted upon by the organisms, the
tank becomes less efficient, and with a still greater
flow of sewage the action is further reduced until
the tank becomes merely a receiving tank for the
solids, and after the space has been filled the in-
coming sewage carries its suspended solids through
the tank with considerably less amount of reduction
in suspended solids. Under these conditions the
tank becomes ineffective and while there is some
biolytic action going on, the conditions are not fav.
orable for the purification of the sewage. What
the cubic capacity of the tank must be in terms of
the daily flow of sewage is a complex question in-
volving the matter of the composition of the sewage
just spoken of, and of many conditions of temper-
ature, shape of tank, etc., and is yet a disputed ques-
tion among engineers. It is the case, however, that
when the quantity of sewage passing into a given
tank becomes too great the organic solids are not
21:30
21.31
2132
2 || 33
2134
428
2135
2136
21:37
2138
2139
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
reduced to the same extent, the tank soon fills up,
the suspended solids are carried on through the
tank, the effluent does not differ particularly from
the incoming sewage, and the conditions in any
small stream into which the tank discharges would
show the changed condition. The retained solids
would be subject to another form of change and
the conditions Would resemble what I have hereto-
fore termed the putrefying condition and offensive
odors would be produced and the contents of the
tank would be difficult to remove and dispose of.
Q. 9. If you have ever written or published any-
thing with reference to the tanks at Urbana and
Champaign which you have been describing, or
similar tanks, please explain the same, stating When
and where they were written or published, making
such references thereto and Quotations therefrom
as you consider proper, defining the meaning of
technical terms used therein, etc. A. At the twelfth
annual meeting of the Illinois Society of Engineers
and Surveyors, held at Springfield, Illinois, Janu-
ary 27, 28 and 29, 1897, I gave a paper entitled “The
Sedimentation Process in Sewage Disposal.” This
paper was printed in the twelfth annual report of
the society. After stating that conditions in the
smaller inland cities of Illinois were different from
the surroundings of those of New England and
New York, I went on as follows:
“The method of purifying sewage to be recom-
mended in any case is a matter so dependent upon
local conditions that no general recommendation
can be stated. Chemical treatment, intermittent
downward filtration, broad irrigation, are all ef-
ficient methods. Without intending to replace
any of these thorough methods, the writer wishes
to suggest the claims of an old method—Sedimen-
429
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
tation or subsidence—for use in small towns
where a partial seapraoitn of the impurities is
permissable for the present at least, and when
an inexpensive method is essential, and also as a
preliminary process when it is desired to get a
higher working capacity for filter beds and other
purification plants.
By Sedimentation process is here meant a sep-
aration of the lighter and heavier solid matters
in Suspension in the sewage by the action of grav-
ity as the sewage flows through a tank built in
such a way that the current of sewage will be dis-
tributed over a considerable area of cross-section
across the middle of the depth of the tank, and
hence will be so reduced in velocity that the light-
er and heavier solids will be left behind in the
tank. This action is independent of screens or
filters, and is made without the use of chemicals.
% #: #: :#: :}; $: :#;
These floating putrescible wastes are liable to
cause a nuisance when discharged into a small
stream, and may make such a disposal very ob-
jectionable. It is for the purpose of avoiding this
nuisance that this process is suggested.
The separating or subsidence tank should be at
least five times the width of the sewer, and the
depth should be at least five feet below the dis-
charging line. The sewer should be widened out
at the inlet and the invert dropped in such a way .
that the current of sewage will be distributed over
the full width of the tank on an area below the
surface of the liquid. If this is properly done the
velocity will be reduced to one-twentieth or even
to one-fiftieth the velocity in the sewer. This
will permit subsidence to take place.
To prevent the floating matter flowing out, tight
partitions are built across the tank at intervals,
reaching from the top down to a depth of 1.5 to
2 feet below the surface of the water. The cur-
rent of water passes under these partitions, dis-
tributed over the width of the tank and over a
greater or less depth. The first matter to float
is held in front of the first partition, that separat-
2140
2 || 41
2142
2143
2144
430
2145
2146
2147
2148
2 149
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
ing later is held by the next, and so on as the
tank is filled up. These partitions prevent sur-
face currents as well as retain suspended sludge.
At the same time the solids, which are somewhat
heavier than water, Settle to the bottom. A par-
tition may be built across the bottom of the tank,
but as such a construction would tend to concen-
trate the flow and increase the current above the
partition, and as the absence of this obstruction
will give a greater cross-section of flow and per-
mit a slower and more uniform current.
Near the lower end of the tank is placed a weir
or wall across the tank at about the level it is
expected that the water in the sewer will gen-
erally flow. As the water will flow but an inch
or two over this if properly placed, the height of
water in the tank is always nearly the same, and
this arrangement will keep the current distributed
across the tank and require the effluent to rise
Toefore going over the weir. Beyond this weir
the effluent is collected and is discharged through *
an outlet pipe. Unless there is to be an attendant
around the tank no screens should be put in, as
clogging at one part of the tank will concentrate
the flow at some other point and defeat the prin-
ciple on which the tank operates. Of course there
are conditions where peculiar manufacturing
wastes will require both screening and coarse fil-
tration. When the tank becomes overcharged
with sludge the flow will be contracted and the
current will carry solid matter through.
The sludge retained in black, semi-liquid, some-
what matty on top, but mostly finely divided and
easily mixed with, more water. Where the tanks
are kept tightly covered and away from the light,
and the sludge is taken out before the tanks are
too full, there is no noticeable 'odor, and even
while cleaning the odor is not offensive; while
the tanks which the writer has been told were
considered to be offensive were ventilated and
exposed to the light. Without attempting to ex-
plain the change which goes on in the tank, it
may be said that the freedom from putrefaction
and the absence from stench is largely due to
431
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
darkness. Such tanks should always be tightly
covered and all light excluded.
The sludge may be discharged on waste land
and plowed under, or it may be used as a ferti-
lizer. At Urbana it is pumped into a wooden
tank on a wagon by means of a common diaphram
sewer trench pump with a three-inch suction, and
then the tank is allowed to empty on waste land,
the water soon disappearing and the thin layer
of black material remaining, not even being
plowed under. In the one to be built for Cham-
paign a centrifugal pump and Small steam en-
gine is to be used for pumping. Sometimes the lo-
cation permits the draining of the tank by grav-
ity upon a prepared sludge filter bed, and the
dried sludge is carted away by farmers. It may
be deposited in trenches in poor soil and lightly
covered with earth. If the tank is properly cared
for, no nuisance should result.
The plans of the tanks are simple. Oberlin,
Ohio, has a somewhat primitive arrangement
formed by digging a hole in the ground and cov-
ering it with boards—an inexpensive but efficient
tank. At Urbana, Ill, a town of 4,000, a tank
designed by the writer has been in use for over
two years with good results, though it is some-
what small. This tank is five feet wide, twenty
feet long, and three feet deep below the grade of
invert of sewer. A double tank to be built for
the Champaign sewerage system is shown in the
figure. Each tank is eight feet wide, forty feet
long, and five feet below the grade of invert of
sewer. As stated before, the sludge will be
pumped out by means of a centrifugal pump. The
walls will be made high enough to admit a man
under the roof, not shown on the plan. Man-
holes, valves and partitions will be as shown on
the plans. The long weir dam near the lower
end of the tank will cause the level of water in
the tank to vary but a few inches with fluctua-
tions in amount of sewage. The dropping of the
inlet pipe and the widening and deepening of the
inlet to the tank will slow up the current of sew-
age even before it reaches the broad channel of
2150
2 || || 1
2 | fi2
21 54
432
2155 ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
the tank. It is expected that these tanks will
be able to separate sludge from at least five hun-
dred thousand gallons of sewage per 24 hours.
With more than that their office would be princi-
pally preliminary to some other process.
It is difficult to state the amount of sludge ob-
tained, as there is such a variety in its composi-
2156 tion. At Oberlin, where a man is regularly em-
ployed to take care of a Sewage farm, it has been
found easier to clean the tank once a week since
the dilute sludge was easier to pump. This
dilute sludge there amounts to five gallons per
One thousand gallons of sewage flowing through
the tank, and is probably ninety-seven per cent
Water. TAt Urbana the sludge is heavier, and is
perhaps one or two gallons per 1,000 of sewage—
2157 more than ninety per cent. water. This tank is
cleaned four or five times a year, and oftener in
dry weather, when the creek into which the ef-
flunt discharge is low. It should be cleaned once
a month fo keep the tank in good condition. The
city pays five dollars for having it cleaned.
Of course the effluent is not pure water. The
organic matters in solution have not been
changed, and more or less of the decomposable
suspended matter escapes with the effluent. Tests
show that thirty per cent. and sometimes sixty
per cent. of the suspended organic matter is
caught, and the albuminoid ammonia gives about
the same record; this is surely a great gain. The
effluent may be admitted to many streams where
the crude sewage would create a nuisance.
But this method has a broader application:
That of the preliminary process preparatory to
2159 a more thorough purification of the sewage. In
the two towns cited, land has been purchased
where purification works may be built in the fu-
ture when necessary. It is known that the mat-
ters in suspension are injurious to filter plants,
accumulating near the surface and tending to
clog the filter. It is also true that sewage with
the suspended matter taken off may be filtered
through the sand beds more rapidly than the
crude sewage and not injure the filter. Where a
2158
433
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
perfect effluent is not required, rapid filtration
through coarse sand of sewage so treated, may be
made on a small area, at an expense much less
than without this process of separation. It is
hoped that an experimental investigation of this
Subject along the lines of the needs and conditions
of the towns of this state may be made, and it is
Suggested as a fruitful theme for the proposed
Sanitary Engineering Department of the State
Board of Health.”
In the foregoing paper it will be seen that the
name “Sedimentation Process” and “Sedimentation
Tank” is used in place of the term “Separating
Tank” which was given to the Champaign tank at
the time of its design. There seemed to be no good
name for the tank and this was an effort to get a
better term. The word “putrescible” and “putre-
faction” as used in this article had the meaning
common in my usage of offensive decomposition and
product. The estimated capacity of the tank, that
is the amount of sewage which the tank would take
care of, was based upon a limited experience, and
I later found that the view was too optomistic. The
word “sludge” is used to indicate the matter which
was pumped out of the tank regardless of its condi-
tion. I was afterwards informed that the tank at
Urbana had not been cleaned as often as I then sup-
posed. The conditions at Oberlin were described
to me by the engineer of that place and may not be
accurate. I do not now recall how the estimate of
the per cent of purification at these tanks was
made, and I do not now remember that chemical
tests were made by the department of chemistry or
anyone else of the sewage of the Urbana tank.
At the thirteenth annual meeting of the Illinois
Society of Engineers and Surveyors, held at Peoria,
2160
21 61
2162
21 (53
21 64
434
2165
2166
2167
2168
21 69
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Illinois, January 26, 27 and 28, 1898, I gave a dis-
cussion in connection with the paper of John W.
Alvord, on the Purification of Sewage by the Fero-
Zone Polerite System, and I take the following from
the report of my remarks given in the Thirteenth
Annual Report of the Society:
#: :}; :}; #: :}; #: :};
‘‘However, I am particularly interested in the
part of the paper referring to the filtration of the
Sewage, because it strikes me that filtration
through poleiite may be application to the comple-
tion of purification begun by other means, as, for
example, by the septic or sedimentation process.
Those who were at the meeting last year, may re-
member that I gave a paper upon the sedimenta-
tion process as it is operated in Urbana and Cham-
paign. Since that time there has been published
in the technical journals’ descriptions of what is
termed ‘The Septic Process of Sewage Treatment,
Exeter, England,” which in many ways resembles
the process there described. This septic process
is, as it might be called, a chemical process with-
out chemicals; at any rate a natural chemical
process which takes place largely through bac-
terial action. The septic tank is air-tight and
light-tight. The sewage is attacked by bacteria
of a different character from those which perform
the action of nitrification in the intermittent fil-
tration process, known as the anerobic, living
without oxygen from the air, and shut in out of
the light of the sun. The effluent is then filtered.
This process has proved to be very successful in
England, and is now engaging the attention of
many scientific men there. The process certainly
accomplishes a great deal; it easily breaks up and
takes out quite a large proportion of the organic
matter in suspension and a part, too, of that in
solution and breaks up the organic compounds.
It would seem that the effluent is much more read-
ily filtered and the filters have a capacity many
times what would be possible if no such process
were used as a preliminary process.
435
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Last year I made the remark that it was my
belief that these septic tanks, which I called sedi-
mentation tanks, had a further action than that
of mere mechanical sedimentation; that there was
an actual organic change going on there, a fer-
mentation, due to the action of the bacteria.”
Then follows a general description of the Cham-
paign tank and of the action in the tank, together
with an analysis of gas given off by the tank. The
report continues:
As to the conditions which are necessary to get
the proper action by this process, it may be said
that the sewage should not be too cold. I believe,
ordinarily, the sewage in this tank does not get
much below 50° F., while 70° would be a more fa-
vorable condition for the growth of the bacteria.
The time element, too, should enter into considera-
tion. A sufficient length of time, first, the placing
of this tank a long distance away from where the
Sewage first enters the sewer; and second, a capac-
ity of tank sufficient for the work. In all prob-
ability the Sewage is, during its flow through a
long line of sewer, getting ready for this action,
perhaps this action is going on during its course,
especially when there is a very slow current. This
tank has not the capacity of the tank in use in
England, but it is quite probable that the effect
does not depend entirely upon the size of the
tank. The holding of the suspended matter in
the tank indefinitely after the water passes on
through, if there is little current, will permit the
chemical changes to be completed.
As to what is left in this tank the statement is
made that at Exeter there is very little permanent
material deposited at the bottom. There is al-
ways more or less floating material at the top
which is finally acted upon and the ash is carried
away by the effluent. So far, the tank in the
Champaign system has not been cleaned, although
there is a slight deposit of rather fine black ma-
terial in the bottom, and a light coating at the
217()
2171
2172
2173
2174
436
2175
2176
2177
21.78
2179
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
top. How fast this will increase remains to be
See Iſl.
:}; #: :}; :}; ::: #: $
I am glad to be able to make so favorable a re-
port at this time of the action of this system, and
hope by the time of the next meeting there will
be more data upon it. It has seemed to me since
I put in the time at Urbana that this method of
treatment would prove applicable to many west-
ern cities, both as a rough method for taking out
those matters from the sewage which are particu-
Iarly objectionable in discharging into our Small
streams and dry runs until such time as complete
purification is necessary. And a preliminary pro-
cess to filtration permitting a rate of filtration
many times as rapid as would be allowable with-
out it. In the latter case, a small area of Sand
and coke, or polerite or some other material not
too expensive, would give a process applicable to
many western towns.”
The date of this meeting is the January after the
November 1 when the second Champaign tank was
put into operation of that tank. It was also a
short time after my first opportunity to get infor-
mation concerning the septic tank at Exeter, Eng-
land. The publication in the Engineering News,
January 13, 1898, interested me very much. The
items of an absolutely air-tight and light-proof tank,
and the complete destruction of all solids in sus-
pension impressed me, and I felt that the process
there described must have something different even
from the action going on in the tanks at Urbana
and Champaign, since in these cases there was op-
portunity for gases to escape and there had been
accumulations of sludge. I could see, however,
that the action of the tank at Exeter was similar in
many respects, but with the meager information
then available I was not able to make a very good
comparison. The term “septic tank” which had
437
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
been used in connection with the Exeter tank in this
publication in the Engineering News was taken up
by me as better naming the tanks which I had
called separating tanks and sedimentation tanks.
Other articles descriptive of the tank of the
Champaign sewerage system will be found in the
Engineering News of August 17, 1899, and in the
proceedings of the Illinois Society of Engineers and
Surveyors at its Fourteenth Annual Meeting held
January 25, 26, 27, 1899.
Decmber 5, 1900, I presented a paper on “Recent
Progress in Sewage Purification” before the West-
ern Society of Engineers which was printed in the
journal of the Western Society of Engineers for
December, 1900. I quote from the part on the septic
tank:
“A Septic tank may be said to be a large tank,
covered so as to exclude light and air, wholly or
Substantially, or if open, arranged so that the
floating mat which forms on the surface will ac-
complish the same object, through which the sew-
age flows, in such a way that it has a very regu-
lar current and a velocity so slow that the mat-
ters in suspension in the sewage rise or fall, by
reason of difference in specific gravity, and are
retained in the tank, where the organic matter
will be decomposed, while the effluent flows out
at the other end of the tank. Devices are used
to cause the flow to be distributed over some con-
siderable depth, to prevent surface currents, and
to take the effluent from the depth free from sus-
pended matters. Under the conditions of absence
of sunlight and aeration and of moderate heat,
minute organisms of the class known as anaerobic
bacteria develop in great numbers in the tank.
This biological growth and activity produces a
chemical decomposition of the retained organic
matter of the sewage—a reduction of its com-
pounds into parts, a large part passing off in the
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
438
2 | 85
2186
21.87
2188
21.89
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
form of gases, a part as inorganic matter with
the effluent, and a part as slit-like sludge or ash
which is deposited in the tank. In many sewages
a part is liquefied while yet in the organic state,
and carried off in the effluent. Some effect may
be found in the dissolved organic matter. A light
floating mat forms and covers the surface. The
process results in the removal of a large part of
the putrescible organic matter in suspension and
its reduction into less troublesome forms.
The process is continuous and self-regulating,
no attendance or labor being required except for
the occasional removal of the sludge. The forma-
tion of gas is quite active, the gas passing
through the floating mat and also sometimes es-
caping in great accumulations at clear points in
the surface. It is easily ignited, and after stir-
ring the tank a hot flame may be formed, rising
three or four feet from the surface. An analysis
of the gas made by Dr. A. W. Palmer, of the Uni-
versity of Illinois, is as follows: Carbonic acid
gas (Co2), 10.7 per cent. total volume; free nitro-
gen (N2), 27.8; marsh gas (CH4), 55.3; ethane
(C2H2), 6.2.
An effort has been made to utilize this gas for
heating and lighting purposes, but it probably
will not prove financially successful.
The sludge at the bottom of the tank is a black,
Inuddy looking silt-like deposit. The average of
two analyses of sludge from the tank at Cham-
paign, Ill., gave: Water, 60.9 per cent.; organic
matter, 4.7 per cent.; inorganic matter, 34.4. The
floating matter at the top contains 92 per cent.
moisture, three per cent. organic matter and five
per cent. inorganic matter. The sludge is of lit-
tle value as a fertilizer.
The accumulation of sludge is relatively small,
but as there is considerable inorganic matter sus-
pended in the sewage, and as there must be some
ash resulting from the reduction of the organic
matter, and accumulation is inevitable. The
amount of this is difficult to estimate, but it prob-
ably ranges from three to six cubic feet of dry
matter per 1,000,000 gallons of Sewage for the
439
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
sewage of American cities. Much of this is from
suspended mineral matter of the sewage. In
plants where sludge has accumulated very slowly
the arrangements for the Supply of the tank has
Deen such that much of the 'suspended mineral
matter was taken out before the sewage reached
th tank. In many locations a preliminary shal-
low tank for retaining the heavier inorganic mat-
ter, arranged to be easily cleaned or flushed out,
will reduce the septic tank sludge and will thus
result in reducing the cost of removing sludge
and also add to the efficiency of the tank.
The operation of the septic tank has been quite
satisfactory. At Champaign the effluent has been
sufficiently pure to permit its discharge into the
creek, and no objectionable results have been
noted in the water below. No odor is noticeable
around the tank. A slight swamp-like odor is
found in the effluent sewer. Inside the building
the gases are very distinct, but the odors are not
especially objectionable. When the contents are
being pumped out the Smell is much stronger, but
workmen suffer no great inconvenience. The
odor from the sludge when pumped into the pit
is more noticeable, but does not prove objection-
able. The tank at Exeter, England, which is
really an experimental plant, continues to work
satisfactorily, and the city is now constructing a
large plant to treat the sewage from the whole
city. The installations at Yeovil, Manchester and
Leeds, all on experimental bases, show good re-
sults. These Cameron tanks closed tanks, and
sufficiently close that the inside air is under some
pressure. In at least three places in England
open septic tanks have been used on a large Scale
—Manchester, Leeds and Accrinton. In each case
open chemical precipitation tanks were converted
into septic tanks. A coating or mat soon formed
over the surface, and the septic action was set up.
At Manchester and Leeds, comparisons were made
with the Cameron Septic Tank in operation at the
same time, and the result shows almost no differ-
once between the open and closed tank. Manches-
ter is planning to use open tanks in its new nstalla-
2190
2191
2.192
21.93
2194
440
2195
21.96
2197
2198
2199
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
tion. Accrinton has been using open septic tanks
for two years, and is now treating 1,250,000 gallons
per day by this process with satisfactory results.
The question of open or closed septic tanks is not
wholly one of exclusion of light and air by the roof.
The advocates of closed tanks claim that such ex-
clusion to a proper septic action, since the anae-
robic bacteria thrive under such cond1tions. HOW-
ever, sewage generally contains no dissolved oxy-
gen. Even if the surface of the liquid were not pro-
tected from direct contact with the air by the float-
ing mat on the surface, the opportunity for absorb-
ing air while passing through the tank is very
sight, and the evolution of gas acts to decrease the
absorption of air. Light is fairly well excluded by
the floating mat. Certainly, direct sunlight is ex-
cluded. It must be stated, too, that the cities using
these open tanks are in a climate where the cloudy
days are very numerous—particularly Manchester.
It is evident that an absolutely dark and tight tank
1s not necessary. To my mind a matter of more
importance than the complete exclusion of light and
air is the maintenance of moderate and even tem-
peratures in the septic tank. High temperatures
seem to give strong putrefacive action accompanied
by bad odors. Low temperatures reduce the bac-
toria and chemical activity. My observation indi-
cates that 55° to 62° Fahr. give the pest septic
action, while temperatures above 65° and below 50°
Fahr. are objectionable. Although the sewage will
generally reach the tank between these tempera-
tures, to protect the sewage from extreme tempera-
tures will generally require a covered tank in such
a climate as ours, though not necessarily a tight or
dark tank, both by reason of the severely cold
Weather and the intense heat of Summer. At Man-
chester in the coldest weather the temperature of
the effluent of the open tanks is less than 2° colder
than that of the coldest tank, but in our climate
the temperature sometimes falls 40° or 50° below
the winter temperature to be found at Manchester.
* * 3& * * * * *
The first purpose of the septic tank is to retain
44l
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
and reduce the organic matter in suspension, but it
seems to do more than this. The bacteria developed
or the chemical compounds produced seem to put
the sewage in better condition for further purificia-
tion—at least for self-purification. At a time when
the flow of water of the creek above the septic tank
outlet, at Champaign, was a little less than the
volume of the effluent of the tank discharged into it,
chemical analyses showed a marked improvement
in the water of the stream in a distance of One and
one-half miles; and while the dissolved oxygen of
the creek water just above the tank outlet was at
a little below the saturation limit and just below
the tank, was at about half the Saturation limit,
samples taken at a point one and one-ſhalf miles
below show an amount of dissolved oxygen 50 per
cent above the saturation limit. This rapid forma-
tion of oxygen is partly due to the presence in large
quantities of the Uglena Virivis, an organism which
liberates oxygen in large quantities. The presence
of an excess of oxygen is also a great stimulus to
the chemical oxidation of the remaining organic
matter.
The amount of purification affected by the septic
tank depends upon the amount and condition of the
suspended matters. Where these matters are not too
finely divided it may be expected to take out 75 to
90 per cent of the suspended organic matter an
efficiency quite similar to chemical precipitation.
There is much diversity of practice in the size of
Septic tanks. English tanks have generally been
constructed with a cubic capacity equal to 24 hours
flow of sewage, though experiments there seem to
show that there is little difference in results be-
tween tanks whose cubic capacity equalled 12, 24
and 48 hours flow of sewage. In the United States,
with dilute sewage, septic tanks with cubic capac-
ity, equal to 2 to 4 hours flow of sewage have given
good results. In discussing this question it seems
to the writer that errors have been made in assum-
ing (1) that the time required for passing through
the tank is the same as that required to fill a tank
of this capacity, or in other words, that the flow
2200
22O1
2202
2203
2204
442
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
is uniform through the depth of the tank, and (2)
that the time of passing through the tanks governs
the efficiency of the purification. Concerning the
first matter, observations by the writer in passing
strong coloring matter through a tank having five
feet of depth of water showed a time of passing
through the tank equal to about one-third of that
required to fill the tank, or, to put it in another
way, the effect is the same as for a velocity equal
to the actual velocity and a depth equal to one-third
the depth. If the mere mechanical action in the
tank governed the desirable rate of flow it may be
said that one hour’s actual time in the tank with
this very slow velocity would give a low enough
velocity and a long enough time to allow the sus-
pended particles to subside. As the retained
organic matter is held until decomposed, the time
of flow through the tank has no bearing upon that.
To my mind, the governing consideration is the
space necessary to hold the floating or settled
organic matter until it can be acted upon without
being interfered with by organic matter retained
subsequently. For a tank of too small size, newly
arrived matter would cover matter not reduced, and
hence crowd it back out of reach or otherwise inter-
fere with the fermentation process. Besides this
limitation, a tank of a size which will not require
too frequent cleaning is desirable. For the sew-
age of most American cities where no storm water
is admitted, considering its extreme dilution, it
is probable that a cubic capacity equal to a flow
of sewage for six to ten hours will give as good
results as larger tanks.”
In reply to the following question by Professor
Turneaure “I would like to inquire from Professor
Talbot to what extent he found the English plants
removing the sludge from the septic tank, and what
method was employed in removing the sludge? I
have kept very close watch of the papers, and the
last information I had in regard to the Exeter
plant was that they had not removed any sludge at
443
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
*
all. I wondered if that was possible.” I made the
following reply:
“Prof. Talbot—Little definite information on the
amount of sludge accumulating could be obtained
and the conditions of Operation are not wholly rep-
resentative. The experimental tank at Exeter re-
ceives its supply of sewage from a main sewer after
it has passed through a large sand catch which
rcmoves much of the heavier inorganic matter, and
the tank gets sewage with comparatively little min-
eral matter in suspension, and therefore is not rep-
resentative sewage. The sand catcher is cleaned
frequently. A large amount of sludge has accumu-
lated in the septic tank, but as its capacity is so
great it has not yet been cleaned. In the plant
under construction, provision is made for removal
by pipes. At Accrinton the sludge is removed by
the channels which were constructed for the chem-
ical disposal tanks now used as septic tanks, and
the sludge is run on waste land. The amount is
materially less than when chemicals were used,
and the sludge does not have the offensiveness of
the old sludge. It may be said here that the saving
in chemicals alone in the treatment of one and one-
quarter millions of gallons a day amounts to one
thousand five hundred pounds a year. At Leeds
the method used with the chemical treatment is
followed—passage through a conduit to a well,
pumping into lagoons, draining and drying and
carting away. It was calculated that the sludge
amounts to about thirty per cent of the total mat-
ter in suspension in the sewage, which of course
is heavy with manufacturers waste. Including the
large amount of chemicals used in the precipitation
process, the amount of sludge is probably one-
fourth to one-fifth of the chemical process sludge.
At Manchester the sludge from the precipitation
tanks is pumped to a sludge reservoir, run into a
sludge boat, and carried to sea, and that from the
septic tanks will receive the same treatment.”
The article in Engineering News of January 13,
1898, contained the first use of the term “Septic
2210
2211
2212
22 13
2214
444
2215
2216
2217
2218
22 19
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Tank” I had known of, and was also the first in-
formation I had of the use of the septic tank at
Exeter, England. The term “sludge” was used
throughout these articles to miean the solid matter
accumulating in sewage tanks, whether these tanks
Were chemical precipitation tanks, separating tanks
or septic tanks, or sewage tanks of any other name,
—that is a mixture of this solid matter with water
in any consistency in which it may be found. The
tanks which I termed “separating tanks” and “sedi-
mentation tanks” in the articles just quoted, are
the same in form and action as I should now call
“septic tanks,” and the changes in the sewage going
On in these tanks included more than a mere me-
chanical subsidence and separation, and the action
involved what is now commonly known in sewage
purification as “septic action.”
*The articles referred to in this answer include
all that I have published on these tanks, so far as
I now recall.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the parts quoted in the foregoing
answer from the various pubſications re-
ferred to by the witness, and as the same
are therein quoted.
Complainant’s counsel objects to the in-
troduction of the various matters quoted
and the answer of the witness with respect
thereto, in so far as said matters are
offered as evidence of any facts stated in
such articles quoted, for the reason that
such articles are not the best evidence of
the facts therein set forth.
445
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
It is stipulated that the various publications
referred to by the witness as above shall be pro-
duced in court at the hearing if either party so
desires, to be read subject to the objection above
noted.
Adjourned till Friday, August 4, 1905, at 10
O’clock A. M.
August 4, 1905, met pursuant to adjournment;
present as before.
Q. 10. Please state whether the tanks at Urbana,
and Champaign described in your foregoing ans-
wers were closed tanks, or the extent to which they
were closed, either by their own construction or by
the scum which formed on top of the sewage there-
in. By “closed tanks” I mean tanks that excluded
both light and air. If the tanks referred to were
not closed in this sense, please state to what extent
they were closed with particular reference to oper-
ation. A. The Urbana tank was covered with a
plank cover which rested on the brick walls of the
tank, and made a fairly close fit. Air could reach
it only as it passed through the sewer from adjoin-
ing manholes, or through crevices which may have
existed between the walls and the cover. It was
not absolutely air tight, though it was substantially
air tight as we should now expect such tanks to
be made. It cannot be said to have been absolutely
light proof, but the construction was such that the
condition of darkness prevailed so far as is neces-
sary or desirable for the proper action of the tank
and the growth and activity of the class of bacteria
working in such tanks, commonly called anaerobic
bacteria. The amount of air admitted would not
be sufficient to permit absorption by the liquid to
interfere with the action of the bacteria.
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
446
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
- ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
The first Champaign tank was covered in a way
such that the conditions so far as exclusion of light
and air are concerned were practically the same
except that there were no manholes on the tiles
feeding the tank. The second tank at Champaign
Was built so tight that within the tank darkness
prevailed to such extent that one could not see any
objects around him, and there was no chance for
air to escape except through the shingles or through
small crevices which may exist in the construction
of such buildings as this. It was not obsolutely
air tight or light tight, but was sufficiently so to
provide desirable conditions for the proper action
of such a tank.
Q. 11. Please state whether you were familiar
with the Mouras patents and Philbrick and Waring
publications, and other literature bearing on the
subject of sewage disposal at and before the time
you designed and constructed the first tank at Ur-
bana; and if so, whether you were then working or
intending to work along lines already understood
in the art?
Complainant’s counsel objects to that
part of the question that calls for an ex-
pression of the witness's intentions or pur-
pose, as not proper or competent evidence.
A. My attention was first called to the Mouras
construction by the letter from Mr. Noyes quoted
in my answer to question 5, and I read the article
in the Engineering News therein referred to. I
was then using “Waring’s Sewerage and Drainage”
and knew of Waring's work in other ways. I also
had seen the article of Edward S. Phillbrick and
had a reprint of the article entitled “The Disposal
447
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
of Sewage in Suburban Residences.” These Writ-
ings referred to means for so reducing the solids
in sewage that further treatment might be more
effectively carried out, and indicated to me that
tanks of the kind put in would have a beneficial
effect. I felt from my knowledge of the subject
derived from such publications and from my ob-
Servation of sewage disposal plants that the use of
such forms of tank had been sufficiently developed
to Warrant my recommendation to the city council
Of Urbana of the construction of the tank and the
accomplishments of the results of getting an effluent
sufficiently pure, clear and odorless to meet the
requirements of the town.
Q. 12. I’lease state whether you have examined
the Cameron, Commin and Martin patel, t, No. 634,-
423, sued on in this cause, and whether you under-
Stand the same? A. Yes.
Q. 13. I’lease state whether you have ever seen
any of the Cameron septic tanks so-called, and if
So, when and where, and what opportunities you
had for inspecting or studying the same? A. I
saw the Cameron septic tank at Exeter, England,
in July, 1900, and the beginning of the permanent
Cameron septic tank then being there constructed.
I saw the Cameron septic tank at Manchester, Eng-
land, in August, 1900, and the Cameron septic
tank at Leeds, England, during the same month. I
was shown these tanks by attendants or chemists
in the employ of the engineering department of
these towns, and was given information concerning
their construction, mode of operation and results.
Q. 14. Please compare the construction and
operation of the tanks at Urbana and Champaign
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
448
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
described in your foregoing answers with the con-
struction and Operation of the Cameron tank de-
Scribed in this patent No. 634,423, and state
Wherein they are similar to or different from each
other either in construction or operation—limiting
your comparison to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 20, 21, and 22 of the patent. A. The tanks in
Question receive sewage continuously, the amount
of inflow being practically the same as the outflow
at any instant. Light and air is substantially ex-
cluded and anaerobic bacteria are developed and
the resulting biolytic action results in a breaking
down and separation of the parts composing the
Organic matter in suspension in the sewage. The
construction of the tank is common in that arrange-
ments are made to provide a steady regular flow
through the tank free from agitation and disturb-
ance. The condition of the effluent is similar, both
in regard to freedom from suspended sludge, and
the conditions involving odor and appearance.
Sludge was forming in the bottom of these tanks in
the same way that it formed in the tanks at Ur-
bana and Champaign, and the amount of this
sludge, so far as I could determine from the infor-
mation given me at the works was not materially
different in amount or character when the differ-
ence in the dilution of the sewage, the proportion
of organic matter in suspension to that in solution,
the presence of catch-basins and grit chambers is
taken into consideration from that deposited in the
tanks at Urbana and Champaign in the early years
of their operation. The tanks at Urbana and
Champaign were not absolutely air tight and light
proof, while the English tanks were so tight that
449
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the gas involved was held under some pressure in
the tanks. But I was informed by the chemists
connected with the department in charge of these
works, at Manchester and Leeds, that this condi-
tion of absolute air-tightness and freedom from
light was not in any way essential to the satisfac-
tory operation of such tanks, and that tanks which
they were operating and which did not contain this
feature were giving results every bit as good and
that they could see no difference from this feature
of the construction. The scum which formed on
these English tanks was similar to that forming on
the tanks at Urbana and Champaign. The tanks
at Urbana and Champaign contained a device for
securing a steady outflow from the full section of
the tank which differed from that in use in the Cam-
eron tanks.
With reference to the specific claims of the pat-
ent, the tank at Urbana used the process mentioned
in claim 1 in that the sewage was subjected under
exclusion of air, of 'light, and agitation, to the
action of anaerobic bacteria until the whole mass
of solid organic matter contained therein became
liquefied, if by a whole mass is understood substan-
tially all, and if by liquefied is meant that these
solids are decomposed and that the effluent is
almost entirely free from such solids. If by liquefy
is meant the changing into liquid, this would not
well describe the process. The effluent was dis-
charged into a small stream. If the exposure to air
and light therein may be considered a part of the
process, then the effluent was exposed to air and
light.
In claim 2 the features of liquefying the solid
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
450
224.5
2246
2247
2248
2249
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
matter contained in the sewage consisting In seclud-
ing a pool of Sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow from light, air and agitation, until a
mass of micro organisms has been developed of a
character and quantity sufficient to liquefy the
solid matter of the flowing sewage, the inflow serv-
ing to Sustain the micro-Organisms and then sub-
jecting such pool under exclusion of light and air,
and under a non-disturbing inflow and outflow to
the liquefying action of the so cultivated micro-
organisms until the solid organic matter contained
in the flowing sewage is dissolved were used in the
tanks at Urbana and Champaign, if by dissolved is
meant the breaking up of the organic matter. If by
dissolved is meant put into the form of a solution
which was entirely carried out in the effluent, and
that no part of the organic matter was retained in
the tank or given off as gas, the clause does not
describe the action in the tank. In both claims 1
and 2 I do not now understand that complete and
entire exclusion of light and air is intended by the
wording. If it is these tanks were not so operated.
Claim 3 seems to cover the same as claim 2, with
the addition of subjecting the liquid outflow to an
aerating operation. If by an aerating Operation is
meant an operation where gases may be given off
and air absorbed this feature was present in the
tanks in question.
Claim 4 contains an additional process of filter-
ing. There was no filter connected with these
tanks, although the project of sewage disposal
planned by these two towns at that tinte involved
this addition at a future time.
With reference to claim 5, the outlet to the tanks
451
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
at Urbana and Champaign was disposed above the
bottom and below the normal water level of the
tank if the Weir wall and the baffile board next to
it be construed as included in the outlet to the tank,
and this Outlet was open across the greater part of
the Width of the tank. If “outlet” be construed to
mean only the vertical plane at which the sewage
ioft the deep part of the tank, that is the plane im-
mediately above the weir wall, then the outlet was
not disposed below the normal water level of the
tank. If by an “aerator” is meant a device for per-
forming aeration as defined in my statement con-
cerning claim 3 made above, then there was an aera-
tor connected with the outlet.
Concerning claim 6, there was no settling tank in
addition to the septic tank, using those words as
they were evidently intended in the claim, in the
plants at Urbana and Champaign. The other appa-
ratus was included in these tanks, if the definition
of the outlet is construed to include the part of the
tank weir wall to the next baffile board, otherwise
the outlet was not disposed below the normal water
level of the tank.
Referring to claim 7, there was no conduit having
a longitudinal slot open across the greater part of
the width of the tank. This answer is made con-
struing the space between the last baffle board and
the weir as not being a conduit.
Referring to claim 8, the outlet in these tanks did
not contain a pipe extending across the greater part
of the width of the tank.
Referring to claim 11, if the term “inlet” be con-
strued to include the part of the tank at the point
of inflow up to and including the nearest baffle
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
452
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
board, then there was an inlet disposed above the
bottom of the tank and below the normal water
level thereof, and occupying the greater part of the
width of said tank. If the term “inlet” refers only
to the vertical plane of the cross section of the tank
at the extreme end thereof, then there was not an
inlet disposed above the bottom of the tank and
below the normal water level thereof, and occupy-
ing the greater part of the width of the tank. The
part of the claim referring to an outlet extending
across the greater part, etc., is covered in the ans-
wers above.
Referring to claim 12, these tanks did not have
an outlet comprising a pipe having a longitudinal
slot therein extending the greater part of its length.
The remainder of the claim is the same as has been
discussed in the answer above.
Referring to claim 20, these tanks had means for
excluding air and light, that is, to such a substantial
degree as is necessary for the proper operation of
such tank, but they did not exclude light and air
absolutely. The tank at Urbana did not have a
broadened mouth if the word mouth is restricted
to the vertical plane extending over the cross sec-
tion of the tank at the influent end. The tank at
the Champaign outlet had a broadened mouth. The
expressions concerning the non-disturbing inlet
disposed below the normal water level have been
discussed in the answer above, as was also the part
referring to a non-disturbing outlet for said tank
disposed below the normal water level thereof. The
flow from these tanks was over a Weir wall extend-
ing across the whole width of the tank, and if this
be construed to be a broadened mouth, then they
453
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
contain a broadened mouth. A sewage conduit was
connected with the inlet.
Referring to claim 21, the process of liquefying
the solid matter contained in the sewage which con-
sists in secluding a pool of Sewage having a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow from light, air and
agitation, until a thick scum is formed on the sur-
face thereof, and a mass of Organisms flave been
developed of a character and quantity sufficient to
liquefy the solid matter of the flowing sewage, the
inflow serving to sustain the micro-organisms and
then subjecting said pool under the cover of said
scum and under a non-disturbing inflow and Out-
flow to the liquefying action of the so cultivated
micro-organisms until the solid matter contained
in the flowing sewage is dissolved was used in these
tanks if “non-disturbing inflow and outflow” and
seclusion from light, air and agitation are construed
to mean substantial freedom from disturbance and
substantial exclusion of light, air and agitation,
and not absolute freedom from light, air and agita-
tion; and if the expression “until the solid matter
contained in the flowing sewage is dissolved” im-
plies the decomposition and reduction of the sus-
pended organic solid matter into gases, stable Or-
ganic compounds, inorganic matter and matter
soluble in water, and if this claim implies that not
absolutely all of the said organic matter is so de-
composed. If the claim be construed to mean that
all solid matter including inorganic matter carried
in the sewage, or even absolutely all of the organic
matter of the sewage, then the process was not so
used in these tanks. If by dissolved ivy meant the
chemical use of the term, putting in solution where
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
454
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
it had previously been in suspension as the prin-
cipal part of the process, then these tanks were not
so operated.
Referring to claim 22, these tanks did contain an
apparatus for the purification of sewage, the com-
bination of a septic tank, means for excluding air
and light, a non-disturbing inlet for said tank dis-
posed below the normal water level thereof, a non-
disturbing outlet for said tank disposed below the
normal water level thereof, and a sewage conduit
connected with said inlet, if by means for excluding
air and light is meant the substantial exclusion
thereof, if a non-disturbing inlet disposed below the
normal water level is construed to incluuſe the part
of the tank as far as the first bafflle board, and if
outlet disposed below the normal water level is
construed to include the part of the tank from and
after the baffile board nearest the outlet. If the
term inlet be restricted to a vertical cross section
plane at the influent end of the tank then the inlet
was not disposed below the normal water level.
If the outlet of the tank be construed to mean the
vertical cross section plane where the water leaves
the deep art of the tank and no other portion of
the structure, then the outlet was not disposed
below the normal water level thereof. These ans-
wers are given with the undel standing that the
meaning of the expression “disposed below the nor-
mal water level thereof.” means that every portion
of the inlet and every portion of the outlet must
be below the normal water level and not that the
said inlets or outlets may extend from the surface
of the water and not to some point below.
In using the word “outlet,” I have referred to
455
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the part where the sewage would leave the deeper
part of the tank and not to any chamber, conduit,
or pipe which may be provided beyond that point.
Complainant's counsel objects to such
portions of the foregoing answer as relate
to the tanks at Exeter, Mauchester and
Leeds and their operation as being hear-
say and not proper evidence.
Q. 15. Taking the word “septic” as used in the
Cameron patent sued on, and as now understood
in the art, did or did not the tanks at Urbana and
Champaign described in your foregoing answers,
produce or secure septic action? A. As I now under-
stand the use of the term “septic action,” as com-
monly used in connection with sewage purifica-
tion plants and as used in the Cameron patent, the
tanks at Urbana and Champaign did produce and
Secure septic action.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher.
XQ. 16. When did you first construct or direct
the construction of a sewerage system, and where?
A. I think it was in 1883 that I had to do with
the construction of a sewer, receiving tank, and
subsurface irrigation system from the Santa Fe
railroad hospital at La Junta, Colorado.
XQ. 17. When did you first construct or direct
the construction of a sewerage system involving a
tank in which the separation of suspended solidº,
was effected by sedimentation? A. If by separa-
tion of suspended solids by sedimentation is meant
that as a part of the process the suspended solids
subside or are retained in the tank by reason of
differences in specific gravity and a slow current,
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
456
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
then the tank at Urbana constructed in October,
1894, was the first.
XQ. 18. When did you next construct or direct
the construction of a sewerage system involving a
sedimentation tank, such as specified in my last
Question? A. Using the term “sedimentation” in
the same sense as in the last preceding answer, the
next tank was constructed at Champaign in June,
1S95.
XQ. 19. And when next after June, 1895, did
you construct or direct the construction of a sewer-
age system involving a sedimentation tank of any
kind? A. Using the term “sedimentation” in the
same sense, the next sewerage system in which the
design of such a tank was included was designed in
the summer of 1895, but this system was not com-
pleted entirely until 1899. I refer to the Cham-
paign Sewerage system.
XQ. 20. What sewerage systems other than those
which you have mentioned as having designed and
constructed for Champaign and Urbana, were
designed or installed by you between the years 1894
and 1897? A. One for Charleston Illinois, and one
for Monticello, Illinois, are all that I now recall.
XQ. 21. When was the system for Charleston
designed and when was it installed? A. It was
designed in June, 1896, but as I had nothing to do
With the construction of it I do not now recall When
it was installed.
XQ. 22. When was the Monticello system de-
signed and installed? A. As I recall it, it was
designed in the summer of 1896 and constructed in
the fall of the same year.
XQ. 23. State the character and dimensions of
457
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the tanks forming part of the Charleston and Mon-
ticello systems to which you have just referred? A.
I have not the data here concerning the tank at
Charleston, and it has been so many years since
this design was made I do not feel like attempting
to give it from memory. There was no tank used
in the Monticello system as the outlet sewer dis-
charged into the Sangamon River where the flow
was sufficient to receive the sewage without any
objectionable results.
XQ. 24. What sewerage systems have been de-
signed or constructed by you or under your direc-
tion since 1894 other than those mentioned in the
course of your cross examination? A. In answer.
ing this question you may restrict your answer to
systems involving sewage disposal tanks or plants?
A. Within the meaning of this question as I under-
stand it, there has been none.
XQ. 25. State as nearly as you can now recall
the construction and dimensions of the tank de-
signed by you for Charleston, Illinois? A. I do
not now recollect the dimensions well enough to
make a reply to this question.
XQ. 26. Can you not give an approximate state-
ment as to the size and construction of the Charles-
ton tank which you say you designed? A. It was
designed along the same lines as the tank construct-
ed later at the Champaign sewer outlet. As I do
not even recall how large a part of Charleston was
to be included in the system, nor what the limita-
tion of the amount of sewage passing to the tank
was, I cannot attempt to give these figures.
XQ. 27. Was there any written contract between
you and the city of Urbana in regard to the con-
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
4:58
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
struction of the Urbana tank or system concerning
Which you have testified? A. There was none.
XQ. 28. When was the tract of land purchased
for the Urbana plant? A. I think it was in July,
1894, that the city acquired the right to this land,
Or made arrangements for its purchase.
XQ. 29. Did you make any recommendations or
submit any plans or suggestions in writing with
respect to a sewerage system for the city of Urbana,
or for the city of Champaign? A. The work of
the design and construction of the sewerage systems
for Urbana and Champaign was left almost wholly
in my hands, and although I consulted freely with
members of the council, and particularly with the
mayors and members of the sewer committee, very
little of my intercourse with them was in writing.
The only plans and reports which I now recall mak-
ing were the plans for the sewer systems, the speci-
fications for the sewer part of the work, and the
ordinances for the construction of the sewerage
systems. The plans referred to for the Urbana
tank and the tank for the Champaign sewer outlet
in the direct testimony were submitted to mem-
bers of the councils.
XQ. 30. Did you submit no written description
or drawings or sketches with respect to the Urbana
Or Champaign tanks other than the sketches and
drawings that have been introduced in evidence,
and other than the ordinances concerning which
you have testified ? A. I do not now recall what
plan or sketch for the Champaign separating tank
may have been made before the prints which have
been introduced in evidence. There must have been
such plans but I do not remember concerning them.
4.59
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Other than these I do not now recall any other
plans or Writing.
XQ. 31. Did you construct the Urbana or the
Champaign tank under the direction or Superin-
tendance of anyone or were you at liberty to follow
your own views and desires with respect to these
tanks? A. This work, as was the work on the en-
tire sewer system, was under the direction of the
city council and sewer committee of that body, and
I of course acted under their direction. While
they generally agreed with me I was careful to
secure their approval. The question of the cost of
the system was strong in their minds as the ex-
penditure of funds for the construction of the sys-
tem seemed a large one to them and required an
effort in getting sufficient funds, and so the sizes
and expenditures were questioned in every part
of the system and this extended to the tanks at the
outlet. I was limited by them in the expenditure
on this part of the work.
XQ. 32. Did not your advice control w tin respect
to matters which you regarded as important or
essential in the different parts of the systems? A.
In a general way, yes; but under the circumstances
it seemed to me best to accede to their ideas of
economy and 'present expenditures insofar as it
would not interfere with the immmediate working
of the system—acceding to their stand that addi-
tions or enlargements of the system could be made
in the future when the city was better able to make
the construction.
XQ. 33. Were any drawings made of the Urbana
tank other than the drawings or sketches that have
been introduced in evidence. A. Not that I now
recall.
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
460
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 34. Before the contract for the Urbana sys-
tem. Was let and before the contract for the Cham-
paign system was let, were there any advertise-
ments for bids on these contracts? A. There were
such advertisements for that part of the system in-
Volved in the pipe sewers and manholes and flush
tanks; but none for the tanks at the outlet. The
contractor who constructed the Urbana sewer sys-
tem was asked in October, 1894, after he had had
the contract for the pipe sewers two or three
months, to make a price upon the construction of
the brickwork of the tank, and the sewer committee
accepted his bid without securing other bids. The
tank at the outlet to the Champaign sewerage sys-
tem was not let by contract as a whole, the portion
included in the tank proper at and below the level
of the sewage line was constructed under my direct
supervision by the day labor of city employees, I
ordering the material as it was needed. The brick
walls were built by one of the two contractors who
Were asked to set a price upon it. The same is true
Of the Woodwork on the doors and roof.
Adjourned till Saturday, August 5, 1905, at 10
O’clock A. M.
August 5, 1905, 10 o’clock A. M.; met pursuant
to adjournment; present as before.
XQ. 35. Was the sewerage system which you
say you designed for Charleston, Illinois, ever
installed there? A. A line or two of sewer was
constructed, but this did not include any part of
the overflow system, nor of the outfall sewer to
take the dry weather flow, nor any part of the dis-
posal works so far as my knowledge goes.
XQ. 36. Was there ever any tank, such as you
461
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
say you designed for the Charleston, Illinois, sys-
tem installed at such place- A. Not to my knowl-
edge.
XQ. 37. Did you ever visit Charleston to ascertin
what sewerage work had been done there after you
furnished the design for the system? A. I have
not visited Charleston since that time.
XQ. 38. You have not visited Charleston since
you furnished the design for the sewerage system
at that place, have you? A. No.
XQ. 39. And you do not know whether your
tank was installed in that system or not? A. Only
so far as I have been informed by the man who has
been acting as city engineer of Charleston and by
residents of that place.
XQ. 40. And what did he inform you as to this
tank having been built or not? A. As given in a
preceding answer, he told me that the outfall sewer
and disposal plant had not be constructed.
XQ. 41. Who was the engineer of Charleston,
Illinois, to whom you have referred? A. Mr. Mil-
lar, of Mattoon or Charleston. I do not recall his
initials.
XQ. 42. In the memorandum book to which you
have referred in the course of your direct testimony,
do you find any reference to this Charleston sys-
term 2 A. The memorandum books which I have
with me refer only to the work at Champaign and
Urbana.
XQ. 43. You, had separate memorandum books
for the Urbana and the Champaign systems? A.
YoS.
XQ. 44. Will you please refer to the Urbana
memorandum book and read therefrom such items
23()0
2301
2302
2303
2304
462
2305
2:306
2:307
23()8
2309
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
as relate to the tank designed by you for the Urbana
system. A. I find in my book the following items:
“October 18, K. & I worked on settiing basin
pl’ ns, etc.”
“‘October 19, grades calculated and details of set-
tling tank considered in P. M.”
“October 20, I staked out settling tank and dig-
gilug was begun.”
“October 22, Settling tank digging progressed.”
“October 24, Digging for settling tank nearly
completed.”
“October 25, Settling tank begun (brickwork).”
“October 26, Rain stopped work on settling
tank.” *
“October 27, Settling tank nearly done.”
“October 29, Brickwork on settling basin fin-
1shed.”
“November 3, Settling tank filled with water yes-
terday and today east wall fell in.”
“November 5, Started to repair settling tank but
Wijskey left. Election day.”
“November 8, Steele on covers, settling tank, etc.”
“November 14, K at settling tank.”
“November 24, Settling tank plastering patched.”
“December 15, Office work and inspected work-
ing of set. tank.”
“All of these dates are in the year 1894, which
year appears written on the face of the book; and I
do not find any other references to the tank.
XQ. 45. Who is the person referred to in your
last answer by the initial “K?” A. M. S. Ketchum,
the one referred to in my direct examination.
XQ. 46. When did you make, or cause to be
made, tests to determine the amount, velocity, and
463
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
character of the sewage at Urbana? A. In the
Spring of 1895, gaugings made by one or more of
my students showed a daily flow of from 10,000 to
25,000 gallons per 24 hours. I do not ſtow recall
When any other gaugings were made. The general
character of the sewage was inspected av the same
time and its general nature seen, I do not now
recall that any chemical determinations of the sew-
age were made if it is intended to include this in
the word character.
XQ. 47. If I understand your answer correctly,
the only tests made or of which you are aware with
respect to the volume, velocity and character of the
Sewage at Urbana, were the gaugings referred to in
your last answer as having been made in the spring
of 1895. Is that correct? A. Gaugings were after-
Ward made at various times, but I do not recall the
time or the amount. At these times the general na-
ture of the sewage was seen, but I do not now recall
that any chemical examination was made, though
it may have been done, but I think not under my
direction. So far as I recall no other Jine of tests
Was made at that time.
XQ. 48. If I understand you correctly, the gaug-
ings last referred to and the ocular examination of
the sewage, were the only steps taken by you and
that no chemical, biological or other tests of the
U1 bana sewage were made. Is that correct? A. As
I remember it, none was made under my direction.
Whether any were made by the departmeyrt of chem-
istry or of botany I do not now recall.
XQ. 49. How were these gaugings made by your
students? A. As I remember it, both by means
2310
23 11
23 12
2313
2314
404
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
of measuring weirs placed in the manhole and by
floats run from One manhole to another.
XQ. 50. What was the size and character of the
sewer leading to the settling tank which you de-
signed for Urbana? A. It was vitrified pipe 12
inches in internal diameter.
XQ. 51. How many inhabitants were there in
Urbana in the fall of 1894; and how many connec-
tions were made with this sewer pipe of the Urbana
system. A. I think the population was about 4,000.
I do not know how many connections were made
with the sewer system.
XQ. 52. For what part or proportion of the city
of Urbana was the sewerage system installed in the
year 1894?. A. The pipe system was laid to take
care of a part of the southwestern portion of the
city. This included a portion of the university build-
ings then built.
XQ. 53. Did the sewer pipe that connected with
your Urbana tank receive all the sewage from the
sewerage system of Urbana? A. All of the sewer
system put in by me discharged into this tank. Of
course drains existed in this same territory and
there were connections from houses and cesspools
emptying into these drains, but these tiles did not
discharge into the sewer system.
XQ. 54. Was the construction of the sewerage
system installed by you at Urbana such that ground
Water or rain water could pass into the system at
any point? A. The joints of the sewer pipe were
cemented up, but ground water did enter the sewer
as was shown by increased flow in times of wet
Weather. The tile which took the roof water from
one of the university buildings was so arranged that
465
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
a limited amount of water would get into the sewer,
the excess discharging through a tile into a stream.
On another line of sewer the roof water from a
school building discharged into the sewer. These
arrangements were intended to give a flush to the
two lines having very flat grades, and was in addi-
tion to the flushing given by the flush tanks.
XQ. 55. How many fiush tanks were there con-
necied with the Urbana system and what was their
capacity? A. I think there were seven. The ca-
pacity of these was generally between two hundred
and fifty and three hundred gallons. Two of the
tanks, however, held about six hundred gallons.
XQ. 56. Did all the Water from these flush tanks
and the storm water from the roofs that were con-
nected with the sewer system pass through the
tank at the outlet of the system? A. All of the
water from the flush tanks and such of the Water
from the roofs as went to the sewer passed through
the tank.
XQ. 57. What provision was made ror prevent-
ing any of the water from the roofs that were con-
nected with the sewer from entering the sewer? A.
The construction of the eavetroughs and down-
spouts was such that not all the rainfall would
reach the tile drain. Besides this a special manhole
was built in the tile drain and the pipe which con-
nected it with the sewer made of such size, and the
bottom of the manhole so constructed that after
flow through this pipe had reached a certain amount
the excess of flow would be discharged over a broad
weir into a large tile drain which carried it on to a
Stream.
XQ. 58. State approximately the size of the roofs
2320
2321
2322
2324
466
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
that were connected with the Urbana system? A.
I think the university building contained about
12,000 square feet of roof surface, and the school
building about 2,500.
XQ. 59. And these roofs were provided with the
usual gutters and downspouts adapted for roofs
of such size; were they not? A. I do not know
what the condition of the gutters and downspouts
was. We merely connected them up as they were.
XQ. 60. And if I understand your testimony
these downspouts were connected by tiſe drains to
manholes, which manholes were connected by tiles
to the sewer. Is that correct? A. Yes, if by tile is
Ireant sewer tile.
XQ. 61. State if you are able to do so what was
the size of the pipes that connected the manholes
to the sewers? A. I think about six incries inter-
nal diameter, that being the usual size for house
cCnnections.
XQ. 62. In what way was the outlet of the Ur-
bana sewer connected to the tank? A. Through an
inlet chamber at the influent end. This chamber
was built of brick, including the bottom and the
walls, and was covered with a board cover. It con-
tained the two gates mentioned in my direct testi-
mony. The bottom was made flat except that the
angles at the side were filled in a little with mortar.
The bottom of the gate at the tank was on the same
level as the bottom of the sewer and the 'bottom of
the inlet chamber. It was about three feet long and
three wide at one end and four feet at the other, all
internal dimensions. It was about one and a half
feet from the bottom of the chamber to the top of
the brickwork.
467
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 63. How did the chamber at the outlet end
of the sewer pipe connect with the receiving end of
the tank? A. The cast iron frame of the gate was
set, in the brick wall at the infiuent end of the tank.
XQ. 64. What kind of a gate was used at the
influent end of the tank? A. A flap valve or gate
hiliged at the top.
XQ. 65. What was the size of the opening at the
influent end of the tank, and how far was this open-
ing above the bottom of the tank? A. About
twelve inches. The bottom of the opening was
about three and a half feet above the bottom of the
tank.
XQ. 66. How do you account for the fact that
the sketches made by you or under your direction
of the Urbana tank do not show any cover? A.
The sketches were made for the purpose of direct-
ing the construction of the brickwork; and the
construction of the cover was left to the street de-
partment.
XQ. 67. How long had the tank at Urbana been
built before the cover was put on? A. I do not
recall the exact date of the construction of this
cover, nor whether it was put on before sewage was
admitted, but it was constructed either in the last
week of November, or in the first ten days of Decem-
ber, 1894. By constructed I mean that it was built
in place on the tank.
XQ. 68. When were the baffle plates or boards
added to the Urbana tank? A. Either before the
COver was constructed or at the same time.
XQ. 69. How far was the baffile plate located
from the inlet of the tank and how far dſd it extend
below the bottom of the inlet opening? A. It was
2330
23:31
2332
2333
2334
468
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
about Unree feet from the inlet end, and extended
ter, or twelve inches below the bottom of the inlet
Opening.
XQ. 70. How far below the bottom of the inlet
to the tank did the brick wall extend—I mean the
brick wall that was built across the upper part of
the tank? A. About twelve or fifteen inches.
XQ. 71. How high above the bottom of the inlet
of the tank did the baffle plate nearest the inlet
extend ? A. I think the bafflle consisted of two
boards each about twelve inches wide. This would
make it twelve or fourteen inches above.
XQ. 72. How near to the weir adjacent to the
outlet end of the tank was there a baffle plate, and
how high above and below the line of the weir did
such plate extend? A. About three feet from the
weir and it extended down about 12 inches below
the level of the weir and about the same distance
above.
XQ. 73. And were the several baffle plates ar-
ranged about at equal distances apart throughout
the tank? A. I think so. ſº
XQ. 74. What were the dimensions of that part
of the tank beyond the weir at its discharge end?
A. It was the full width of the tank, four and one-
half feet, and two feet in the direction of flow. The
bottom of it was about two feet and a half below
the brick masonry. The drawing is marked that
the bottom was twelve inches below the top of the
weir wall; but upon examining thc drawing and
noting the distance given for the position of the
outlet pipe I am not sure that this is exactly cor-
rect. Either the wall was two or three inches higher
than this or the outlet pipe was two or three inches
469
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
lower than shown, for I remember that the sewage
fell over the weir wall for small discharges of the
sewer as it generally discharged in 1895.
XQ. 75. In what way were you able to observe
the action of the discharges over the weir wall in
1895? A. By raising the plank cover. as we did
When it was inspected and when it was cleaned.
XQ. 76. Did the cover extend over the entire
tark? A. The cover extended from the inlet cham-
ber to the end of the wall at the outlet pipe and was
made in two portions.
XQ. 77. State the size of the outlet pipe and how
it connected to the pipe that led from the tank to
the creek? A. It was a twelve-inch sewer pipe set
in the wall, and it connected with the pipe that led
to the creek by the ordinary method of connecting
hub and spigot sewer pipe, and the joints were cem-
Cnted in the same way as was done in all the sewers.
XQ. 78. How far was the tank at Urbana located
from the creek? A. I think 20 or 30 feet.
XQ. 79. Was there an opening for sludge formed
at Or near the bottom of the Urbana tank? A. As
stated in my direct testimony, a sludge gate was
built into the brick wall near the bottom of the
tºti k, but this was not connected with an outlet and
Was sealed up.
XQ. 80. Was the sludge gate above or below the
level of the ground outside of the tank? A. It was
befow the level of the ground.
XQ. 81. How did you happen to put in this
sludge gate? A. I thought it might Inake a con-
vellient connection in case we desired some other-
way of removing the sludge than was planned at
that time, and would save breaking into the wall
of the tank.
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
470
2345
2346
234.7
2348
2349
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 82. How far below the top of the weir was
the bottom of the outlet of the tank?. A. Two or
three inches as I remember.
XQ. 83. Did Mr. Ketchum make any suggestions
With regard to the construction of this Urbana tank,
or with regard to its proportions? A. I presume
that he did, but I do not now recall anything con-
Cerning them.
XQ. 84. Were any other drawings of the Ur-
bana tank made besides the two sketches that had
been offered in evidence or was any photograph
made of the tank? A. I do not remember of any
Other drawing, nor that any photograph was made
of the tank, though I do not know what students or
Others may have done.
XQ. 85. Did you ever verify the measurements
of the Urbana, tank after its construction to see
how they corresponded with the measurements of
the drawing you have introduced in evidence? A.
I do not now recall making such verification.
XQ. 86. Was there anything applied to the Ur-
bana tank that is not shown on Defendants' Exhibit
Urbana Tank, November, 1894, besides the cover
and baffle plate? A. Only the gates.
XQ. 87. What was the cost of the Urbana, tank?
A The Dubuque Construction Company, the same
company which built the sewer system was paid
about one hundred and twenty dollars for the exca-
Vation and brickwork. The original price was one
hundred dollars but a cross wall was added and
additional grading done. I take these figures from
tha final estimate book which was made up at the
time and have also referred to the bill put in by the
Dubuque Construction Company. This amount
471
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
does not include the cost of the cast iron gates
which were made at a local foundry, nor of the
cover and baffle boards.
XQ. 88. Why was not the cross wall included in
the original bid? A. After the east wall had fallen
in by reason of water getting behind it while the
brickwork was yet green, it was decided to replace
the baffle which was planned at the middle with
the brick cross wall in order to strengthen the con-
struction. This falling of the wall was mentioned
in the quotation from the memorandum book made
in a preceding answer.
XQ. 89. Were any changes made in the Urbana
tank after the tank was put in operation first? A.
I cannot say concerning this for after the first year
or two I did not know of its operation, but during
that time there were no changes made so far as I am
a W. aPe.
XQ. 90. State as nearly as possible when the first
test was made for determining the amount of sew-
age that passed per day through the Urbana tank?
A. I cannot give the exact date when regular gaug-
ings were made, except that it was in the spring of
1S95. However, I inspected the outlet sewer sev-
eral times in the winter of 1894 and 1895 and the
spring of 1895, and measured the depth of flow in
the outlet sewer. From this and the depth found
at the time gaugings were made I was able to make
a fair estimate of the quantity of sewage flowing
at these Other times.
XQ. 91. State if you know how many gaugings
were made in testing the Urbana sewage in the
spring of 1895? A. I do not know exactly how
many were made.
2351
2352
2353
2354
472
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 92. Was the flow through the Urbana tank
continuous or intermittent? A. It differed at dif-
ferent times of the day, and varied from day to day.
It was of course a continuous flow.
XQ. 93. How often did you examine the Urbana
tank after it was installed. A. I cannot answer
this question in a very definite way, but as often
as I Was at the outlet and the cover was so that it
could be lifted. I presume that this was a half
dozen times in the first year of its operation. Of
Course the effluent could be seen at the outlet to the
tank Where it discharged into the stream, and this
was seen more frequently.
XQ. 94. Did you ever observe the Urbana tank
at a time when there was an excessive flow through
the Sewer and into the tank? A. I did not.
XQ. 95. When did you last examine the Urbana
tank and in what way did you make your examina-
tion? A. As stated in my direct testimony, I visit.
ed this tank August 1; but I did not make any
Special examination of it for it was not in service.
XQ. 96. When, prior to August 1, 1895, did you
last examine the Urbana tank, and when did that
tank go out of service? A. I do not now recall
When my last examination of this tank was made.
As stated in my direct testimony I am informed
that the tank was disconnected in July, 1905.
XQ. 97. Did you examine the Urbana tank at
any time between the year 1895 and 1905, and dur-
ing that time did you make any tests to determine
the manner in which the tank was operating? A.
I visited the tank several times, and during the
period mentioned, and at different times opened the
cover and looked into it. I do not remember of
473
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
making any test of the tank during this time other
than a general inspection of the contents and of the
sludge and of the effluent.
XQ. 98. About how often during the year 1896
and how often during the year 1897, did you ex-
aniine the Urbana tank? A. I cannot say defi-
Initely concerning this, but I presume five or six
times each year.
XQ. 99. What method was adopted by you for
examining the sludge in the Urbana tank and in
examining the effluent therefrom ? A. When the
sludge was taken from the bottom by means of a
long shovel, or else a can was lowered on a stick.
When the tank was cleaned the sludge of course
was deposited on the ground and this was scraped
up. The effluent was caught in some sort of a ves-
Sel.
XQ. 100. Whose duty was it to clean the Ur-
bana tank or to pump it out from the time the tank
was installed and during the first three years there-
after? A. I think it was in the hands of the sewer
committee of the Urbana city council who directed
the street superintendent to have it done.
XQ. 101. Who was the street superintendent at
that time? A. The street superintendent in 1894
and 1895 was Charles Sell. I do not recall who was
Street superintendent after that time.
XQ. 102. In the discussion following the paper
Which you have stated you read before the Illinois
Society of Engineers and Surveyors at its Twelfth
Annual Meeting, held January 27-29, 1897, I find
the following coloquy reported as having occurred:
“Mr. Braucher wanted to know how the sludge
was distributed over the surface.
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
474
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Prof. Talbot replied that it was pumped into an
ordinary tank on a wagon. The driver opened a
spout on the back of the tank and the sludge was
thin enough to distribute itself. Of course, only a
small area was used for receiving the sludge.
Mr. More asked if the land was put in cultiva-
tion.
Prof. Talbot answered that last summer part of
it was used for a potato patch.
Mr. Rickar : “What is the result on the surround-
ing country?
Prof. Talbot said there was no effect on the Sur-
rounding country. There was no objection to it
whatever. There was no odor. There might be
some odor, when the tank was being emptied, if the
tank had been permitted to become foul.
Mr. Burnham suggested that if a single plowing
was thrown over it, it would take away any odor.
Mr. Bond asked if there were any bad results
from the sewage passing from the tank.
Prof. Talbot said that there had been some slight-
ly bad conditions during the last season when there
had not been sufficient water in the stream; but a
year ago last summer, when the stream was dry,
there were no bad results. At the worst, it was far
better than direct discharge into the stream.
Mr. Rickard: “How often do you remove the
sludge?”
Prof. Talbot: ‘About once a month, ordinarily.”
Is this report of the discussion that followed your
papers substantially accurate? A. The report of
these discussions was not made stenographically.
The secretary of the society took down what he
could and afterward wrote it up, but it was not
Submitted to the speakers I cannot now say just
how accurate the report of the discussion is.
XQ. 103. I ask you to read over the report of
the discussion as the same is given on pages 72, 73,
74, 75 and 76 of the Twelfth Annual Report of the
Illinois Society of Engineers and Surveyors, and
475
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
state if the report of the discussion is not accord-
ing to your recollection substantially accurate, and
state also when you first had occasion to see this
printed report of the discussion, and whether if at
such time you observed any substantial inaccura-
cies? A. I do not remember the discussion very
well and I cannot verify it except as it agrees with
my memory of the situation at that time; and I do
not remember the statement made by the people in
the discussion except in one or two instances. The
only conditions which could have been named
“slightly bad conditions” in the stream referred to,
on page 73 of the report, were farther down the
stream and were due to secondary decomposition in
stagnant pools. The statement that the sludge was
removed about once a month was referred to in my
direct testimony concerning the paper read at this
meeting when I said I was afterward informed that
the tank had not been cleaned as often as I then
supposed. The question of Mr. More was with
reference to the a I’08, With a 12
inch sewer might serve and had no
reference to purification. The statement that the
additional population of the university could be
considered 1,000, also had reference to that, and
not to the amount of sewage then going into the
Sewer. The statement that “one-half the town was
Sewered” could not have been made for it is not an
accurate statement. The statement that rain water
from some of the buildings at the heads of the sew-
ers is conducted into the sewer should be limited
to the two buildings already mentic:ed, and the
statement on page 74 that the overflow was designed
to carry the excess of roof water beyond half of
237()
2371
2372
2373
2374
476
2375
2376
2377
2378
23.79
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the capacity of the sewers is incorrect. I do not
see that the statement concerning the sludge
becomes liquid enough after two or three months
could have been made by me, and I could not have
made it. The report of these meetings generally
came into my hands after their publication, but
this was generally some time after the meeting and
occasionally nearly a year elapsed before the re-
ports reached me. I did not generally read the dis-
cussions, especially those of my own papers, and
do not remember of ever reading over the report
of this discussion until I looked it over the Other
day before I came to give testimony in this case.
XQ. 104. The tank referred to in the matter
Quoted above from the discussion following your
paper at the Twelfth Annual meeting of the Illinois
Society of Engineers and Surveyors, was the Ur-
bana tank, concerning which you have testified:
was it not? A. As I remember, it was.
XQ. 105. Were you always present when the
Urbana tank was cleaned or when the sludge was
removed therefrom ? A. NO. *
XQ. 106. Then of your own knowledge you do
not know how often the tanks was cleaned Out Or
the sludge removed therefrom? A. I do not.
XQ. 107. It may have been cleaned out as often
as once a month, as stated in the report of the dis-
cussion mentioned in the XQ. 102; may it not? A.
My information came from people in Urbana and,
as before stated, I did not of my own knowledge
know how often the tank was cleaned.
XQ. 108. In what way was the cleaning of the
tank effected? A. By stirring the sludge up and
pumping out the contents of the tank with a sewer
477
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
trench diaphram pump placed upon a tank Wagon.
After it had been pumped down nearly to the bot-
tom sewage was again run in, the contents stirred
and it was again pumped out. During this Opera-
tion the discharge of the sewer was turned through
the by-pass into the creek.
XQ. 109. Was the wagon built especially for the
purpose of removing sludge? A. The tank of the
Wagon was SO built.
XQ. 110. Do you remember giving any instruc-
tion forbidding the cleaning out the tank oftener
than Once a month 2 A. I do not.
Adjourned till Monday, August 7, 1905, at 10
O'Clock A. M.
August 7, 1905, met pursuant to adjournment;
present as before.
XQ. 111. You have stated in the course of your
cross examination (XQ. 46) that in the spring of
1895 gaugings were made by one or more of your
students, these gaugings relating to the Urbana
Sewage. Did you superintend the making of any
of these gaugings or verify them? A. I construct-
ed a portable weir which I placed in the manhole,
and was with a student when part of these meas-
urements were made. I also gave him directions
concerning the work and helped to calculate part
Of them.
XQ. 112. Where was that manhole situated at
which you placed the weir? A. Q: the outlet
Sewer a short distance above the tank, perhaps a
thousand feet above.
XQ. 113. You do not recall I suppose how often
these gaugings were made, or what the condition of
the flow through the sewer was at the time any of
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
478
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
the gaugings were made, do you? A. I do not
recall exactly how many such gaugings were made,
but I remember that they were made at different
times of the same day, and on a number of differ-
ent days. As I recollect it these observations were
made under the usual conditions of flow of the
Sewage.
XQ. 114. Are you able to produce the memor-
anda or figures from which these gauging results
were made? A. I am not.
XQ. 115. Why not? A. Because I do not have
them in my possession.
XQ. 116. What became of them 2 A. I do not
know.
XQ. 117. Were they ever in your possession?
A. Some parts of the data were in my possession.
XQ. 118. When did you see or know of them
last, or any part of them? A. I do not remember
of seeing any of the original data since the time
the gaugings were made.
XQ. 119. Did you make any copies of the data
about the time the gaugings were made? A. I
presume I did, but if so it was made on loose sheets
which were not kept.
XQ. 120. What became of such loose sheets? A.
Such sheets would be destroyed.
XQ. 121. Do you know when such sheets were
destroyed? A. I do not, but in all probability
this was done in clearing up my desk soon after-
Ward.
XQ. 122. You assumed that the gaugings con-
cerning which you have testified and the estimates
made therefrom fairly represented the normal flow
of sewage to the Urbana tank in the spring of 1895?
479
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
A. These measurements, together With measure-
ments of depth of flow through the sewer made at
other times I took to represent the usual flow of
sewage.
XQ, 123. Did the outlet pipe that led from the
Urbana tank extend to the bed of the stream or
small creek into which the effluent discharged? A.
It extended into the Stream.
XQ, 124. Was the outlet end of this pipe at any
time submerged by the water of the stream? A.
Yes.
XQ. 125. Was it submerged at all times, or was
it intended so to be during the normal flow of the
stream? A. I think it was.
XQ 126. How high above the bed of the stream
was the Urbana tank located? A. As I remember
it, the weir wall was between two and three feet
higher than the ordinary level of the water in the
Creek.
XQ. 127. In the course of your direct examina-
tion, and in answer to question 5 you stated with
respect to the Urbana tank that it was at first ex-
pected that this tank might require frequent clean-
ing, “as was done in some places.” Will you please
say what you meant by the above quoted expres-
sion “as was done in some places?” A. I knew
that at Marlboro, Massachusetts, and at Gardner,
Massachusetts, open tanks used to receive sewage
were cleaned frequently. The purpose of these
tanks was merely to catch the solids and prevent
them from clogging the filters.
XQ. 128. Do you know how often it was custom-
ary to clean out such open tanks? A. I find by
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
480
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
my notes that at Marlboro “present practice is to
empty one chamber about once in two weeks run-
ning down sluiceway and on beds. Something
wrong about plan—should not be so much sludge.”
XQ. 129. Do you know whether the Urbana, tank
was ever cleaned or flushed otherwise than by
pumping it out? A. I do not.
XQ. 130. Do you know whether the scum was
removed from the tank or the sludge removed at
any time except when the tank was pumped out?
A. I do not.
XQ. 131. This might have been done, however,
without your knowledge, might it not? A. It
might.
XQ. 132. Did you make any memorandum as to
the day when you first saw the Urbana tank cleaned
Out? A. I do not remember of any such.
XQ. 133. And of course of your own knowledge
you do not know when the Urbana taluk was first
cleaned out, do you? A. Only as I recollect the
time. I was at the tank some time during the per-
iod of the first cleaning at least when the men doing
the Work said it was the first time it had been
cleaned out.
XQ. 134. Was the cover of the Urbana tank
locked down or was it so that anyone could lift the
cover? A. It was merely held by its own weight.
XQ. 135. Was the Urbana tank neglected at any
time, and if so did you ever have occasion to com-
plain of such neglect? A. During the period in
which I had occasion to visit the tank to the end
of 1897 I do not think that I did. As the number
of connections grew and the amount of sewage
481
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
increased it is quite likely that the tank may
have become too full of solids for its best operation.
XQ. 136. When was the Urbana tank first filled
with sewage? A. In the latter part of November—
some time after November 24th, 1894.
XQ. 137. Did you ever personally order or re-
quest the Urbana tank to be cleaned out? A. I do
not remember. I may have requested it to be
cleaned.
XQ. 138. When did you first notice that the
quantity of sewage passing through the Urbana
tank was too great for its size? A. I do not now
remember. The quantity of sewage increased grad-
ually and the efficiency of the tank finally became
less and less.
XQ. 139. In the paper that you read before the
Illinois Society of Engineers and Surveyors at its
meeting in January, 1897, you refer to a tank at
Oberlin, Ohio. Did you ever see that Oberlin tank?
A. Yes, in 1894 I saw this tank when I visited the
sewage disposal plant there, but my attention was
called to it only as a means of getting better results
in the discharge of the sewage upon the land which
was used as a means of disposing of the sewage.
This land was not very sandy, and this method was
taken to take out the Solids.
XQ. 140. How was the Oberlin taluk cleaned
Out? A. I do not now remember.
XQ. 141. When did you visit the Oberlin tank
or first learn about it? A. In June, 1894.
XQ. 142. Was the Oberlin tank open or closed?
A. I am not sure. I think loose boards were laid
GVer the tank.
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
482
2405
2406
2407
24.08
2409
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 143. Who constructed the tank which you
have referred to as the first Champaign tank, and
which you say was built in East Side Park, Cham-
paign, June 13 to 15, 1895? A. It was built by
employees of the city of Champaign under the
charge of the superintendent of streets.
XQ. 144. If you have a memorandulu book con-
taining data with respect to this Champaign tank,
will you please produce it and read therefrom any
memoranda that you find relating to the first Cham-
paign tank? A. I find this entry:
“June 13-15, Settling tank built”. I think this
is the only entry with reference to the first Cham-
paign tank.
XQ. 145. In your memorandum book under the
date of June 13-15 I find the name Quade men-
tioned. Who was Quade? A. Mr. Qaude acted
as assistant engineer on the work of making the sur-
veys and designs for the Champaign sewerage sys-
tem. His full name is John C. Quade. His home
has been Kewanee, Illinois and I think he can still
be reached at that address. He is now engineer on .
some coal mining property owned by Mr. John
Pierce & Son, I think at St. David, Illinois.
XQ. 144-a. Were there any drawings made, or
sketches made of the design of this first Cham-
paign tank, either before or after it was construct-
ed? A. I do not remember that any drawings or
sketches were made at any time.
XQ.145-a. Who was the superintendent of streets
under whose direction you say the employees work-
ed in building the first Champaign tank? A. Mr.
Banes, who still lives at Champaign.
483
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 146. This first Champaign tank was made
by digging a hole in the ground and lining the
walls of the hole with planks, I think you said. Is
that correct? A. Yes.
XQ. 147. What was the extent of the sewerage
system at Champaign that delivered to this tank,
and when was the connection of the system to the
tank made? A. There was no sewerage system.
The tile that connected to the tank was a tile that
took the flow at low water in the stream, which
came from tile drains in another part of the city.
It was connected with the tank at the time of the
construction of the tank.
XQ. 148. Will you please describe the sewage
and drainage system of the city of Champaign at
the time you say you built the settling tank there
in June, 1895? A. There had been put in a series
of small tile drains to drain cellars and take some
surface water from the street. These tiles original-
ly drained into ditches and branches which were
generally dry. At some time or other a number of
these tiles were connected up with the tile which
ran down the bed of Boneyard Branch, the connec-
tion being made in such a way that the flow in dry
Weather time passed through this tile, while at
Other times the larger part of it went into the
ditches and branches.
XQ. 149. Do you know how these small drain
tile which you have said were designed to drain
Cellars and take some surface water from the
Streets Were connected to the drain tile that ran
down Boneyard creek? A. I do not.
XQ. 150. Was the connection between these
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
484
24.15
2416
24.17
24.18
2419
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
small drain tiles and the tile in Boneyard creek
open connections or close connections? A. Will
you please Say What is meant by open and closed
connections? *
XQ. 151. Were the connections such as to insure
that all liquid passing into the small tiles dis-
charged into the tile in Boneyard creek? A. As I
have already stated, part of the flow at times
CScaped into the ditches and branches.
XQ. 152. Can you not give more definite inform-
ation to the court with respect to the kind of con-
nections that existed between these small tile and
the tile in Boneyard creek? A. No, I had nothing
to do with their construction.
XQ. 153. If I have understood your testimony
correctly, you have said that under certain con-
ditions or at certain seasons the liquid that passed
from the small drain tiles didn’t all go into the tile
in Boneyard creek, is that correct? A. Yes.
XQ. 154. How did the liquid that came from the
Small drain tile and did not pass into the Boneyard
creek tile get out of the small drain tile and at what
point? A. Through overflow tiles which led
directly to these ditches or branches.
XQ. 155. What was the size of the tile in Bone-
yard creek and what the size of the small drain tiles
leading thereto? A. I do not remember exactly
the size. I think the tile along Boneyard Branch at
the settling tank was 8 inches or 10 inches in
diameter, and it was common farm drail, tile. The
other tiles ranged from 6 inches up, and were both
farm drain tile and vitrified pipe. I do Ilot remem-
ber the size of the largest tile.
XQ. 156. As I understand it, this Boneyard drain
485
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
tile and the small drain tiles leading thereto were
designed, as you have said, for taking the water
from cellars and the Surface of the streets and from
the ground? A. Yes.
XQ. 157. State if you know, to what extent this
Boneyard creek tile, or these small drain tiles, were
used or supposed to be used for other purposes than
the drainage of water, as above stated? A. I can
only judge of this from the appearance of the dis-
charge at the outlet of the tile and the nuisance
created there, and by statements made to me by
plumbers and others concerning house connections
and cesspools. From this information I think there
must have been between fifty and one hundred
houses and buildings having connections made from
water closets and cesspools, as well as a much
larger number of connections from kitchen sinks.
Such matters were kept very quiet for damage
suits had been instituted at different times On ac-
count of the nuisance created by the discharge of
these drains.
XQ. 158. In speaking of this mattew a few min-
utes ago did you not say, off the record, that these
water closets and cesspools were not supposed to
be connected with the drain tile concer, ſing which
you have just been testifying? A. It is my im-
pression that the water closets were not supposed
to be directly connected. I am not sure regarding
the cesspools.
XQ. 1581%. The first Champaign tank was built
in the bed of Boneyard creek, was it not? A.
Along one side of the bed of that stream.
XQ. 159. How was the tank disposed with rela-
tion to the stream? A. It was not quite parallel
2420
24.21
2422
2423
24.24
486
24.25
2426
2427
2428
2429
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
With the direction of the stream at that point, and
the bottom of it was five feet or more below the
bed of the stream.
XQ. 160. How near did the tank extend to the
bed of the middle of the stream? A. I do not
recall exactly, but I think the channel was changed
Somewhat at One point to make room for the tank.
XQ. 161. How high above the bottom of the bed
of the stream did the wooden wall of the tank
extend?
At this point the examination of Pro-
fessor Talbot was suspended to permit of
the examination of Mr. John C. F. Sell,
whose deposition will follow Prof. Tal-
bot's in the record; and at the close of Mr.
Sell’s deposition an adjournment was
taken until Tuesday, August 8, 1905, at 10
O’clock A. M.
August 8, 1905, ten o’clock A. M. met
pursuant to adjournment; present as
before.
Cross-examination of Prof. Talbot resumed.
A. As I remember it, a foot or two above the
bed of the stream.
XQ. 162. What were the dimensions of the
lumber of which the first Champaign tank was con-
structed? A. I do not remember exactly. The
length of the side boards was 16 feet, and the boards
at the end of the tank were either 14 or 16 feet,
and cut in two.
XQ 163. Of how many thicknesses were the
walls of the tank? A. One thickness.
XQ. 164. Were the boards that formed the walls
487
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
of the tank tongued and grooved? A. They were
not. They were plain boards.
XQ. 165. Were the joints between the boards
that form the walls of the tank calked? A. They
Were not.
XQ. 166. Of what material was the cover of the
first Champaign tank formed? A. Boards.
XQ. 167. Describe the construction of that
cover? A. I do not recall the exact construction
of the cover. Boards were placed either lengthwise
or crosswise of the tank, and cleats nailed in the
opposite direction to hold them together. That is
as much as I can say about it.
XQ. 168. Was the cover formed in one piece?
A. I do not remember about that, but I think
there were either two or three pieces.
XQ. 169. Was the cover formed of tongued and
grooved boards? A. I think it was built of plain
boards, not tongued and grooved.
XQ. 170. Were the joints between the boards
that comprised the cover calked or made tight in
any way. A. They were not calked, merely
placed close together.
XQ. 171. I think you have said this first Cham-
paign tank was located along the stream known as
Boneyard Branch, is that correct? A. I have so
Stated.
XQ. 172. Was there any other sewage tank
located on or adjacant Boneyard Branch? A.
Not to my knowledge.
XQ. 173. In wet weather the greater part of the
surface and drainage water from the city of Cham-
paign passed along Boneyard Branch, did it not?
A. Yes.
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
488
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 174. About how deep was the stream in wet
Weather? A. The depth of the stream varied
from a dry condition when its entire natural flow
Was taken by the tile which went down the stream
and which was the case generally in the summer
and fall of such dry seasons as those of 1894 and
1895, to a depth of a foot or two after a storm, and
even to a depth of three or four feet during winter
and Spring floods in occasional years.
XQ. 175. After a storm or in very wet weather
would the first Champaign tank be submerged? A.
That would be the condition occasionally in wet
SeaSOITS. t --
XQ. 176. HOW was the cover of the first Cham-
paign tank held in place? A. I do not remember
about that. It may have been nailed down.
XQ. 177. Do you know when the cover was
placed on the first Champaign tank? A. Yes, at
the time it was built.
XQ. 178. Did you ever lift the cover off of the
first Champaign tank, and if so when? A. I do
not recall that I ever did.
XQ. 179. How long did the cover remain on the
first Champaign tank? A. I do not know. I have
said before that this structure remained there until
a year or two ago, according to statements made to
me, but I cannot say whether the cover was on until
that time or not.
XQ. 180. When did you last examine this first
Champaign tank? A. I do not remember of ex-
amining it since it was put into operation.
XQ. 181. You mean you do not remember ex-
amining it since June, 1895, is that correct? A. I
do not recall whether I examined it or not since
489
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
that time. I mean I do not recall whether I ex-
amined the interior of the tank.
XQ. 182. Do you know whether or not the first
Champaign tank was ever cleaned? A. It was
cleaned.
XQ. 183. Were you present when it was cleaned?
A. I do not now recall whether I was present or
not. I remember seeing the sludge which was
thrown out on the ground at the time of cleaning it.
XQ. 183a. But aside from seeing sludge on the
ground adjacent to the tank you know nothing of
your own knowledge concerning the cleaning of this
first Champaign tank? Is that correct? A. My
memory is not clear on this point, also I am not
sure whether I saw it cleaned or whethel the State-
ments of the condition which I remember were from
information given me at the time by those who
worked cleaning it out.
XQ. 184. State by whom this first Champaign
tank was cleaned, if it was cleaned at all? A. By
the street department of Champaign.
XQ. 185. Can you give the name of the person
who cleaned the tank or took any part in cleaning
it? A. It was done under the direction of Super-
intendent of street, who was Mr. Banes, in 1895.
XQ. 186. How was the drain tile in Boneyard
Branch connected to the first Champaign tank? A.
By running in to the upper end of the tank.
XQ. 187. Was there a hole cut in the wooden
wall and the sewer pipe run through the hole? A.
That was the arrangement as I recall it.
XQ. 188. How far into the tank did the inlet
pipe extend? A. I cannot say. It would be the
nearest length that would be made by tile 12 inches
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
490
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
long. I think, however, that the joints back were
SO arranged that it came flush with the end.
XQ. 189. How far below the top of the tank did
the inlet pipe enter? A. I think the top of it was
something like two feet below the top of the tank.
I do not recall this exactly because I do not remem-
ber exactly how far the tank extended above the
flow line. This was left to the superintendent of
Streets to make as most convenient.
XQ. 190. Of What was the bottom of the first
Champaign tank constructed? A. There was no
floor to it; the only bottom was the hard material
found at the bottom of the excavation.
XQ. 191. How high above the water level of
the tank did the inlet pipe enter? A. The water
level of the tank was fixed by the outlet device at
the end of the tank, which, as I remember it, would
keep the water level during times of ordinary dry
weather flow about two-thirds of the height of the
tile above the bottom of the tile where it entered
the tank.
XQ. 192. How far above the bottom of the tank
was the outlet tile? A. The bottom of the tile
was between three and four feet above the bottom
of the tank.
XQ. 193. In testifying regarding this first Cham-
paign tank and giving dimensions with respect
thereto, have you simply relied upon your memory,
or have you refreshed your memory by written
memoranda? A. As I have said before, there
were no plans or sketches of this tank made, nor
any written memoranda, so far as I now recollect. I
have talked with two laborers who worked on the
building of the tank and on last Sunday I visited
491
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
the site of the tank and saw the portions of the
board sides which are still in existence there. The
bed of the stream has been changed since the time
of the construction of the tank, and its exact con-
dition at that time is a matter of memory with me.
The part remaining showed the tank had the length
and breadth which I gave in my testimony so far
as I could check the matter up with my eye. I had
no means of making exact measurements.
XQ. 194. Who were the two laborers with whom
you talked about this tank? A. One was John
Demlow, and the other Charles Wilskey. They re-
side in Champaign.
XQ. 195. Did you notice whether the boards
comprising the walls of the tank were warped or
not?A. I did not.
XQ. 196. Did you notice whether the joints had
separated or spread? A. I did not.
XQ. 197. Was the cover of the tank in position
when you saw the tank on Sunday last? A. It
was not. As I stated before, only the sides or parts
of the sides remained. Nothing of the ends, so far
as showed above the bed of the stream.
|XQ. 198. What was the distance from the first
Champaign tank to the outlet end of the drain pipe
leading therefrom? A. About half a mile.
XQ. 199. Into what did this outlet pipe dis-
charge? A. Into Boneyard Branch.
XQ. 200. When did you first make or cause to
be made any tests for the purpose of determining
the character, volume or flow of the Champaign
sewage, or of the drainage passing through the tile
drain to which the first Champaign tank was con-
nected? A. I made no gaugings or tests. The
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
492
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
flow was estimated from the depth of water in the
tile and the discharge at its end.
XQ. 201. Did you never make, or cause to be
made, any tests or gaugings to determine the char-
acter, volume or velocity of the Champaign sewage?
A. If by Champaign sewage is meant the flow
through this tile which passed through East Side
Park, I think the answer is included in the previous
answer, and no other gaugings were made; nor were
any chemical tests of the sewage made under my
direction. I do not now recall what others may
have done. The department of chemistry made
analyses of this water at various times, but I had
nothing to do with their work.
XQ. 202. Did you ever make or cause to be made
any tests or gaugings of the Champaign sewerage
system which you installed between the years 1896
and 1899? A. Yes.
XQ. 203. When did you first make such tests or
gaugings, or cause them to be made? A. Soon
after the outlet sewer was put into operation, which
was about November 1, 1897, gaugings and
measurements were made and this was done at
various times in 1898 and 1899. Samples of sew-
age were also collected by students and analyses
made by the department of chemistry. The analyses
of gas was first made I think in December, 1897,
soon after the tank was put into operation. An
analyses of the sludge was also made, but I do not
recall when this was done.
XQ. 204. What was the size of the ſnlet and out-
let pipes of the first Champaign tank? A. The
same as the size of the tile which I think was 8
inches or 10 inches.
493
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 205. Were there any baffle boards in the
first Champaign tank? Or was there anything ex-
tending between the walls of the tank below the
surface Of the Water? A. There were I think
baffle boards across the tank at three points along
the length of the tank, spaced so as to divide the
length into something like equal parts.
XQ. 206. Who built the first Champaign tank?
A. It was built by city employees under the direc-
tion of the superintendent of streets, Mr. Banes.
I do not recall the name of any other employe than
the Ones I have mentioned.
XQ. 207. Were you present when the tank was
being built and when the cover was put on, and
when the sewage was run into the tank? A. I
was there part of the time. I had some difficulty
in getting the superintendent of streets to go as
deep with the work as I wanted. I was there, I
know, after the tile had been connected and the
flow turned in, and before the cover was put on. I
do not recall being there when the cover was put on.
XQ. 208. You do not know how long the tank
was in operation before the cover was put on, do
you? A. I do not remember.
XQ. 209. When did you first see the tank after
the flow was directed to the tank? A. I do not
remember the date. It must have been the last
date given in my memorandum as the construction
of the tank was completed at one operation.
XQ. 210. Do you know in what way the first
Champaign tank was cleaned, or how often it was
cleaned? A. I think it was cleaned by using some
kind of a scoop or bucket which was put down into
the bottom. I do not recall exactly about that. I
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
494
2465
2466
24.67
2468
2469
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
do not know how often or how many times it was
Cleaned.
XQ. 211. What was the purpose of the screen
which was used in the first Champaign tank and
What was its exact location ? A. It was put in at
the suggestion of one of the city officials to retain
rags or papers or other material which might get
into the tank. As I remember it, it was placed
underneath the last baffle board of the tank, the One
nearest the Outlet.
XQ. 212. When did you first learm that the
action of this first Champaign tank was unsatisfac-
tory? A. I do not remember of ever hearing a
statement that it was unsatisfactory.
XQ. 213. When did you determine or discover
that the Urbana tank was too small? A. I cannot
say. The flow of sewage increased and the amount
of solids passing into the tank also increased, so
that the efficiency became less. Just when the tank
became too small I do not know.
XQ. 214. When did you first observe that the
efficiency of the tank was seriously lessened? A.
I cannot answer that, as I do not remember.
XQ. 215. Was it during the year 1895?. A. I
should say that the flow was about the same through
the spring Of 1895 and that it increased in the fall
of that year. I cannot say 'whether the efficiency
became less during this season.
XQ. 216. How did you happen to be present at
the Urbana tank at the time you first saw it cleaned
out and how many men were there at the time? A.
I do not know. I suppose that word was sent to me
that the tank was being cleaned and I was asked
if I wanted to come and look at it. I do not remem-
495
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
ber how many men were present, nor do I remem-
ber who were present.
XQ. 217. You were present yesterday during the
whole time that Mr. Sell was giving his deposition,
were you not? A. Yes.
XQ. 218. And you heard what he testified? A.
Yes.
XQ. 219. Did you ever see Mr. Sell unlock the
cover of the Urbana tank? A. I do not remember
concerning a lock on the cover to this lank. The
matter has entirely passed out of my memory. The
second Champaign tank was locked and I carried
keys to this tank, but I do not now recall anything
concering the lock and the Urbana tank. I have a
faint memory about a lock now that I have heard
Mr. Sell’s testimony, but nothing definite enough
to be able to make a statement concerning it.
XQ. 220. When the Urbana tank was cleaned,
were both scum and sludge removed? A. Yes, so
far as the cleaning was done, but of course the tank
was not completely cleaned out. The cleaning was
done as far as it could easily be with the appliance
and method used.
XQ. 221. Was the material in the tank first
stirred up, then pumped out, and was sewage then
admitted and the tank further pumped out, or if
not, what was the operation of cleaning the Ur-
bana tank? A. That was the method used as I
remember it.
XQ. 222. The purpose was to remove as far as
possible all sludge and scum, was it not? A. The
purpose was to clean the tank without special refer-
ence to what Was in it.
XQ. 223. What did you estimate the flow of sew-
2470
24.71
24.72
2473
2474
496
2475
24.76
2477
2478
2479
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
age at Champaign during the years 1895, 1896 and
1897? A. I think I stated that the usual dry
Weather flow through the tile which ran along Bone-
yard Branch was 60,000 to 90,000 gallons per 24
hours, as it appeared during the summer of 1895.
I cannot say what it was at other times, except
that when it was admitted to the outlet sewer in
the latter part of 1897 it was less than this amount.
The flow of sewage in the Champaign outlet sewer
was, as I recall it now. about 100.000 gallons in ulo
early part of 1898, and increased gradually through
the year. This tile discharged into the sanitary
sewer in a manhole where its flow could Y)e observed,
that is, this was the arrangement after connection
Was made with the sewer. The connection was
made at a time when the ground was very dry, and
very little ground water got into the tile. º
XQ. 224. Did the sewerage system that you de-
signed, and installed for Champaign include this
tile drain that ran along Boneyard Brach? A. No,
it was no part of that system, but it was connected
up with this system for a time.
XQ. 225. At what did you estimate the flow of
sew age through the sewerage system designed by
you for Champaign, exclusive of the amount of sew-
age that was to be received from the drain running
along Boneyard Branch? A. At the time connec-
tion was made with the tile drain in East Side Park
I estimated that the amount of flow from the re-
'mainder of the system was, say fifty to seventy-five
thousand gallons as nearly as I can now remember.
XQ. 226. What was the number of connections
ill your sewerage system at the time it was installed
or first put into operation? A. I do not know any-
497
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
tning about that. Connections had been made and
the discharge of the outlet sewer tunned into the
creek before the time when connection was made
with the septic tank at the outlet, but I \lad nothing
to do with these connections and do not recollect
h w many had been made.
XQ. 227. How many miles of sewer system were
there exclusive of the Boneyard Branch drain tile?
A. There were eight or ten miles constructed be-
fore November, 1897, when the tank was put into
operation. The entire system as designed in 1895
contained about 25 miles of sewer. A small amount
of sewer was constructed in 1896, but none of this
was put into operation. The remainder of the eight
or ten miles was built in 1897, up to the time when
the outlet sewer was put into service in October of
that year.
XQ. 228. So far as you know, was any attention
ever paid to the first Champaign tank after the
outlet pipe leading therefrom was connected up
with the outlet of the Champaign sewerage system?
A. I do not remember definitely about this. Mr.
Brower, the city engineer at that time, made some
statements concerning it, and in some way kept
watch of it, but I cannot say further than that.
XQ. 229. When did you last examine or test the
effluent from the first Champaign tank? A. I do
not remember.
XQ. 230. Did you ever make such examination,
and if so, when? A. I examined the appearance
of the effluent during the summer of 1895, but I did
not myself make any tests of it.
XQ. 231. Did you ever examine the effluent at
any other time than in the summer of 1895, if so
248()
2481
2482
2483
2484
498
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
when, and how often? A. I presume I saw the out-
let occasionally, but I cannot say how often nor
When.
XQ. 232. In what way did you direct the con-
struction of the first Champaign tank? A. By
outlining the size, shape and position of the tank,
and of the baffles and outlet box, and being on the
work at times to explain what was wanted to the
street superintendent. The mayor had given in-
structions that the work was to be done according
to my directions.
XQ. 233. What was the cost of this first Cham-
paign tank? A. I do not know and I do not think
I ever knew anything about this.
XQ. 234. In the paper that you read before the
Illinois Society of Surveyors and Engineers in Jan-
uary, 1897, and in which you mentioned the Urbana
and the Champaign tanks, you say: “It should be
cleaned once a month to keep the tank in good con-
dition.” Did you instruct anyone as to how often
the first Champaign tank should be cleaned? A.
Not to my recollection.
XQ. 235. But your belief was that yt should be
cleaned about once a month, to secure best results,
is this correct? A. It was then my belief that a
tank, such as was put in at Urbana, would be bet-
ter off if it were cleaned as frequently as once a
month. I did not understand very fully the work-
ing of such a tank. I do not recall anything con-
cerning my views on the first Champaign tank.
XQ. 236. But that was you belief at the time
you read your paper in January, 1897, was it not?
A. I think it was my belief that such tanks would
be better off if the time of their cleaning was not
499
ARTEIUR. N. TALBOT.
run over too great a period. The Once a month
probably referred to a general period of frequency
rather than to a definite time.
XQ. 237. Were there any changes made in the
first Champaign tank after June, 1895? A. I do
not know.
XQ. 238. As I understand it, your testimony
with respect to the first Champaign tank is based
entirely upon your memory, except for a single item
that you have quoted from your memorandum book.
Is that correct? A. That and the appearance of
the sides as I saw it last Sunday.
XQ. 239. Were there any connections to the
drain pipe that led from the first Champaign tank
at points between the outlet of the tank axid the out-
let or discharge end of the said pipe? Yes, I SO
stated in my direct examination.
XQ. 240. Did such connections exist in June,
1895? A. I think they did.
XQ. 241. After you made the sketch for the Ur-
bana tank, when did you next make a drawing of
a settling tank? A. I made such a drawing or
sketch some time the last of June, 1895, or in July,
1895, at the time that I was working on the ordi
nance and plans for the Champaign sewerage sys-
tem. I do not know what became of these drawings.
I presume they were destroyed when the final plan
Was made.
XQ. 242. When did you next make a drawing of
a Settling tank? A. I do not now remember when
the next drawing was made.
XQ. 243. When was the next drawing of which
you have any recollection made? A. I think it
was in the first half of 1896.
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
500
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 244. Is that the drawing that you have
offered in evidence as “Defendants' Exhibit Cham-
paign Tank Drawing No. 1''' A. It is, if by the
question is meant the next that was made under
my general direction. This drawing in its details
was made by the draftsman and I do not remember
of approving the detail. The draftsman Was R. P.
BrOWer.
XQ. 245. When was the next design for a set-
tling tank made by you or under your directions
after this “Defendants' Exhibit Champaign Tank
Drawing No. 12” A. The next was the tank for
Charleston, Illinois, made in June or July, 1896.
XQ. 246. Have you made any effort to find any
sketches of drawings or other data with respect to
the Charleston design? A. Since the matter was
asked for last week I have looked through the draw-
ers where I keep such material and can find no
trace Of Such.
XQ. 247. When, after the design for the Charles-
ton tank was made, did you next make or cause the
drawings to be made for a settling tank? A. Some
time before the meeting of the Illinois Society of
Engineers and Surveyors, which was held in Janu-
ary, 1897, a drawing was made for the cut which
appears on page 71 in the published report of that
meeting.
XQ. 248. When did you next cause a drawing
to be made of a settling tank? A. Some time after
the completion of the second Champaign tank in
August, 1897, but I do not remember when this was
done. The drawing referred to is the one marked
“Defendant’s Exhibit, Champaign Tank, Drawing
NO. 2.”
501
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 2-9. Did you make any attempts to instal
settling tanks other than those mentioned by you
in your testimony between 1894 and 1898? A. Not
that I recall.
XQ. 250. In the course of your testimony where
you have referred to the tank at the outlet of the
Champaign sewerage system you have meant the
second Champaign tank; have you not? A. Yes.
XQ. 251. Who had charge of the cleaning of the
second Champaign tank? A. The city engineer of
Champaign.
XQ. 252. Do you know of your own knowledge
how often this tank was cleaned? A. Only as I
have been told about it.
XQ. 253. The cleaning of the second Cham-
paign tank was effected by a centrifugal pump driv-
en by a steam engine; was it not? A. Yes.
XQ. 254. What became of the material with-
drawn from the tank by the centrifugal pump? A.
It was discharged into a borrow pit which had been
formed in getting earth to build an embankment in
Which the sewer was laid for some distance above
the tank.
XQ. 255. Was the material within the tank stir-
red up before the centrifugal pump was started?
A. The material was stirred up at different times
in the operation of pumping out the tanfº.
XQ. 256. And were the scum and sludge both
removed from the tank? A. Both were removed,
but of course not completely. There would still
be material clinging to the sides of the tank and
Some left in the bottom.
XQ. 257. How often did you see the centrifu-
gal pump at the second Champaign tank in opera-
2500
2501
2502
2503
25()4
502
2505
2506 .
2507
2508
2509
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
tion? A. Probably two or three times a year;
in 1898 and the first part of 1899.
XQ. 258. Are you able to state posſtively that
you did not see the second Champaign tank cleaned
out or its centrifugal pump operated i\l 1897? A.
Yes.
XQ. 259. In what way are you able to fix this
fact so conclusively in your mind? A. I find in
my memorandum diary of the Champaign work that
the pumping machinery was installed about NO-
vember 23, 1897, and that on November 27, we made
modifications of connections from ejectur and ran
pump, and under date of December 4, this entry:
“In P. M. Brower, Joe and I went to outlet and
experimented on pumping machinery.”
This was for the purpose of determining whether
the machinery would properly operate, and no
effort was made at that time to pump out the tank.
If there had been any cleaning of this tank during
November or December of that year, I think I
should have known of it.
XQ. 260. To what extent did you operate the
centrifugal pump in December, 1897? A. Only so
far as necessary to see that the machinery worked
properly.
XQ. 261. Did you pump out as much as half of
the contents of the tank at that time? A. As I
remember it we pumped out only a small amount
our main efforts being directed to arrange the con-
nections for the ejector in such way that the cen-
trifugal pump would prime. We had some diffi-
Culty in priming the pump and in getting rid of
the air at the top of the pump. As I remember it
Only a small part of the contents were removed, not
503
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
so much as half, for it took a long time to get Out
any quantity.
XQ. 262. When did you next experiment with
the centrifugal pump? A. After this the Operation
of the machinery and the cleaning of the tank was
in the hands of the city engineer, of Champaign, Mr.
R. P. Brower, since deceased. So far as I know
the pump was not experimented with until the time
of the first cleaning of the tank which was, as I
remember it, about six months after the tank Was
put into operation.
XQ. 263. What makes you think it was six
months? A. That is given from memory. I have
no notes concerning the Champaign sewerage sys-
tem and tank with me after December, 1897.
XQ. 264. Who built the second Champaign tank
and who ran the pumping engine or looked after its
operation? A. The tank was built under my im-
mediate direction by a force of city employees. The
operation of the centrifugal pump was under the
charge of the city engineer, Mr. Brower, who, when
this tank was installed, took considerable interest
in the operation of the tank and in the running of
the machinery. I do not know who assisted on this
WOrk.
XQ. 265. You have stated, I believe, that on No-
vember 3rd and 6th, 1897, you examined the second
Champaign tank. Please state what von found to
be the condition of such tank as regards the char-
acter and quantity of sludge and scum? A. I do
not remember very definitely concerning this.
There was some scum on the top, and when we
stirred the bottom of the tank on November 6th,
gas was given off, which, as I have stated previ-
Ously, was ignited by us.
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
504
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 266. In reading from the Twelfth Annual
Report of the Illinois Society of Engineers and Sur-
veyors, the paper read by you before that society in
January, 1897, you have omitted certain matter
that appears as part of such paper upon pages 68
and 69 of the report, from which you read. Please
state what the matter omitted from your paper was,
and at what points the omissions occur. A. The
beginning paragraph which was the first Omission
is as follows:
“Sewage purification, partial or complete, has
made great advances in the past few years. In the
United States, especially in New England and New
York, and particularly where the prevention of pol-
lution of the water supplies by sewage is of great
importance, sewage purification works have been
put in Operation in many cities, sometimes an enor-
mous cost of construction and at a considerable cost
for mainteance. Here in Illinois not much has
been done, but that statement does not furnish evi-
dence that sewage treatment is unnecessary. Except
in those cities which are fortunately situated on
large streams, the sanitary condition of the outlet
of the sewers and of the stream just below is not in
keeping with the present stands of civilization.
This is true of most of our inland cities.
Undoubtedly great expenditures must be made
in the near future to include the effluent, remove
the nuisance, and preserve proper health conditions,
and the smaller the water course receiving the sew-
age the greater the necessity for action.”
The following paragraph was omitted at the first
line of stars:
“Fresh sewage, that is, sewage that has been car-
ried to the outlet with a fair velocity, as would be
the case where the grades and dimensions of the
sewers do not admit of stop pages and deposits, has
for part of tis ingredients inorganic compounds, but
generally much more than one-half is organic decom-
posabe matter of which, roughly speaking, one-half
505
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
is in solution and one-half in suspesion, Varying
according to the nature of the sewage. That in Sus-
pension, in systems having moderate grades, Solids
not very finely divided, either much lighter than
water or having about the same specific gravity.”
After the next succeeding paragraph the follow-
ing was omitted :
“Writers on sewerage generally give two or three
feet per second as the velocity necessary to prevent
deposits in sewers. While it is desirable to get the
velocities, as a matter of fact, an actual constant
velocity of 1.5 feet per second will result in clean
sewers, and regular velocities of one foot per second
may not give bad results. Of course, the actual ve-
locity during the ordinary flow is here meant, and
not that when the sewer is flowing full or half full.
When the velocity is reduced to less than 0.5 feet
per second, any of the larger solids in suspension
will be separated from the sewage, the lighter float-
ing and the heavier settling; and when the current
is much less than 1.1 foot per second this action is
more certain, and affects finer particles and those
whose specific gravity closely approaches that of
water. Time is essential to any operation, and
hence the distance through which this separation
takes place will affect the results?”
XQ. 267. I call your attention to the Tenth An-
nual Report of the Illinois Society of Engineers and
Surveyors, held at Monmouth, Illinois, January 23,
24 and 25, 1895, and to a paper beginning on page
27 of said report and entitled “The Purification and
Sewage by Intermittent Downward Filtration—
Prof. Arthur N. Talbot, of Champaign.” Please
state whether you read such paper before the Illi-
nois Society of Engineers and Surveyers at the time
mentioned and whether such paper is correctly re-
ported; and state also whether the report of the dis-
cussion upon page 31, of said book, is correctly
given? A: I read such a paper and I presume the
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
506
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
record of the paper itself is correct. I cannot vouch
in any way for the report of the discussion as I
sometimes found in the meetings of the society that
statements were printed which were not as made at
the time.
XQ. 268. Have you any reason to question the
correctness of the statements attributed to you up-
on page 31 of this report for the year 1895? A.
Yes, The amount of sewage placed upon One acre
would be very large, and the construction of the
filterbed as given in the reply attributed to me,
must be inaccurate. For this reason I am not cer-
tain that the remainder of the quotation is correct-
ly reported.
XQ. 269. In the course of your direct testimony
you have referred to a discussion following a paper
read by Mr. Alvord at the Thirteenth Annual Meet-
ing of the Illinois Society of Engineers and Sur-
veyors, and have quoted at considerable length the
remarks attributed to you in the report of such dis-
cussion. Please examine the report of the discus-
sion and state whether or not you find any errors
in the remarks attributed to you? A. Of course I
cannot remember just what was said at this meet-
ing. I think the statement made that as high as
1,500,000 gallons per day had gone through the
tank is inaccurate as I do not recall any such flow
before that time. I do not believe that this report
is accurate throughout, but as my memory is my
only guide, I do not wish to attempt to say in what
way it was not correct.
XQ. 270. The discussion referred to contains the
following:
“Mr. W. S. Shields: I would like to inquire of
507
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Prof. Talbot what he considers the capacity of his
tanks at Champaign.
Prof. Talbot: That must of course be a matter
of experiment and observation. My Jpinion has
been that the capacity might be 500,000 gallons of
sewage per day of actual sewage—but that estimate
is probably too high. At the present time storm
water from a stream is discharged through the
outfall sewer and goes through the tank. There
have been as high as 1,500,000 gallons per day, but
under these conditions of course the tank is not
very active. I should say it would treat 200,000
gallons of sewage per day, but it may be that a
larger tank would more efficiently treat such a
flow.”
Is it this part of the discussion which you think
may perhaps be inaccurate? A. The figure of
1,500,000 gallons seems to me to be an error, as
I do not remember what I considered the capac- .
ity of the tank at that time. I cannot say
whether the quotation is correct.
XQ. 271. Do you remember to have said any-
thing at the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Il-
linois Society of Engineers and Surveyors, either
in your paper or in the discussion following it, be-
sides what appears in the printed report of Said
meeting? A. I remember that either in the dis-
cussion of the paper or in conversation with mem-
bers of the society I discussed the question of
changes going on in the sewage, but I am not
able to say that this took place in the discussion.
It was a matter about which I did not then have
very full information, and I presume little was
Said about it.
YQ. 272. I call your attention to the proceed-
ings of the Illinois Society of Engineers and Sur-
veyors at its Fourteenth Annual Meeting, held
25.30
2531
2532
2533
2534
508
2535
2536
2537
2.538
2539
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
at Champaign, Illinois, January 25, 26 and 27,
1899, and particularly to the paper entitled “The
Working of the Septic Tank of the Champaign
Sewerage System,” and the discussion follow-
ing said paper. Please state whether or not the
paper was read by you and whether in the
printed report of the discussion following the
paper your remarks are reported with substantial
accuracy? A. I read the paper at that meet-
ing. The remarks quoted on page 126 as made
by me were called to my attention soon after the
printed report came out. I then stated, and still
think, that I did not make the remark as given
there. In the same way I do not think the remark
attributed to me on page 127 concerning the
proper size and capacity of tank is correct.
XQ. 273. In the report of the 1899 meeting
of the Illinois Society of Engineers and Survey-
ors I find on page 126 the following:
DISCUSSION.
Present A. D. Thompson : Is this the only tank
of the kind in operation in the United States?
Prof. A. N. Talbot, : There have been tanks in
operation which involved this principle, but they
were used to exclude the sludge without any idea
of bacterial purification of the sewage in the tank.
The one constructed in Urbana in 1894, under my
supervision, was for that purpose, but it was soon
found that another action was going on. . . . .
Mr. Jacob A. Harmon : I wish to ask Prof. Tal-
bot if he has studied the species of bacteria which
are active in this septic tank, and also what sub-
sequent purification might be most effective if
needed.
Prof. Talbot: Neither of those things have been
done? We hope to find what the species of bacter.
ria coming into that tank are, and we may want to
transplant them.
509
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
Mr. H. G. Paddock: I would like to ask Prof.
Talbot how he estimated what the capacity of the
tank should be.
Prof. Talbot: This whole matter of septic tank
is a new one, and so far as I know there is little
known as to what the capacity should be. The
idea of the engineers in England who have design-
ed these tanks, is that they should have a Volume
equal to the flow of sewage for twelve to twenty
hours, if I remember right. This tank has a ca-
pacity of flow for sewage for about one hour. Now,
whether there would have to be a different rela-
tive capacity for diluted sewage and for strong
sewage; whether they would work better when the
water is running through verly slowly or not, of
course would be a question worth studying.
It is to the above quoted matter, or a part of
it, I suppose, that your criticism as to accuracy
is directed? A. Yes.
YQ. 274. I call your attention to the discus-
Sion appearing upon pages 223 and 224 of the
Seventeenth 'Annual Report of the Illinois So-
ciety of Engineers and Surveyors, held at Joliet,
Illinois, January 23 and 24, 1902, and ask you to
state whether or not the remarks attributed to
you in such published report upon the pages
noted are given with substantial correctness? A.
I do not remember this discussion. It has en-
tirely passed out of my mind.
XQ. 275. Have you any reason to question
the accuracy of such report? A. It does not
Sound at all like my wording, other than that I
cannot say that I did not make the statements
here reported.
XQ. 276. I call your attention to volume 7,
No. 2, of the Journal of the Western Society of
Engineers, April, 1902, and particularly to the
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
510
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
discussion following a paper entitled “Sewage
Purification Plants,” said discussion beginning
On page 134, and extending to page 144, and I
ask you to state after reading said discussion
whether you have any reason to question the ac-
curacy of the report of the remarks attributed
to you in such discussion. A. I remember that
there was some mix-up in the report of the dis-
cussion, and that I did not have the opportunity
to revise it, or that it was not revised. The col-
loquy with Mr. Alvord was an attempt on my
part to bring out the ideas expressed in my paper
read before the society in December, 1900. So
far as the report agrees with the paper then
given and which was referred to in my direct
testimony, I think that this discussion is correct.
So far as the rest of it is concerned I cannot now
Say, but I presume that most of it is correct.
XQ. 277. Do you see any particular part of
the discussion the accuracy of which you wish
to criticise? A. Only that given concerning the
area of the tank as a measure of the capacity of
the tank, and this insofar as it does not agree or
gives a different impression from that in the
paper in the Journal of the Society for Decem-
ber, 1900.
XQ. 278. Did you read the paper appearing
in Volume 5, No. 6, of the Journal of the West-
ern Society of Engineers, December, 1900, on
pages 543 to 560, inclusive, and are the remarks
attributed to you in the printed report of the dis-
cussion on pages 560 to 565 of said journal re-
ported with substantial accuracy? A. Yes, so
far as I remember.
511
ARTEIUR N. TALBOT.
XQ. 279. Have you ever published or caused
to be published any other papers, description or
written matter concerning the Urbana or Cham-
paign tanks? I mean papers other than those
which have been mentioned in the course of your
deposition? A. The only other paper which I
now recall was published in Engineering News,
August 17, 1899. *
XQ. 280. Did you ever give to anyone or pub-
lish any description of the Urbana or Champaign
tank other than those mentioned in the publica-
tions to which reference has been made in the
foregoing examination? A. No other printed
description, so far as I now recall.
XQ. 281. What about written descriptions?
A. I presume I have given written descriptions
of these tanks at different times, but I do not re-
member when or to whom? 4%
XQ. 282. Were the two tanks that con-
stituted what you have referred to as the second
Champaign tank used together or singly? A.
They were ordinarily used together, though oc-
casionally one was thrown out of use for a short
time, as I recall it.
XQ. 283. When do you recall one of these
tanks being thrown out of use for the first time?
A. I have no definite recollection about that, and
1 do not know how it came to be so used unless
the city engineer wished to study the action of
the tank under such conditions.
XQ. 284. Was one of the tanks thrown out
of use before you were consulted in regard to it?
A. I had nothing to do with the operation of the
tank after the tank was put into service, and I
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
512
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
would not be consulted concerning the manage-
ment of the tank.
XQ. 285. And you don’t recall how often you
Saw the system operating with one tank in Ser-
vice, do you? A. No. --
XQ. 286. When did you first see or hear or
know of the term “septic tank” or “septic pro-
cess?” A. The first I heard of the term “sep-
tic tank” and of the term “septic action” as ap-
plied to sewage was in the Engineering News,
which contained the description of the Exeter
tank. This was in January, 1898.
XQ. 287. But prior to January, 1898, you had
not seen or known of the term “septic” being
applied to a tank for Ilse in a sewerage system. .
Is that correct? A. So far as I remember.
XQ. 288. Do you remember what your im-
pression was when you first saw the term “sep-
tic” as used in connection with sewage disposal?
A. While the tank described was different from
the tanks at Champaign and Urbana in some re-
Spects, and particularly in that the tanks were
absolutely air tight and dark, it struck me that
the action going on was the same and that the
processes were very similar.
YQ. 289. But if I understand you correctly,
you never knew of the term “septic” being used
to describe a sewage disposal tank prior to Janu-
ary, 1898. Is that correct? A. It is, and I so
Stated in the direct examination.
XQ. 290. In the course of your examination
you have referred to a memorandum book con-
taining memoranda with reference to the Cham-
paign sewerage system. Will you please read
513
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
from such memorandum book the items under
date of October 2, 1897. A. The item reads as
follows:
“B. and I inspected outlet, sep. tank, inlet at
Scott park, and investigated extra flow of water.
At 171, at 1:30 P. M. depth 6 inches; at 3:30 P. M.
depth 4 inches; maximum flow perhaps 600,000;
regular flow 150 to 200,000. Flow at outlet clear
at 2 P. M., and black at 2:15 P. M. Extra flow con-
tinued 30 M. to 45 M. Sep. tank finished in good
Condition.”
XQ. 291. Did the abbreviation “Sep.” re-
fer to separating or septic as used in the above
quotation, and do the measurements referred to
in said memorandum accurately state measure-
ments made by you at the time? A. The abbre-
viation refers to separating tank as it was named
in the ordinance. Both this term and settling
tank are used in this memorandum book for the
name of the tank. The flow mentioned which
caused us considerable concern until we found
the source of it was principally a discharge from
the Illinois Central Roundhouse which came
through a pipe whose connection we had no
knowledge of.
XQ. 292. What was the character of the Sub-
Soil through which the sewers leading to the Ur-
bana tank and the first Champaign tank ex-
tended? A. Principally clay, although there was
Some sand.
XQ. 293. Have you ever filed any applica-
tions for patents with respect to a tank for sew-
age disposal. A. No, I have never made any
applications for patents in any line.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Banning.
R. D. Q. 294. Where was the Urbana tank,
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
514
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
ARTHUR N. TALBOT.
constructed in 1894, located with reference to
the stream called Boneyard Branch? A. It was
located near a small creek having the name “Salt
Fork” something like a quarter of a mile below
the point where Boneyard Branch discharges into
it.
R. D. Q. 295. Was the whole stream sometimes
called Boneyard Branch? A. It is possible that
some people called this creek Boneyard Branch,
but that name should be restricted to the tribu-
tary of this creek.
R. D. Q. 296. If you have any other memo-
randa here present with reference to the con-
struction of that Urbana tank, please be kind
enough to produce the same and read therefrom
Such portions as you may consider material, es-
pecially with reference to the tank itself. A. I
have here the bills of the Dubuque Construction
Company for extra work in connection with the
Urbana sewerage system. These bills were sub-
mitted to the counsel here present during the
cross-examination. It contains an item of one
hundred dollars for building the settling tank,
together with some other items for work on
that. The date of the items on the bill relating
to the tank are 1894, and under the heading No-
vember:
‘‘November 23, man and team, scrap-
ing one-half day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 50
November 23, man eight hours cutting
ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 20’’
Then follows a total of $39.53. Then an item :
“Building cetling tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00”
followed with a total of $139.53.
R. D. Q. 297. If you have here present any or-
dinance passed by the city council of the city of
515
ARTEIUR N. ''TALBOT.
Urbana relating to the purchase of land, to be
used in connection with that tank built in 1894,
please produce the same. A. I produce a printed
copy of an ordinance “To Provide for the Con-
struction and Maintenance of Certain Lines of
Sewerage Therein Named in the City of Urbana,
and to Provide for the Purchase of Ground for
Outlet to the Same and to Pay for Such Improve-
ment by General and Special Taxation,” passed
July 3, 1894, and approved July 3, 1894.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the bill of the Dubuque Construc-
tion Company produced and identified
by the witness in his answer to Re-Direct
question 296; and the same is marked
“Defendants' Exhibit Dubuque Com-
pany Bill.”
Counsel for defendants also offers in
evidence the ordinance produced by the
witness and referred to in his answer to
Re-Direct question 297; and the same is
marked “Defendants’ Exhibit Ordi-
nance No. 3.”
It is stipulated that no proof need be intro-
duced by either party in reference to the publi-
cation of the various Journals, magazines and
papers referred to in the foregoing examination
of Prof. Talbot; and that either party shall be
at liberty to produce any or all of such journals,
magazines and papers at the hearing of this cause
and use the same for any proper purpose subject
to objections in reference to materiality and com-
petency. ARTHUR. N. TALBOT.
Adjourned until Wednesday, August 9, at 10
o'clock A. M.
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
516
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
JOHN C. F. SELL.
John C. F. Sell, a witness, produced, sworn and
examined on the part of defendants, deposes and
testifies as follows, in answer to questions by Mr.
Banning:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence
and occupation. A. John C. F. Sell, 58 years,
Urbana, Illinois, street Superintendent.
Q. 2. When did you first become street super-
intendent of Urbana and how long have you been
such superintendent? A. From '83 to '89, the
first time I was street Superintendent. And from
1893 to 1897, the second time, and since the 15th
day of last May the last time.
Q. 3. What have you had to do as street Su-
perintendent of Urbana with reference to the re-
moval of Sewerage or apparatus used for that
purpose? A. I have had charge of that work.
Q. 4. Was any special apparatus or tank ever
built at Urbana for the disposal of sewage while
you were street superintendent there? A. Yes,
this tank was built.
Q. 5. What tank do you refer to and where
was it located? A. Well, it was built for clean-
ing out the sewers. The tank was northeast of
Urbana, about half a mile from the court house.
Q. 6. What was it connected with? A. It was
connected with a 12-inch sewer pipe at the end
of the sewer. -
Q. 7. Was it close to any creek? A. Yes, sir;
it was two or three rods from the creek—Bone-
yard Branch. -
Q. 8. How large was that tank? A. I could
not say exactly to an inch. I judge it was 5 feet
wide inside and I think it was 22 feet long, and
517
JOHN C. F. SELL.
I think it was between four and five deep to my
recollection.
Q. 9. Of 'what material was it constructed?
A. It was constructed of brick—brick wall
around. I think the bottom was concrete.
Q. 10. Was it covered? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 11. What with and who put the cover on?
A. It was covered with 6 by 8 sill. It ran on
the wall all the way around, and a two-inch cover
put on the top of it, two-inch plank. I think I
put the cover on or worked on it. There was a
man there to do it and I was there myself.
Q. 12. How tight was that cover and how
tight did it make tank? A. Well, the cover
lay right on top of the sills. There were no
cracks between the planks. I think they were
tongued and grooved lumber.
Q. 13. When was that tank built, as near as
you recollect? A. I think in 1894. The fall of
’94.
Q. 14. When was the cover put on, before or
after the sewer was opened and the tank put into
use? A. Well, I think the sewer had been in
operation either in October or November in the
fall of '94, and the cover put on about the same
time when the tank was ready for use.
Q. 15. The cover was the last part of the
work of the tank, I suppose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 16. Did you put any baffle boards into that
tank? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 17. When were they put in and how? A.
The same time the lid was put on. They extended
crosswise.
Q. 18. How far did they go into the water
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
518
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
JOHN C. F. SELL.
when the tank was full? A. Oh, about a foot.
I can’t tell exactly to an inch. The bottom of the
baffle board was about a foot above the bottom
of the tank. I can’t just get on to it straight, but
I think that’s the way it was.
Q. 19. Then was the baffle board so arranged
that the water ran under it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 20. Did you ever have anything to do with
the cleaning out of that tank? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 21. When was it cleaned the first time as near
as you can remember? A. The spring following
after it was put in. I think it was in March Or
April the first time. -
Q. 22. Did you clean it personally? A. Yes.
Q. 23. How? A. Had a wagon there and a tight
box, pump on top of the box, and a hose on the
pump leading into the tank, and by hand pumped
it out into the wagon box.
Q. 24. What did you pump out of it, particu-
larly the first time yon cleaned it? A. Pumped
Out it was not very heavy, it was heavy enough to
get all mixed up of course when stirred it up,
pumped out the heavy stuff.
Q. 25. Did you pump out much solid matter, or
most liquid? A. The water of course makes it thin-
ner so as to be easily to pump. There was no solid
matter after the pump was gone; it was all stirred
up, no heavy stuff at all hardly.
Q. 26. How often was that tank cleaned after
that? A. Every two or three months.
Q. 27. In the same way? A. Yes, sir, the same
Way each time.
Q. 28. What did you get out of it each time?
A. Pretty near the same each time.
519
JOHN C. F. SELL.
Q. 29. Where was the matter put or what was
done with it after you took it out? A. Put it out
in the pasture. There was a pasture close by.
Q. 30. What became of it and particularly what
was the appearance where you put it? A. You
could hardly see anything after two or three hours.
You could hardly see where it was put. There
Was One day after it was cleaned out I just thought
I would go there and see what it looked like. I
couldn't hardly see anything on the ground.
Q. 31. What kind of an odor or smell did it give
off? There was hardly any smell to it, except when
you opened up the lid and stirred it up the smell
was kind of strong. That is all I noticed.
Q. 32. How did you find it with reference to
pumping. Was it hard or easy to pump out? A.
Oh, it was not so very hard to pump. If it was
everything in good shape it was easy to pump.
Sometimes they put in heavy paper and that sticked
in the pump and you can’t pump it.
Q. 33. Did you find the odor or smell about what
you expected it to be or different? A. I expected
it would be stronger.
Q. 34. How long was that tank used in the way
you have described. A. From '94 until now, about
tWO Weeks ago. Well I could almost state the date
When it was disconnected. I think it was about
in the neighborhood of the 25th or 26th of July
that it was disconnected. It was about two weeks
ago, that is they disconnected the old one 1nto the
new septic tank.
Q. 35. Did that tank put in in the fall of 1894
do the work right along that it was intended to do?
A. I never heard anything different. There was
no trouble that I heard.
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
520
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
JOHN C. F. SELL.
Q. 36. Did it work satisfactorily? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 37. Was it used publicly so that anybody in-
terested could see it or know about it? A. Yes,
the lid was right on top of the ground, and it was
locked—it was that way the first four years, I don’t
know how they done it afterwards. That is the
way it was made.
Q. 38. Why was the lid locked down? A. Well
that nobody could get to it and throw anything
in there. They keep it locked. That is I mean
not get the lid open.
Q. 39. Did that locking down of the lid make it
a tight tank? A. Made it tight.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher.
XQ. 40. Do you mean to say Mr. Seſl, that the
tank worked in the same way and just as satisfac-
torily since May of 1905, as it did from the time
it was put in in 1894 until 1896? A. Yes, sir, I
don’t know anything different. I never heard any
complaint.
XQ. 41. Everything seemed to be working in
the tank since May of this year until the tank was
taken out in the same way as it did when you ex-
amined the tank in the winter and spring of 1895.
Is that correct? A. Yes.
XQ. 42. How often have you cleaned out the
tank since the first of May, 1905? A. Not at all.
XQ. 43. When was the cover taken off the Urbana
tank? A. It is there yet.
XQ. 44. When did you see it last? A. I didn’t
see the inside of it, I saw the outside. I didn’t see
the inside for seven or eight years. I did not have
anything to do with it.
521
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 45. When were you last at the Urbana tank?
A. About two or three weeks ago.
XQ. 46. Is that as near as you can fix the date?
A. Well I was around there but I was not at the
tank exactly. I didn’t have the lid open for the
last seven or eight years. I was right close by there
about a week ago. That is when I disconnected
from the old to the new.
XQ. 47. Was the lid on the old tank at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 48. Was the old tank in good condition at
that time? A. I guess so, so far as I know.
XQ. 49. Who had the key to the lock that held
the lid on the old tank? A. I carried it for a
while. I don’t know if I always had it, I think I
did. It is seven or eight years ago. It is quite a
while back. A person can’t remember exactly.
XQ. 50. Did you ever let anybody else take that
key? A. Not that I know of.
XQ. 51. Was the tank locked from the time it be-
gan operation until you served out your first term
of office as street superintendent, I mean until
1897. A. I think it was.
XQ. 52. And you carried the key during that
time, did you? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 53. According to your best recollection you
did not let anyone take the key at that time? A.
No, sir.
XQ. 54. Was there only one key to that tank
cover? A. I think there was only one.
XQ. 55. How much did you have to pay for
cleaning out that tank? A. I think at first we
paid five dollars for it, and then they wanted more
and I guess they got more.
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
522
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 56. Who got paid for cleaning out the tank?
A. Differenet parties. But mostly when I had
charge of it Mr. Jim Haney cleaned it.
XQ. 57. Who else besides Jim Haſley cleaned
the tank between 1894 annd 1897? A. I think he
done all so far as I can remember.
XQ. 58. When the tank was to be cleaned who
gave the order for it to be cleaned? A. Well I
generally went over there and see if it was neces-
sary and then I told the sewerage committee that
it ought to be cleaned out and then I hired a man
and had it done.
XQ. 59. Did you unlock the tank so the man
could clean it out? A. I did.
XQ. 60. How did you decide or determine how
often it was necessary to clean out the tank? A.
I done that of my own judgment. When there was
ten inches or a foot of sediment on the bottom then
I cleaned it. Out.
XQ. 61. But you only allowed the tank to be
cleaned out when you found that there was prob-
ably a foot or ten inches on the bottom? A. I
would not say that exactly. When I saw there was
sediment enough on the bottom that was worth
while to clean it out why I done it. At different
times of year when it needs it more often than other
times. Starting from September to June the time
the students were in the college it was more used,
mean when the college opened and closed again.
XQ. 62. You mean that the tank was put to
greater use from September when the college began
its school year until June when the school year
closed, than it was put to during the summer, is
that correct? A. Yes.
523
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 63. And you caused the tank to be cleaned
oftener during the college year than during the
summer did you not? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 64. How often did you cause the tank to
be cleaned during the Summer time? A. I couldn’t
say that. Maybe once between time from June to
September, I think that’s it.
XQ. 65. About how much oftener was it cleaned
after the school began its session in September?
A. I couldn’t say that exactly.
XQ. 66. Did you find a heavier deposit of sedi-
ment in the tank soon after the school began its
session in September? A. Yes, sir, I did; it was
used mOre.
XQ. 67. What was the nature or consistency of
this sediment which you say you found in the bot-
tom of that tank after the school met in September?
A. Well it was all kind, all mixed up.
XQ. 68. When you opened the tank to examine
its contents did you notice anything on the surface
Of the sewage? A. I did.
XQ. 69. What did you see there? A. Kind of
a Scum on top of it, and below it was water down
to the Sediment.
XQ. 70. Was the sediment thick enough on the
bottom of the tank for you to tell when it was ten
or twelves inches deep and when the tank ought to
be cleaned? A. Yes I could tell it with a stick.
XQ. 71. How could you tell it by the stick?. A.
I could tell it easy by dipping the stick through the
Water and when it got down to the solid substance
—not solid either—I could feel it. 1 could just
barely feel it so as to tell it was something else
than water.
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
524
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 72. Was the sediment on the bottom of the
tank hard enough or solid enough so that when
you ran the stick down you could feel ſt go down
through the sediment? A. Don’t need to bear
your stick at all it would just go through easy.
XQ. 73. Would the sediment make a mark On
the stick? A. No, sir, not that I remember.
XQ. 74. How were you able to tell whether the
sediment was ten inches deep or twelve inches deep?
A. That is easy enough. When you get your stick
down to it. Of course I never measured It.
XQ. 75. Who paid for cleaning out the tank?
A. The city did. The pays comes out of the city
funds.
XQ. 76. Did the parties who cleaned the tank
always get a receipted bill for the work. A. I
don't know the pay roll show it, the montly pay
roll of the city council.
XQ. 77. When the tank was being cleaned out
how many men assisted in the operation? A. Gen-
erally took two.
XQ. 78. Who were these men? A. Mr. Haney
was one of them, the most I hired, and he gen-
erally had his boy with him most of the time. Some-
times he did it alone. e
XQ. 79. How long did it take Haney to clean
out the tank when he had a boy to help him? A.
The boy couldn’t help, the second man couldn’t
help very much. I took generally a day.
XQ. 80. Did you allow the sewage to run into
the tank while it was being cleaned out? A. It
generally did. I don’t know how we closed it up.
I think there was a side sewer when we cleaned it
out. I can’t tell it exactly, I think there was a side
525
JOHN C. F. SELL.
sewer that ran into the creek. I think that is the
way it was.
XQ. 81. But you are not sure whether you shut
off the sewage from the tank while it was being
cleaned or not, are you? A. I can’t answer that
question exactly.
XQ. 82. Was there ever anybody present at the
time this tank was being cleaned out besides your-
self and Haney and his boy? A. Oh, you would
probably find some loafers there standing around
for a while.
XQ. 83. Did you ever seen Prof. Talbot there
While the tank was being cleaned out? A. I think
he’s been there once or twice according to my recol-
lection when the tank was being cleaned out.
XQ. 84. Have you examined the books or pay
rolls of the city council of Urbana in order to tell
how often the tank was cleaned out from 1894 to
1897? A. Yes, I always made out the pay rolls.
XQ. 85. Have you recently examined the
pay rolls from the year 1894 to the year 1897 for
the purpose of ascertaining therefrom how often
the tank was cleaned out during such period?
A. No, sir.
XQ. 86. When did you last examine the pay
rolls for the period from 1894 to 1897? A. I
made out the pay roll at the time and handed it
to the city council and never saw it afterwards.
X'). 87. I suppose you were testifying en-
tirely from memory as to how often the Urbana
tank was cleaned out. Is that correct? A. As
near as I can to my knowledge, but it is from
memory merely.
XQ. 88. In what way if at all have you en-
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
526
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
JOHN C. F. SELL.
deavored to refresh your memory as to the times
when the tank was cleaned out? A. Hardly
any. I didn’t have any time to refresh my mem-
Ory.
XQ. 89. When were you first asked if you
remembered how often the Urbana tank was
cleaned out? A. I don’t believe I was asked
that question.
XQ. 90. Who requested you to come here and
testify? A. Prof. Talbot.
XQ. 91. When did he first speak to you about
coming here and when did he first ask you what
you remembered about the bank being cleaned
out? A. Oh, it’s about a week ago.
XQ. 92. What did he say to you about that
time? A. He did not hardly say anything. He
was talking the matter over and I told him the
same thing what I said here. Could not tell it
any different.
XQ. 93. Did Prof. Talbot tell you that he
had advised that the tank should be cleaned out
once a month? A. I couldn’t say that. I don’t
know whether he did or not.
|XQ. 94. Did you understand from your con-
versation with Prof. Talbot that he wished to
prove by you that the tank was not cleaned out
very often? A. No, sir, he never said that.
|XQ. 95. State as nearly as you can recall just
what the conversation was between you and Mr.
Talbot. A. Just about what I testified. I can’t
remember.
XQ. 96. Did you understand from him that
he wished to prove by you that the tank was
only cleaned out three or four times a year? A.
Well, I don’t know if he did or not.
527
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 97. But you understood from his conver-
sation, did you not, that he was anxious to prove
that the tank was not cleaned out very often? A.
Well, I don’t know if he did or not. Of course
when I first talked to Prof. Talbot he never said
that I was to testify that I was to come up here. I
had no idea that I was to come up here. We just
talked the matter over how the tank was working.
XQ. 98. And did he tell you how often he
thought the tank should be cleaned out? A. No,
he did not give any orders how often.
XQ. 99. At the time you were street superinten-
dent from '94 to ’95, did not Prof. Talbot tell you
or indicate in some way to you how often the tank
should be cleaned out? A. May be he did. That
is a long way back. I won’t testify to that at all.
XQ. 100. How many interviews did you have
with Prof. Talbot in regard to this tank within the
last month or two? A. Two.
XQ. 101. Have you talked with anyone else
about this tank? A. No, sir.
XQ. 102. At either of the interviews with Prof.
Talbot did he not tell you that he wished to prove
by you that the tank was not cleaned out very
often? A. No, sir he did not say anything like
that. He just told me I should tell what I know
about it, as near as I can.
XQ. 103. You remember anything about the con-
struction of the inside of the tank of Urbana? A.
I gave that before.
XQ. 104. Did the tank have inside of it more
than One baffle board. A. It had a cross wall in
the center.
2630
2681
2632
2633
2634
528
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 105. But did it have more than One wood-
en baffle board? A. One on each end.
XQ. 106. How far from each end? A. About
three feet I should judge.
XQ. 107. When you talked with Prof. Talbot re-
cently, did he show you any sketches of the Ur-
bana, tank? A. I don’t beleive he did—No.
XQ. 108. How far was it from the baffle board
adjacent the outlet opening to the outlet opening or
pipe that carried the liquid from the tank? A. I
don’t know. I said it was three feet.
XQ. 109. Was there anything between the out-
let hole or pipe at the end of the tank and the
baffle board? A. It is open underneath, under the
baffle board.
XQ. 108. (a) Was there anything between the
baffle board and the discharge pipe at the end of
the tank? A. Not as 1 know Not as I remember.
XQ. 109. (a) How deep was the tank at the
opening through which the fluid was discharged
—I mean the hole in the wall through which the
drain pipe took the sewage away from the tank?
A. I can’t tell that exactly. I know the tank was
between four and five feet deep.
XQ. 110. But how deep was the part of the tank
at the pipe it led from the tank to the creek? A.
I couldn’t answer that.
XQ. 111. Did you never examine the discharge
end of the tank? I don’t know if I did.
XQ. 112. Did the discharge pipe from the tank
lead into the bed of the stream? A. I guess it did.
XQ. 113. And did it discharge underneath the
surface of the water of the stream? A. I don’t
think it did. I couldn’t tell.
529
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 114. I suppose you never noticed anything
running out of that pipe did you? A. Not much.
It was in the bed of the Creek in the Water.
XQ. 115. What was there at the receiving end
of the tank? I mean how Wae the sewer pipe con-
nected to the receiving end of the tank? A. The
pipe was walled into the brick wall, as near as I
can remember. I did not have time to freshen up
my memory.
XQ. 116. Did the sewer pipe extend any dis-
tance into the tank beyond the inner face of the
wall? A. I couldn’t tell you, I have forgotten
that.
XQ. 117. Was there any valve or gate inside
the tank or adjacent to the tank, so far as you re-
member? A. I don’t know that either. I know
it worked all right. That is all I can tell you.
XQ. 118. Did you ever stir up the material in
the tank? A. I don’t know if I did.
XQ. 119. I mean did you, ever stir up the ma-
terial and flush out the tank so as to save the ex-
pense of cleaning it so often? A. I guess not.
It was not necessary to do. I just pumped it out
and it was cleaned afterward.
XQ. 120. But did you not sometime stir up the
tank to see what the conditions was and determine
whether it ought to be cleaned out or not? A.
Only time I went there was when I thought it was
about time to clean it out. I didn’t bother between
time.
XQ. 121. Was there much odor about the tank?
A. No, sir. You could hardly tell. When you
come there you could hardly tell there was such a
thing there. When you opened the lid was the only
time it smelled strong, not so very strong either.
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
53()
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
JOHN C. F. SELL.
XQ. 122. How often did you visit the tank be-
tween the Fall of 1894 and 1897? A. I couldn’t
tell that. I didn't make any note of it at all.
XQ. 123. Did you always order it to be cleaned
Out When you went there and examined it? A.
When I thought it was about time to clean it out
I went to the sewerage committee and told them
about it, and then I went to work and cleaned it
Out. - l \
XQ. 124. But as I understand your testimony,
you only visited the tank when you thought it was
about time to clean it out, is that correct? A. Yes,
I had no other business there. •
XQ. 125. Did you ever go down to the outlet
of the sewer pipe at the creek and examine the
liquid that was flowing from the tank? A. I never
did. I went right close by the tank.
XQ 126. Who cleaned out the tank between
1897 and May, 1905? A. I couldn’t tell you.
XQ. 127. And of course you don’t know how
often it has been cleaned out since 1897? A. T.
couldn’t tell you that.
XQ. 128. Did you examine the inside of the
tank between 1897 and May, 1905? A. No, sir.
XQ. 129. Did you ever notice whether there was
any scum on the tank between the baffle board
and the discharge hole or pipe in the end wall of
the tank? A. I could not answer that.
XQ. 130. Did you ever take off the scum to see
how thick or heavy it was? A. I should judge
it was about as thick as my finger, about an inch
thick. I should judge it was.
XQ. 131. And was this scum continuous all over
the surface of the tank? A. Pretty near.
531
JOHN C. F. SELL.
YQ. 132. State what the scum looked like? A.
It wasn’t very smooth. It was like putting a
heavy carpet over.
XQ. 133. Were there any holes in the scum? A.
I couldn’t tell that.
XQ. 134. Wasn't there a cross wall or partition
in the tank between the baffle board and the outlet
hole. A. There was a brick wall in the center of
the tank.
XQ. 135. But wasn’t there any other wall be-
tween the baffle board and the outlet hole of the
tank? A. I don’t think there was.
J. C. F. SELL.
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
532
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
August 9, 1905; met pursuant to adjournment;
present as before.
William S. MacHarg, a witness produced,
Sworn and examined on the part of defendants,
deposes and testifies as follows, in answer to
Questions by Mr. Banning:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence
and occupation. A. William S. MacHarg, 57
years old, Chicago, a civil engineer. The class
of engineering work to which I give special at-
tention is that of water works and sewerage, com-
monly called sanitary engineering. I am a mem-
ber of the American Society of civil engineers.
Q. 2. Please state fully what experience you
have had as an engineer, particularly in sanitary
engineering. A. I commenced in 1869 after
graduating as mining engineer from Michigan
University, in the office of Mr. E. S. Chesbrough,
at that time city engineer of Chicago. I followed
the profession generaily since being in this city
with the exception of two years, in ’71, ’72 and
’73, when I was connected with the sewerage de-
partment of New Haven, Connecticut. After-
Ward, from '73 to '79, I was connected with the
sewerage and water department of the city of
Chicago. From 1879 to 1890 I practiced my pro-
fession here in the city. In 1890 I was appointed
engineer of water supply sewerage and fire pro-
tection of the World’s Columbian Exposition,
and designed, constructed and operated the water
works and sewerage works of the Exposition, fin-
ishing in November, 1893. I afterwards prac-
ticed my profession here in the city, and in 1897
533
WILLIAM. S. MACHARG.
was appointed consulting engineer on interSept-
ing sewers of the sewerage department of the city
of Chicago, which position I now hold and have
since that time.
Q. 3. What have you had to do with reference
to apparatus for sewage disposal? A. During
the years subsequent to 1884 I have put in a num-
ber of plants for the treatment and disposal of
Sewage. The first of these were of the type
which was introduced, so far as my knowledge
goes, into this country, by Colonel Waring. This
system was called by the general name of sub-sur-
face irrigation. It involved the use of two tanks,
or a tank divided into two sections, one of which
received sewage and held a constant quantity
overflowing into a second basin or compartment
in which was set an automatic flushing siphon
which, when second basin or section became filled
to a certain height, automatically discharged the
Sewage into a series of vitrified or hard burned
tile laid with open joints immediately below the
surface of the ground, preferably laid in the up-
per ten inches of the soil, in which ground the
purifying process was completed, the escaping
fluid or effluent being inoccuous.
In addition to this I applied a similar system
on a much larger scale in which the tank was
used in connection with intermittent filtration
in the year 1885 and again in 1889. I subse-
quently put in plants in which Sewage was
freated by intermittent filtration about the year
1892, at Soldiers’ Home, in Quincy, and the
Soldiers’ Home, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in or
about 1894; and in or about the same year 1892,
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
534
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
I built a plant for the Rochester Insane Hospital,
at Rochester, Minnesota, using the ordinary pro-
cess of intermittent filtration, but providing a
Series of tanks to be used, if necessary, during
Severe winter weather for chemical treatment. In
1892 and ’93 I designed and built and operated
the purifying or cleansing plant for the sewage of
the World’s Columbian Exposition. This plant
was a chemical plant, the object being to clarify
rather than to carry to a high degree of purifica-
tion. The most recent plant put in by me is at
West Allis, Wisconsin, and was built in or about
1903. In this plant a septic tank is used followed
by an anaerobic filter with a percolating filter as
the finishing process.
Q. 4. Did you ever construct any sewage dis-
posal plant for the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum of
Chicago. A. Yes, sir.
Q. 5. When did you construct that plant and
how was it constructed? If you had previously con-
structed any similar plant, or plans operating on
the same general principle, you may refer to and
describe the same, particularly in leading up to
your work at the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum. A.
I did construct such a system at St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum in the year 1889, but had previously con-
structed at the Altenheim or German Old People’s
Home Of Chicago, a plant which was the forerun-
ner and very largely the same as the plant con-
structed at the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum. The
Altenheim is a building located near West Madi-
son Street continued, and within a few hundred
feet of the Desplains River, just west of the City
of Chicago. The system installed there involved
535
WILLIAM S. MACEIARG.
the use of a large tank, about 8 feet in diameter
and 30 or 32 feet in length, built in the ground at
such depth as to receive the sewage discharged
from the buildings which form this home and its
operating departments. The sewage received into
this tank, the tank being divided at or near the
middle by a dam rising well above the springing
line of the upper arch of the tank, with a baffle
set immediately behind the dam and carried down
below the springing line, both the dam and the
baffle being built as was the tank, of brick ma-
sonry, the sewage, as I stated, being received in
this tank behind the dam, was held to allow the
liquefaction of the organic solids contained there-
in by bacterial action; and the condition was that
of a secluded pool of sewage with a nondisturbing
inlet, and a nondisturbing outlet, and the operation
was the flow of sewage continuously or intermit-
tently as it came from the buildings, but being
practically a continuous flow the discharge over the
dam accumulating in the second section of the tank
from which at convenient intervals, at least daily,
it was pumped up and distributed through a hose
to a filtering area prepared by underdraining so as
to present the proper condition for the aeration
and final stage in the purification of the sewage.
Complainant's counsel objects to the
matter set forth in the foregoing answer,
for the reason; First, that the matter has
not been pleaded or set up in defendants’
answer; and, Second, for the reason that
it is incompetent and not the best evi-
dence, concerning the tanks referred to by
the witness.
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
536
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
WILLIAM S. MACEIARG.
Q. 6. If you have any drawings or description
of that plant at the Altenheim, will you be kind
enough to produce and identify the same, making
such explanations as you consider necessary? A.
I had of course the original drawings at the time
the work was designed by me and constructed;
these however, are now lost and I have obtained
from the architect of the Altenheim a drawing
which shows the system and was one of the draw-
ings made at the time the work was constructed.
The architects were Messrs. Bauer & Hill, of this
city, and Mr. Hill of that firm is now connected
with the firm of Hill & Woltersdorf. I present the
plan of which a tracing may be made, but the plan
I must return to Mr. Hill. For convenience of ref.
erence I mark the following letters upon the draw-
ing: A is the principal building of the Altenheim ;
B is a building containing the offices, laundry, etc.;
C is the tank which received the sewage and in
which the sewage was dissolved; D D is the under-
drain area used for final disposition of the sewage;
The scale of the plan is 32 feet to the inch. The
sewage from the building was received from the
Sewers indicated on the plan by lines running to
and COnnected with the end Of the tank. The tank
is in sectionai plan with the two divisions baffled
and dam indicated by lines across the plan. The
sewage was pumped from the opposite end of the
tank as before described into a tank set above the
ground to which the hose could be conveniently at-
tached and through this hose the sewage was spray-
ed or run upon the ground of different parts of the
filtration area. The area was underdra:::2d as be-
fore stated and lines of underdrain are shown upon
537
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
the plan leading to a lake or a pond which is indi-
cated by the letter E which I now mark thereon.
From this pond an overflow pipe was carried as
shown, which ran directly to the Des Plaines River,
which overflow is marked by me F. So far as I
know it is constructed as shown on the drawings,
that is to say there is no reason why there should
be any variation from the drawing, which agrees
With my memory.
Same objection as to the last answer.
Counsel for defendants offers the draw-
ing produced by the witness in evidence,
and it is stipulated that subject to the
foregoing objection a tracing thereof may
be used instead of the original, and such
tracing is marked “Defendants' Exhibit,
Altenheim Plant.”
Q. 7. Please state just when that Atenheim plant
was constructed, and put into use, how long it was
used, how it operated, particularly with reference
to solids in the sewage, and any special facts or cir-
cumstances relating to its construction or opera-
tion which you know of answering fully.
Last objection repeated; and it is
agreed, to avoid repetition, that the ob-
jection may be understood as if made to
all questions and answers relating to the
Altenheim system.
A. I can only answer of my own knowledge as to
the time that this work was constructed. It was
in the Summer of the year 1885. I know it, be-
cause I did the work at that time, and while the
building was being constructed and the date of the
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
538
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
erection of the building is on the building. I never
saw this plant operated. This plant is intended
and designed to operate to dissolve the sewage re-
ceived into the first compartment by bacterial ac-
tion, and the condition necessary to facilitate the
development and action of the bacteria in liquefy-
ing the solids or organic matter of the sewage are
combined and used in the design and construction
of this tank, the condition being the exclusion of
air and light and the prevention of serious agita-
tion. These conditions being such as to facilitate
the rapid development and action of the bacteria.
The sewage flowing into the large body of sewage
retained behind the dam produces practically no
disturbance, the outlet built in a common and
usual form offers the passage under the baffle of
the full width of the tank at the point where the
baffle joins it, and the water flows over the dam un-
der the same conditions, namely: that the dam is
the full width of the tank at the point of connec-
tion of its upper surface, allowing a very thin
sheet of sewage to flow over it.
The tank was located about 125 feet Southeaster-
ly from the main building at such depth in the
ground that the sewers from the buildings would
enter the arch near the crown, which would neces-
sitate a covering of earth Over the tank of four Or
five feet. That tank was provided with man holes,
one over each section, which man holes were pro-
vided with the ordinary cast iron manhole curb
and lid. These lids are tight as against circula-
tion of the air, but will admit the drawing in of
air in the second section of the tank as the Sewage
is removed by pumping. The pump pipe was a
539
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
separate pipe run down through the arch of the sec-
Ond section to a point near the bottom and was con-
nected to a hand pump by which the sewage was
lifted and discharged into the tank in the field to
which the hose was connected for distribution.
This apparatus was used for about one year,
and owing to the trouble which they had in the
Winter in the discharge of the sewage or liquefied
effluent upon the land by freezing, they obtained
permission to turn their sewage into the Des Plains
River in the subsequent year, which would be 1886.
The plant operated during the good weather all
right. The interference came with frost, which in-
terfered with the distribution of the sewage on the
ground. It froze and accumulated and made them
trouble. When permission was obtained to drain
into the Des Plains directly with the raw sewage
the use of the tank and filtration area was abandon-
ed and the sewers of the house and other buildings
were turned directly to the Des Plaines River. I
do not know or have forgotten how many people
there were at Altenheim at that time, but the plant
was designed to take care of one hundred or a hun-
dred and fifty people.
Q. 8. Please proceed now to a full description of
the plant constructed at the St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum, stating when it was constructed and put
into use, how long it was used, how it was operated
and all about it, referring to any description or
drawings relating thereto now present. A. I was
called again in 1889 to consider a case at St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum at West 40th Avenue near
Belmont Avenue, in this city, in which similar con-
ditions of level ground, inconvenient discharge, or
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
540
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
a discharge of raw sewage at a very great distance
and sewers deep below the surface of the ground
made it necessary Or desirable to put in a plant
like that installed at the Altenheim, where the sew-
age was to be received, dissolved and lifted by a
pump and distributed over a filtration area the ef-
fluent from which was to be discharged into an
open ditch. The quantity of sewage to be cared for
each day was smaller than in the case of the Alten-
heim, being estimated at a possible maximum of
5,000 gallons in 24 hours, and the tank was conse-
Quently smaller than that of the Altenheim, being,
as before, a horizontal cylinder of brick masonry,
but five feet inside diameter, and 24 feet long. This
was provided with a dam and a baffle near the mid-
dle of the tank affording a wide opening for out-
flow, an inlet for sewage in the arch of the section
behind the dam, and a pump section running down
nearly to the bottom in the section before the dam.
As this plant was provided with steam for regular
use a small duplex Worthington pump was used
instead of a hand pump. The filtration area was
prepared with under drain, but hydrants were used
for distribution of the liquefied effluent which were
connected to the distributing tank which received
the sewage as it was pumped from the dissolving
tank. On this occasion, thinking it of interest to
the profession, to know how readily sewage coull
be handled with an ordinary pump, and upon fil.
tration area or beds, by previously dissolving the
sewage, I published in the Engineering and Build-
ing Record and the Sanitary Engineer, a journal
published in New York and London, an illustrated
description of the plant installed at the St. Joseph
54i
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
Orphan Asylum. This was published in the issue
of the journal of November 30, 1889, in the New
York edition, and December 14, 1889, London
edition. The illustration and description are found
on page 386 of that issue, and the illustrations con-
sist of a general plan marked “The St. Joseph Or-
phan Asylum Sewage Disposal,” and of a plan of
the dissolving tank, showing the same in sectional
plan, vertical section, and two transverse sections,
and also showing the distributing tank or wooden
cistern from which the distribution pipe lead to the
hydrants in the filtration area. These plans and
sections of the tank being marked, “The St. Joseph
Orphan Asylum Sewage Disposal Details,” and
with the following printed description of the
plant:
‘‘ST. JOSEPH ASYLUM SEWAGE IREIGA-
TION PLANT.
The St. Josephs Orphan Asylum is a four-
story building recently erected on the prairie,
near Chicago, Ill., two miles from the river or
the nearest sewer. The building is intended for
about 250 children, and is fitted with water clos-
ets, baths, laundry, etc. As no sewers were like-
ly to be constructed in this district for several
years, it was decided to dispose of the sewage
by surface irrigation by a system here illustrated.
“Figure 1 is a diagram showing the arrange-
ment of plant and the irrigation field. A is the
asylum building, and B the pump room. Roof
water is stored in the cisterns D D (connected
by equalizing pipe F), and thence pumped into
a roof tank for house supply; after it is used it
is all (about 5,000 gallons per diem), collected
in the receiving tank G, screened, pumped by a
6 x 4 6” steam pump, brass fitted, through, suc-
tion pipe S and force main K to the distributing
Tank T; thence it is drawn off through hyd-
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
542
2705
27O6
2707
2708
2709
WILLIAM S. MACEHARG.
rants at H. H., etc., and flowed over any portion
of the irrigation area L. L., which is 300 feet
Square and capable of extension westward, and
drained off through the tile pipes II, etc., to pipe
JJ that discharges into an open drain to the
river, about 15 feet below the level of the ground
at this point.
The area L L L L is divided by low banks into
16 fields indicated by the dotted lines, which may
be used alternately for intermittent irrigation.
The pipes II, etc., are buried about 3 feet deep
and rest on hard clay. The overlying soil is a
porous clay up to within a few inches of the top,
where it is a black loam. The pipe JJ is about
4.2 feet below the surface of the ground. The
force main only is in danger by frost, and this
is drained each time after using. C is a catch
basin.
Figures 2 to 5 inclusive show the details of re-
ceiving tank G, Fig. 1; Fig. 2 is a section at
W. W., Fig. 3; Fig. 3 is a section at X X, Figs 2
and 4; Fig. 4 is a section at Z Z, Figs 2 and 3,
and Fig. 5 is a section at Y Y, Figs. 2 and 3. This
tank is virtually a section of a brick sewer, with
domed ends. A A are cast iron manhole covers,
city pattern. B is the inlet, D is a dam, and T a
trap wall, that also serves as a screen. The sill
and apron pieces of dam D are each Secured by
6 half-inch bolts O and C. Bolts O do not actu-
all appear in Fig. 3, but are shown there as if
in plan.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the details of distrib-
uting tank T, Fig. 1; Fig. 7 is a plan with a part
of the tank and floor boards removed, and Fig.
8 is an elevation from D D, Fig. 6. There are
2 x 3 x 2" mortised and tendon joints at A, and
one and a half by one inch, at F and F. B is a
bearing lock spiked on. C is a 2 by 44 inch iron
stirrup secured by 4 one-half-inch leg Screws. D
is a dressed stone 18’’ x 18’’ x 6'. E is a quarried
stone 24 inches square.
This work was designed and its construction
superintended by William S. McHarg, C. E., Chi-
543
WILLIAM. S. MACHARG.
cago, Ill., from whom we received dates and
tracings, from which are prepared this descrip-
tion and the drawings for the accompanying il-
lustrations.
The Sewers, drains and tanks were built by
Contractor William E. Dee, of Chicago, and the
pump setting and iron pipe connections were the
work of Browne & Kavanagh, of same city.”
The dimensions which l stated for the receiv-
ing tank should be corrected. I stated the di-
mensions to be 5 feet diameter by 24 feet long.
The true dimensions are 6 feet diameter and 27
feet long internal dimensions. As a matter of
recollection I made this error, as I stated the
figure which I recoliected to be shown in this di-
agram, stating it from memory merely. By ref-
erence to this diagram I find it to be 6 feet by
27 feet. All dimensions and sizes shown on this
diagram are correct, as this drawing was made
at the time from the original for the purpose of
publication. *
In further answer to the question I will state
that this system at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum
was used in connection with the intermittent fil-
tration of the liquefied effluent for a year or two,
when the filtration was abandoned and the lique-
fied effluent was pumped up to the location of
the distributing tank and allowed to flow away.
In 1895 a city sewer was built in Belmont Ave-
nue, and the house sewers were connected thereto
as a more convenient and a less onerous disposal.
The tank and the distributing tank and filtra-
tion area were, of course, no longer used.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the publication in The Engineer-
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
544
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
ing & Building Record and The Sani-
tary Engineer of November 30, 1889,
and December 14, 1889, quoted by the
witness in his foregoing answer and as
quoted; and it is stipulated that a pho-
tolithographic copy of the page contain-
ing such publication may be used in
place of the original thereof, such pho-
tolithographic copy to be marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit St. Joseph Plant.”
Q. 9. How did that plant at the St. Joseph,
Orphan Asylum operate, particularly with ref-
erence to solids in the Sewage? A. The raw
Sewage was received into the receiving end of the
tank with a continuing flow more or less as the
Sewage was produced in the building, and the
Solids were held by the dam and the trap wall
or baffle until all organic solids were dissolved
or liquefied and the liquefied effluent flowed over
the dam in amount and rate equal to the inflow-
ing Sewage and collected in the section of the
tank in front of the dam from whence it was
pumped as desired, at least daily, to the distrib-
uting tank, from which it was discharged on the
filtration area through the hydrant located at de-
sired areas. The operation involved the two
stages of purification, first the liquefaction of the
organic matter in the tank, and subsequently the
application to an aerated filtration bed where
the sewage was exposed to light and air, and with
special advantage in aeration in its discharge
from the hydrant.
Q. 10, How did you come to construct the
545
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
plants referred to in your previous answers, par-
ticularly the ones at Altenheim and St. Joseph
Orphan Asylum—that is, what were you aiming
to accomplish and what led you to adopt this
way of accomplishing it? A. The design and
construction of this system was the natural Se-
quence of other work in the disposal of Sewage
with which I was familiar previous to the time
when I designed the Altenheim plant to the work
of others and to my own work; and the use of a
system so designed was natural because of the
situation of the buildings and land where the dis-
posal plant was to be Installed. I had previous
knowledge of the system accredited to Col. War-
ing in the disposal of sewage from isolated dwell-
ings, that is, dwellings standing by thesmeslves
and in a country where there were no public
sewers in which to discharge the sewage and
where it was impracticable to discharge in the
ordinary method by which the sewage might be
taken away inoffensively by water carriage. This
system was that known as sub-surface irrigation,
and involved the use of a tank divided into two
Sections or of two tanks, the first section of the
single tank, or the first tank where two were
used, receiving the raw sewage and holding a
sufficient quantity so that the flow through the
tank was gentle, and the second division of the
single tank, or the second tank in which was
set an automatic siphon which, when the over-
flow from the receiving tank rose to a certain
point, compelled the starting of the automatic
siphon and the discharge of the collected lique-
27.20
2721
2722
2723
2724
546
2725
2726
27.27
2728
2729
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
fied effluent into a series of small tile laid with
open joints immediately below the surface of the
ground, preferably no deeper than nine inches
or ten inches where the liquefied effluent was
Subjected under conditions of light and air favor-
able to the development of the bacteria necessary
for the final stage of purification of the sewage.
I knew of the application of this system about
the year 1882. I was at this time employed by
the Durham House drainage Company as a super-
intendent in installing Iron drainage and waste
Systems in buildings, and we had the contract to
instal such drainage and waste in Blair Lodge,
the residence of Walter C. Larned of Lake For-
rest. I was employed by this company from the
time I left the employment of the city of Chicago,
in 1879, until about the beginning of 1885. The
time when Blair Lodge was built was some lit-
tle time after I went with the company and my
work there was therefore set by me at about the
year 1882. For the disposal of the sewage for
the house Mr. Benezette Williams, a civil engi-
neer of this city, designed and applied this sys-
tem of sub-surface irrigation in which and in
the action of which I was of course much in-
terested. I discussed the action with him and
learned that the plant operated with practically
no permanent collection of solid matter in the
receiving tank, but that it was broken up and
carried along in a liquefied condition through
the action of bacteria. I subsequently designed
and applied that plant in the '80s and early ’90s,
but I am unable to state the years I installed the
547
WILLIAM. S. MACHARG.
plants for George and Robert Scott at Lakeside,
Illinois, this being a joint plant for two houses.
I installed a plant at Lake Forest for what is
now known as the Deerpath Inn—it was then
known as the Johnson place. I designed a plant,
furnishing plans and specifications, for a gentle-
man in Sioux City, Iowa. I installed a plant for
one of the Norton Brothers at Geneva Lake,
Wisconsin. There were others designed during
these years. The latest plant up to 1895 was
designed for Cyrus McCormick, and installed
when his house was built at Lake Forest, which
I think was in the year 1895. From my knowl-
edge of the process that went on in the receiv-
ing tank, or receiving section of the tank, I was
well informed as to what might be expected with
the quantity of sewage usually cared for in these
tanks, and what would occur if applied on a
larger scale. The situation at the Altenheim,
and at the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum required
that the sewage discharge into a tank fixed deep
Into the ground. In the ordinary use of sub-sur-
face irrigation a place must be selected where
the flow of sewage from the house to the tank
and the discharge of the siphon through the
buried tile may occur by gravity, that is, the land
where the tile are placed must be some feet lower
than the basement level of the building to be
drained. As I stated previously, the ground at
the Altenheim and at the St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum was level and the tanks were necessarily
placed deep and covered. It was not convenient
to make the Second stage of purification by means
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
548
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
of the buried tile and the system of intermittent
filtration which was then displacing irrigation
as a more complete and more uniform kind of
treatment of Sewage presented itself as a ready
means of obtaining the same result of aeration
and exposure in soil which was aerated and sub-
Ject to the direct action of light. This necessi-
tated raising the sewage from the deep tank by
pumping. I had seen at Pullman when the Sew-
erage system was installed there in the early ’80s
the difficulty with valves arising from the pump-
ing of raw sewage. Special valves were re-
Quired which gave more or less trouble to keep
in repair, and in smooth operation. There was
nothing at the Altenheim or subsequently at St.
Joseph to warrant an attempt to use special ma-
chinery. At the Altenheim it was necessary to
use a hand pump with an ordinary foot valve or
disc valves and at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum
the Worthington pump was fitted with ordinary
disc valves. The natural deduction, therefore,
for me was that I should liquefy the sewage on
an adequate scale in the same manner that I had
previously liquefied sewage in the case of isolated
houses. I therefore designed the tanks which
have been described for the Altenheim and for
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum. In doing so I used
means for retaining the sewage in one section
of the tank such as I had used before for isolated
houses, and have aiways used, differing from
Col. Waring’s system which required the build-
ing of two tanks by building a single tank with
a dam and baffle, dividing it into two sections,
549
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
one to retain the necessary pool of sewage, the
other to receive and collect the overflow until
Such time as it could be removed by the auto-
matic siphon for the second stage of purifica-
tion in the tile. As the apparatus proposed for
the Altenheim and for St. Joseph Orphan Asylum
differs only in size from that previously used it
Was certain that, all conditions being similar, the
result previously obtained would be repeated in
a larger plant. This was found to be true; the
organic matter was liquefied with practically no
insoluble residue or accumulation of sludge in
the receiving tank, and the liquefied effluent was
in proper condition to pass through the pumps
without in any way wearing or clogging the
valves beyond the ordinary wear through pump-
ing clear water. The effluent was also in proper
condition for further treatment. In proportion-,
ing the tanks to obtain this result I deduced from
my previous experience with the Waring tank
used in sub-surface irrigation, that there must
be a volume of sewage retained in the pool prac-
tically proportionate to that retained in the War-
ing system. The receiving section, therefore, is
designed to receive and hold several hours’ flow
and the collecting section of the tank is also made
large enough to hold about half a day’s flow.
This last quantity is fixed generally by the fact
that it was considered desirable in intermittent
filtration to apply sewage to a particular bed but
once during the day. The beds are arranged so
that if necessary two beds may be used in the
same day, or if necessary a third, coming around
after 24 hours to the same bed for a second dose.
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
550
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
Complainant's counsel objects to such
parts of the foregoing answer as give
Statements made by others, as being
hearsay and not competent evidence.
Q. 11. Please state whether you have examined
the Cameron, Commin and Martin patent, No. 634,-
423, sued on in this cause and whether you under-
Stand the same? A. I have and do.
Q. 12. Please compare the construction and op-
eration of the plants at the Altenheim and St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum described in your forego-
ing answers with the construction and operation of
the plant described in this patent, No. 634,423, and
state wherein they are similar to or different from
each other—limiting your comparison to Claims 1
to 8 inclusive, 11 and 12, and 20 to 22 inclusive of
the patent. A. In both the instances, that is, at the
Altenheim and St. Joseph “Orphan Asylum of the
use of dissolving tanks, or as they would now be
called, septic tanks, on a larger scale than before,
the Operation of the tanks was perfect, the steps are
those described, in the patent in suit, and the re-
sult is that therein described, and the qualities of
the resultant, the liquefied effluent, are equal.
In both these instances and in the patent in suit,
, the final stage in the process of purification is the
same, “subjecting the liquid effluent to air and
light,” and the result of the process used in these
instances and described in the patent in suit when
intelligently applied is a highly purified final ef-
fluent.
If the process and the apparatus set forth in the
patent in suit be compared claim by claim with
the process and apparatus used at the Altenheim
551
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
and St. Joseph Orphan Asylum it will be foundſ
that the process is identical, and that the variations
and the apparatus are due Only to a different se-
lection of devices well and commonly known and
used in the art to accomplish certain results, or to
mistaken ideas of cause and effect in the operation
described, or to wrong values given to words used
in description.
The first claim of the patent in suit is for “the
process of purifying sewage which consists in sub-
jecting the sewage under exclusion of air, of light,
and of agitation to the action of anaerobic bacteria.
until the whole mass of solid or organic matter
contained therein becomes liquefied, and then sub-
jecting the liquid effluent to air and light.”
In the tanks built in 1885 and 1889 at the Alten-
heim and at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum there can
be no question that the process is the same as that
referred to in Claim 1. The tanks are under
ground, deeply covered, with no opening to the air,
except a small vent pipe to allow the escape of
gases set free in the process. Air and light are
therefore excluded. The inflow of sewage from the
inlet set just above the constant water line of the
tank is insufficient to cause injurious agitation,
and the fact that liquefaction as claimed does take
place, shows that injurious agitation does not take
place.
It is with regard to the term “exclusion of agi-
tation,” and to the terms commonly used in the
following claims “non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow ’’ and “non-disturbing inlet and outlet,” that
the proper value and meaning must be given.
Speaking exactly, it is not possible that there shall
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
552
2755
2756
2758
27.59
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
be an addition to a pool or body of water or an in-
flow or outflow to a pool or body of water with “ex-
clusion of agitation,” or non-disturbance, and
therefore the meaning of these terms in the claims
must be taken to be without injurious agitation or
injurious disturbance; and while speaking of a
non-disturbing inflow and outflow using the term
in the above sense, I wish to make it clear that the
degree of agitation or disturbance is not due pri-
marily or principally to the location of the inlet
above, below or at the normal surface of the water
in a pool or to the shape of the inlet or outlet, but
to the proportion which exists between the volume
of water contained in the pool and the volume of
incoming water in a given time. It is evident that
in a large pool of water a small trickling stream
may fall from a height, or may be admitted at flie
surface of the pool, or at any point below, witho. It
material disturbance, and that conversely a large
stream flowing rapidly into a small pool will pro-
duce severe agitation or disturbance whether the
inlet be placed at any one of these three locations.
In most of the processes used in the purification
of sewage, whether it is desired to obtain septic
action, subsidence, or precipitation, it is common
to require that a pool of sewage be secluded and as
most of the processes are continuous that an in-
flow and outflow of sewage be permitted which
shall not produce agitation or disturbance to such
a degree as to prevent the active development and
operation of bacteria, rapid subsidence where sedi-
mentation alone is desired, or where chemical pro-
cesses are used and rapid precipitation is desired.
To attain this result, engineers or persons engaged
in the treatment of sewage have used many devices,
553
WILLIAM S. MACEHARG.
and it is common to find tanks in combination
with submerged inlets and outlets with inlets turn-
ed down and outlets the same, with baffles closing a
large part of the whole of the width of the pool
and extending downward a greater or less amount
to find inlets broadened for a large part of the
width of the tank, so that the flowing stream is re-
duced to a thin sheet falling from a lip practically
at the surface or above the surface of the Water
in the tank, the use of bell mouths on inlets and
Outlets.
The most common difficulty in the
seclusion of a pool in which inflow
and outflow are permitted is in the
case where the inlets are on a level of the Water
surface in the tank that a surface flow sets up Ji-
rectly across the tank, so that the inflowing sewage
passes rapidly through the tank, not disturbing
the body of water in the tank, nor displacing it to
cause a forward movement of the whole body of
water which is desirable in most processes. This
forward movement enabling a fresh body of sew-
age to come under the influence of the quiescence
due to the pool. With submerged inlets and out-
lets or a combination of a submerged inlet and stºr-
face Outlet restricted in size this same direct flow
through may set up in a pool so that the inflowing
Sewage passes through without material disturb-
ance of the body of water in the pool, and the ob-
ject permitting the sewage to form a pool is lost,
because there is no quiesence or restriction of flow
to the flowing stream. This also has been met by
the devices described above.
Adjourned till Thursday, August 10, at ten
O’clock A. M.
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
554
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
August 10, 1905.
Met pursuant to adjournment; present as be:
fore.
The Witness continues his answer.
The collection of these devices commonly used
in connection with tanks for the purification of
Sewage into combination with a tank now callel a
Septic tank, appears to me not necessarily inven-
tion, and some of these devices have been used in
connection with tanks which would now be called
Septic tanks, as in the case of the Altenheim an I
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum plants. In Claim 5,
the statement is as follows: “In an apparatus for
the purification of sewage, the combination of a
Sentic tank having an outlet disposed above the
bottom and below the normal water level of the
tank and open across the greater part of the width
thereof, and an aerator connected with said out-
let.” In the tanks used at the Altenheim and at
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, and in all tanks used
by me in the process of disposal known as sub-sur-
face irrigation, this construction has been used.
As the tanks at Altenheim and St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum were naturally deduced by me from the
smaller system, the baffle and dam are identical
with those used in the smaller system; and it is
readily seen by reference to the drawings of the
tank at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum that in passing
from the secluded pool into the second section of
the tank the liquefied effluent must pass under the
baffle T, and over the dam E, fully satisfying the
claim of an outlet disposed above the bottom and
below the normal water level of the tank and open
across the greater part of the width thereof. It
555
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
further happens that the thin sheet of liquefied ef.
fluent flowing down the external surface of the
dam is aerated. The aeration at this point is, how-
ever, of comparative unimportance, because in the
handling of the liquefied effluent before it reaches
the irrigation area, and really as a part and con-
tinuation of the process, is thoroughly aerated by
pumping into the distributing tank, and especially
by the open discharge from the hydrants onto the
ground.
The drawing which I now produce of the sewage
disposal system for the residence of Slason Thomp-
son, Esq., at Lake Forest, Illinois, shows the tank
or flushing basin used by me in the time testified to
in connection with the sub-surface system of irri-
gation. The general design of an elongated tank
with curved corners, as shown, has been used by
me, but there have been slight variations in form
from the semi-circular end. The receiving tank
has usually contained from 75 to 100 gallons of
sewage, or about two barrels, making the secluded
pool which is referred to in this case. The sewage
has flowed in as shown in the vertical section by a
6 inch sewer from house. The liquefied effluent has
passed under the baffle or trap and over the dam,
running down the outside face of the dam until the
second chamber is filled to the point of discharge
substantially as just described for the tank at St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum.
In Claim 12, “in an apparatus for purifying sew-
age, the combination of a septic tank, an inlet oc-
cupying the greater part of the width of said tank,”
is a description of a device commonly used in con-
nection with tanks for secluding a pool of sewage,
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
556
2775
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
namely, a wide opening from the inflowing channel
made in the wall of the tank at or about the nor-
mal water surface level, so that the sewage spreads
out into a thin sheet and flows into the tank gent.
ly, or practically with non-disturbance. I offer a
print, showing details of precipitation tanks which
are a part of the sewage disposal works built by me
at the second hospital for the insane, now called
the Rochester Hospital for the Insane, and in
which this device is used to secure a gentle flow in-
to the tank. As shown upon the print and indi-
cated by the arrows, the water flows in through
the influent channel from the screen chamber and
flows the entire length of the tanks, turning at the
end and flowing into the adjacent tank through a
Wide opening. At this opening and at similar open-
ings Out of this tank and into and Out of the other
remaining tanks, the grooves are shown by lines in
which stop-planks may be placed. Similar grooves
are shown on the line of the circulating channel
through which the sewage flows from the first tank
into the second and so on. In the transverse sec-
tion is shown the arrangement of influent channel,
circulating channel and effluent channel, and also a
2776
2777
2778
2779
dotted line shows the normal water level in these
tanks, and this water level is on a level with the
bottom of the openings from the circulating chan-
nel above mentioned, and on a level with the bot-
tom of the openings into the effluent channel, which
openings with their grooves for stop planks are
shown in plan. There are also shown in plan
and in section baffle boards, or partitions of plank
extending a large part of the length in each of the
first three tanks, which are intended to prevent
557
WILLIAM S. MACEHARG.
surface flow referred to in my evidence yesterday,
which surface flow, in the absence of this baffle
board would certainly set up between the inlet
opening and outlet Opening on this tank imme-
diately along or adjacent to the wall between the
tank and the circulating channel. This construc-
tion of tank and baffle boards makes this device as
intended an inlet occupying a large part of the
width of the tank, and its intent is to produce a
gentle and non-disturbing inflow into the tank,
and is practically the device claimed in combina-
tion with the septic tank in Claim 12.
In claim 6: “In an apparatus for purifying
Sewage, the combination of a drain or sewer, a
settling tank connected therewith and adapted
to receive the contents thereof, a septic tank con-
nected with said settling tank.” This insertion
of a settling tank or chamber to catch and retain
heavy material is common in tanks used with
purifying processes and is simply adapted in this
claim. In the print thus produced of the sewage
disposal works at the Rochester Hospital for the
Insane, Minnesota, a screen chamber, so-called,
is shown, on the line of the sewer, and in combi-
nation there with, and connected to the influent
channel, and so to the tanks. This chamber,
which is here called a screen chamber, is to catch
articles which are heavy enough to settle to the
bottom, and is provided with a screen which, in
the case of insane hospitals, is essential, owing
to the fact that in addition to heavier articles,
articles of bedding or wearing apparel are fre-
quently and commonly thrown into the water
closets and other plumbing fixtures by the insane
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
558
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
patients. The function of this chamber is, of
Course, to retain heavy articles or light and is
identical with the use of the settling tank in con-
nection with the septic tank in the claim insofar
as relates to the retention of heavy material.
Still referring to the above plan, I wish to call
attention to the design of these tanks, which in-
tends the use of a baffle to compel the flow of
the Sewage in a particular manner without in
any way disturbing the flow except by giving it
direction. In these cases the flow of the water
is horizontal around the end of the baffle. In
the case of the tanks at Altenheim and St. Jo-
seph Orphan Asylum and of the tanks used in
connection sub-surface irrigation this flow is ver-
tical, passing under the baffle and over the dam.
This use of a baffle to produce a gentle flow in
the desired direction is much older than any-
thing which I have cited heretofore in this tes-
timony. To my knowledge the baffle in front of
the sewer outlet in tanks and basins has been
used in connection with all private houses, ho-
tels and most other buildings in the city of Chi-
cago since 1871, and was then an old and com-
mon device. These tanks or basins are common-
ly called catch basins, or private catch basins,
and are universally applied in Chicago to pre-
vent the ingress of hot grease and Soapy water
which readily coagulates, or the coagulation pro-
duced in soapy water in the laundries to prevent
these materials entering the public sewers where,
as is well known, they adhere to the sides, form-
ing obstruction, and more particularly from the
559
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
Iong connecting private drain under the house
where they are more likely to collect and form
stoppage, causing, so far as the public is con-
cerned, frequent digging up of the streets. This
condition is particularly true of Chicago, where
the gradients to the Sewers are very slight, and
this method of keeping private and public Sew-
ers free of this stoppage was early resorted to.
This baffle, commonly called a trap, is built above
the bottom of the basin and below the normal
water surface in the basin, and is extended up
above the water and connected to the catch, basin
wall, the whole structure, baffle and basin, being
commonly of brick masonry. The object of this
baffle, which extends entirely across the basin, is
to produce a gentle flow which will not disturb
the retained grease and other matter which forms
a heavy scum on the surface of the water, and I
wish to say that it is probably from knowledge
of this device and its efficacy that I deduced the
design of tank used in the system of sub-surface
irrigation, and afterwards carried into the Al-
tenheim and St. Joseph Orphan Asylum plants.
The common dimensions for a single house es-
tablished by authority are that the basin shall
be of brick circular in form, three feet inside di-
ameter, and two and one-half feet deep below
the outlet. The distance to which the baffle must
be carried below the water surface I do not re-
call, but it is commonly about one foot. For ho-
tels, restaurants and at other places, as in con-
nection with the operating houses at the Stock
Yards, these basins are made much larger. I cite
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
560
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
this simply as an instance of a method described
in the claims of an outlet below the normal water
surface and above the bottom and extending
nearly the full width of the tank, specifically set
forth in claim 5, claim 6, claim 11 and claim 22.
As regards claim 2 of the patent in suit, the
tanks built and operated at the Altenheim and
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, and the smaller
tanks used with sub-surface irrigation do liquefy
the solid matter contained in sewage by a pro-
cess which consists in secluding a pool of sew-
age having a gentle inflow and outflow from light,
air and injurious agitation until a mass of mi-
cro-organisms has been developed of a character
and quantity sufficient to liquefy the solid mat-
ter of the flowing sewage, the inflow serving to
Sustain the micro-organisms, and the said pool
is then subjected, but as it is the same pool the
process is continuous, or rather coincident with
the portion of the stage of purification already
described; and the said pool is then subjected
under exclusion of light and air and under a gen-
tle inflow and outflow to the liquefying action of
the so cultivated micro-organisms until the Solid
organic matter contained in the flowing Sewage
is dissolved. All the requisite conditions de-
scribed in the claim exist in the tanks at the
Altenheim and at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, and
in the smaller tanks used in the system of dis-
posal by sub-surface irrigation, and the result is
that the solid organic matter is liquefied and that
which flows away from said tanks is a liquefied
effluent.
561
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
As regards claim 3, which is a repetition of
claim 2, with the addition of the following: “and
then subjecting the liquid outflow to an aerat-
ing operation,” the process used at the Alten-
heim and at St. Joseph, Orphan Asylum in ad-
dition to fulfilling the repeated part of claim 2,
satisfy the added portion of the claim in the
treatment of the liquid effluent to an aerating
process in distributing it upon the filtering area
in the case of the Altenheim and St. Joseph Or-
phan Asylum plants, and in the case of the
Smaller tanks by its discharge into the surface
soil through the tile laid with open joints as de-
scribed.
As regards claim 4, which is a repetition of
claim 3, with the following addition: ‘‘and then
to a filtering operation.” The plants at the Al-
tenheim and St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, as above
stated, fulfil the conditions of claim 3, and in the
description of the plants before made the filter-
ing areas and preparations of same are fully de-
scribed. In the smaller tanks used in connec-
tion with sub-surface irrigation the same process
of filtration follows the discharge into the upper
Surface soil, but it is not always necessary to un-
derdrain the area, as is the case with larger
quantities of sewage. §
As regards claim 5, the tanks at the Altenheim
and at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum possess the
outlet described, but the aerating process is sub-
sequent to the liquefied effluent leaving the tank.
The same statement will apply to the smaller
tanks used in connection with sub-surface irriga-
2800
2801
2802
2803
2SO4
tion.
562
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
In claim 6 the introduction of a settling tank,
in combination with a drain or sewer, I have
shown was used by me at the Rochester Hospi-
tal for the Insane, and I do not consider that
any invention is used in applying same to a sep-
tic tank.
As regards claim 7, the use of an outlet com-
prising a conduit having a longitudinal slot open
across the greater part of the width of the tank,
no conduit or pipe is used slotted or otherwise
in such manner in any of the tanks that I have
built. The same statement applies to the slotted
pipe outlet described in claim 8.
In claim 11 the outlet extending across the
greater part of the width of the tank and dis-
posed above the bottom of the tank and below
the normal water level thereof was used by me
to discharge the liquefied effluent from the se-
cluded pool at the Altenheim and St. Joseph Or-
phan Asylum plants, and in the case of all smaller
tanks used in sewage disposal by sub-surface ir-
rigation. -
In claim 20 T have used the apparatus as de-
scribed in the plants at the Altenheim and St
Joseph Orphan Asylumn, and smaller tanks above
mentioned, but have not used the specially
claimed broadened mouth inlet and outlet.
As regards claim 21, the process has been used
by me as described in claim 2, and herein again
described, but I have no knowledge as to the for-
mation of a thick scum in connection there with.
As regards claim 22, the plants at Altenheim,
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum and the smaller tanks
563
WILLIAM S. MACHARG. 2810
in connection with sub-surface irrigation, use the
apparatus as described, except that the inlet is
not disposed below the water surface.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the following drawings referred to
by the witness in his foregoing answer, 2811
V17. : *
1. Blue print entitled “Sewage Dis-
posal System for Residence of Slason
Thompson, Esq., Lake Forest, Ill.;” and
the same is marked “Defendants' Ex-
hibit Thompson System.”
2. Two Sileets of lithograph draw- 2812
ings, entitled Sewage Disposal Works
Second Minnesota Hospital for the In-
sane;” and the same are marked “De-
fendants' Exhibit Rochester Plant.”
Complainant’s counsel objects to all
those parts of the last answer that re-
late to the Rochester plant, to the plant 2818
or system at Blair Lodge, Lake For-
est, and to other plants of which no
drawings showing the construction of
the plants as actually installed have
been offered; and objects also to the
introduction of the above-mentioned
exhibits, as secondary and not the best
evidence.
2814
Q. 13. Please state whether the sewage dis-
posal plants at the Altenheim and St. Joseph Or-
phan Asylum described in your foregoing
answers were used publicly and in the ordinary
564
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
WILLIAM. S. MACHARG.
Way and for the ordinary purposes for which
they were constructed.
Last objection repeated.
A. They were so used. The plants were built
publicly and were open to inspection, were un-
derstood by the people, boards and otherwise for
Whom they were being built, and were used open-
ly and were accessible to persons desiring infor-
mation in regard to Same.
Q. 14. You have just stated off the record
that you have omitted one or two points which
ought to have been brought into your answer to
question 12. I now ask you to make such ex-
planation of these points, or reference to them, as
you may consider necessary to a full and truth-
ful statement of the matters in question. A. In
describing different devices commonly used in
and about tanks provided for Septic action, Sub-
sidence or precipitation I neglected to refer to
one more directly used in the patent in Suit,
namely, an outlet situated below the normal
water surface and above the bottom, this device
being used as particularly well adapted to re-
move gently the liquefied effluent without dis-
turbing the scum or floating material lying at or
near the normal water surface, or the heavier
material lying on the bottom of the tank. This
device was used by Colonel Waring in the re-
ceiving tank of his sub-surface irrigation sys-
tem for the purpose of removing gently the lique-
fied effluent from this first tank into the tank in
which was set the automatic flushing siphon
which discharged the accumulated liquefied ef-
565
WILLIAM S. MACEIARG.
fluent into the Series of tiles laid with open
joints immediately below the surface of the
ground in the irrigation area. This outlet lo-
cated below the normal water level and above the
bottom of the tank is shown in a cut printed on
page 184 of a book entitled “The Disposal of
Household Wastes,” by William Paul Gerhard,
C. E., and published by D. Van Nostrand Com-
pany, New York, 1890. This device and its use
are described by Mr. Gerhard on page 74 of the
same book as follows:
“An important and most necessary precau-
tion to prevent the clogging of the siphon or
the equally annoying frequent stoppage of dis-
tribution tiles is to build. In connection with the
flush tank, and between the house and the lat-
ter, an intercepting chamber or grease trap, in-
tended to intercept all solids, undissolved paper,
and fatty waste matters of the kitchen. Such a
chamber is, in a certain Sense, a cesspool, al-
though differing from the ordinary objectionable
device of this kind, in having its liquid contents
frequently changed, and in being built of small
size. The emptying and cleaning of this cham-
ber must, of course, not be neglected. Much of
the solid matter and paper, etc., is reduced by
maceration and decomposition, and flows dis-
Solved by water into the liquid sewage chamber.
The overflow pipe connecting both must dip well
below the surface of the water level in the first
chamber, in order to prevent scum or grease
from overflowing into the flush tank.”
I wish to say further in this connection that in
constructing sewerage systems for buildings be-
tween the years 1879 and 1885, I frequently used
this device in the catch basin which receives the
kitchen and laundry wastes of dwellings, hotels
and other buildings, which catch basins I described
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824.
566
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
in answer to question 12 as a substitute for the
bafille or trap to accomplish the removal gently of
the liquid in the catch basin without disturbance
Of the floating Scum or grease and without the dis-
turbance of the heavier matter which settles at
the bottom; and I have further, since that time,
Specified this method of discharging the liquid con-
tents of catch basins in preparing plans and speci-
fications for such work.
In So far as this outlet located below the normal
Water Surface of the tank and above the bottom of
the tank appears in the claims in the patent in suit,
I wish it to be understood that I consider there is
no invention in its combination with the septic
tank.
Counsel for defendants Offers in evi-
dence the quotation from the book entitl-
ed “The Disposal of Household Wastes,”
made by the witness in his foregoing
answer, and as made; and it is stipulated
that either party may produce said book
and use the same for any and all proper
purposes at the hearing of this cause.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher:
XQ. 15. Please State the various kinds Of Sew-
age disposal systems designed or installed by you
between the year 1879 and the year 1896? A. I
installed systems for sewage disposal by sub-sur-
face irrigation with no substantial difference in
the design or construction or mode of operation. I
also installed sewage disposal systems by intermit-
tent filtration without any tank system, one at the
Soldiers' Home, Quincy, Illinois, in or about 1892,
one at the National Soldiers' Home, at Milwaukee,
567
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
Wisconsin, in or about the year 1894. I also in-
stalled a system by intermittent filtration in which
tanks were introduced as an alternative System at
the Second Hospital for the insane, now called the
Rochester Insane Hospital, at Rochester, Minne-
sota, in or about 1892. I also installed and Oper-
ated a system of sewage purification by chemical
precipitation at the World’s Columbian Exposition
in or about the years 1892 and '3. I also installed
a system by intermittent filtration in which a clos-
ed tank was used for liquefying the solid organic
matter at the Altenheim, Chicago, in the year 1885.
I installed a similar disposal by intermittent filtra-
tion in which a closed tank was used to liquefy the
solid organic matter at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum,
Chicago, in the year 1889.
XQ. 16. If I understand your last answer cor-
rectly, it is that the various sewage disposal sys-
tems designed or installed by you for sub-surface
irrigation comprised tanks, the construction and
Operation of which were without substantial differ-
ence. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. These are
without substantial difference except slight
changes in the receiving chamber. In many the
receiving chamber is slightly smaller than in the
one offered this morning in evidence, marked “The
Slason Thompson System.” The receiving tank or-
dinarily contains about two barrels of sewage,
while a slight variation in shape makes this a little
larger.
XQ. 17. How many of these sewage disposal
systems having tanks and intended for sub-surface
irrigation have you installed? A. I have installed
probably more than ten, and less than thirty.
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
568
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
XQ. 18. Was the last one at Mr. Slason Thomp-
son’s at Lake Forest? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 19. And when next before that did you in-
stal such a system? A. I think the previous one
was two years ago, possibly three, for Mr. E. H.
Barton, of the Western Electric Company, at Hins.
dale.
XQ. 20. Were the relative sizes of the receiving
tanks and of the flushing tanks or compartments
in the Various Sub-Surface irrigation
systems installed by you about the
same as the Slason Thompson system?
A. In the Slason Thompson system, the receiving
section is somewhat larger in proportion than the
siphon end, owing to the fact that it was to be built
Of concrete and the semi-circular ends made in a
more convenient form to build.
XQ. 21. In the Slason Thompson system, the re-
ceiving section of the tank is intended to hold
about two hundred gallons, is it not? A. Yes.
XQ. 22. Did all the tanks designed by you for
sub-surface irrigation system have baffle walls? A.
Yes, sir.
XQ. 23. Did you ever design or instal any inter-
mittent filtration sewage disposal systems other
than those mentioned in your answer to XQ. 15?
A. Not to the best of my recollection.
XQ. 24. So that if I understand you correctly,
you have installed altogether from ten to thirty
sub-surface irrigation systems; two intermittent
filtration systems without any tank intermittent
filtration system having open tanks, a chemical
precipitation system, and the two systems that
you installed respectively at the Altenheim and St.
569
WILLIAM S. MACEIARG.
Joseph Orphan Asylum, Chicago? A. Yes, sir,
that is correct as nearly as I recollect.
XQ. 25. Did you ever design any sewage dis-
posal system for any village, or for any institu-
tion other than the institutions hereinbefore men-
tioned by you? A. I do not recall any at the pres-
ent moment. º i
XQ. 26. Please describe in a genral way the
construction of the sewage disposal plants for the
World’s Columbian Exposition in 1892-3? A. The
executive committee realized that it would not be
desirable to have visitors at the World’s Fair look-
ing at the discharge of raw sewage in front of the
grand promenade, and at a distance of a mile and
a half, a water works in-take crib, supplying drink-
ing water for the Fair. They asked that at least a
clarifying process should be used. After consider-
ing the condition existing at the World’s Fair
grounds and different methods of sewage disposal,
I considered that an adaptation of tanks installed
at Dortmund, Germany, using chemical treatment,
would give a sufficiently good effluent so that it
might be discharged into the lake near the shore.
This system consisted of a series of iron tanks,
each cylindrical in its upper section with a deep
conical bottom installed wholly above the ground
level, to which the sewage was delivered by the
System of receiving and pumping apparatus known
as the Shone System. Each of the Dortmund
tanks was fitted with a descending pipe in the cen-
ter of the tank extending down the full depth of
the cylindrical portion of the tank, and terminat-
ing with radical arms triangular in section and
Open on the bottom. Each tank was also fitted with
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
570
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
shallow collecting troughs near the top of the cylin-
drical portion which united in one outlet passing
through the side of the tank, the outlets from all
tanks delivering into one effluent pipe which con-
nected with the sewer built in the ground and dis-
charging into the lake. Adjacent to each tank Was
installed a box with a trough leading to a point ad-
jacent to the descending pipe in the middle of the
tank before described. This box was used for the
supply of chemicals. Centrally located and above
the top of the four tanks was a receiving tank Set
so that pipes leading from the bottom of this re-
ceiving tank connected to the descending pipe in
the center of each Dortmund tank. The rising
main from the Shone ejectors discharged. On a
screen located above the receiving tank, the Water
flowing into the receiving tank and through the
connecting pipe to the descending pipe in the Dort-
mund tank in use at any time. The chemical tank
before described was operated by placing the chemi-
cals in the said tank and admitting a Small run
of water which carried the chemicals through the
trough above described, which was connected into
the top of the descending pipe, so that the Sewage
flowing from the receiving tank mingled with the
chemicals, was carried down to the bottom of the
descending pipe and flowed out under the triangular
arms, which triangular arms gradually diminished
in size so that the inflowing sewage was uniformly
distributed at the bottom of the cylindrical portion
of the Dortmund tank. The chemicals immediate-
ly performed their function and the sludge was pre-
cipitated from the rising water which was clear as
it rose to the top and overflowed into the collecting
571
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
troughs before described, through which this clari-
fied effluent flowed away through the before de-
scribed sewers to the lake. The sludge slowly set-
tling into the conical bottom was removed as neces-
sary by a pipe which was connected to a tank set
in a convenient place in the tank house, and which
was operated by a pump or by exhaustion of air
to draw out the sludge into this tank which was a
closed tank and from this tank the sludge was
forced by compressed air into a filter press, the
liquid extracted and the resulting sludge cakes
were burned in the crematory provided for the
destruction of garbage and sewage sludge. Each of
the Dortmund tanks held about 225,000 gallons
of sewage.
XQ. 27. Can you state approximately the cost of
the sewage disposal system of the World’s Colum-
bian Exposition? A. I can state what I think was
the cost of the plant and buildings, and yet it is not
certain that this is right, I think it was about $125,
000.
XQ. 28. Were all the sub-surface irrigation
tanks designed by you substantially the same in
construction and operation as the sub-surface irri-
gation tanks of Colonel Waring's system? A.
They varied in this respect: First, that as a
measure of economical construction I have always
built a single tank with dividing dam and baffle,
instead of building the two tanks which I have or-
dinarily seen in public statements were used by
Colonel Waring. Secondly, instead of a submerged
pipe overflow between the receiving chamber
and the siphon chamber, I have always used the
baffle and dam. The operation would be substan-
tially the same.
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
572
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
XQ. 29. Do you understand the tanks of Colonel
Waring's system to be those illustrated upon page
184 of the books entitled, “The Disposal of House-
hold Wastes by William Paul Gerhard,” referred
to by you in a previous answer? A. I understand
that to be substantially the arrangement used by
Colonel Waring which involved the use of two
tanks, One as a receiving chamber and the other
as a siphon chamber, but this particular design
may be as used by Mr. Gerhard.
XQ. 30. Do you consider that there is any
Substantial or material difference in construction
and operation between the sub-surface irrigation
tank which you say you have installed and the
tank which, you installed at St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum, Chicago? A. As to construction, the
form is changed for convenience, but in general
there is no difference in the construction except
that due to the larger amount of work to be
done. As regards the operation, the process is
probably exactly the same and was intended to
be the same. Of course the method of removal
of the liquefied effluent is different.
XQ. 31. What was the cost of the sewage dis-
posal system installed by you for the Second Hos-
pital for the Insane at Rochester, Minnesota, in
or about 1892? A. Approximately $7,000.
|XQ. 32. About how many persons were Sup-
posed to be served by this Rochester Insane Hos-
pital system? A. To the best of my recollec-
tion, twelve hundred.
|XQ. 33. What sewage disposal system other
than a sub-surface irrigation system for a resi-
573
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
dence did you instal next after the St. Joseph
Orphan Asylum system? A. The disposal sys-
tem for the World’s Columbian Exposition and
the disposal system for the Soldiers’ Home, at
Quincy, Illinois. The first was begun in 1892,
and the second was begun and completed in 1892.
Next came the Rochester system in 1892, already
described, and the disposal system for the Na-
tional Soldiers’ Home at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
With the exception of small sub-surface irriga-
tion plants I installed no other plants for Sew-
age disposal, so far as I recollect, until the in-
stallation of the plant designed in compliance
with my specification for the disposal of Sewage
at the shops of the Allis-Chalmers Company,
West Allis, Wisconsin, in the year 1903.
|XQ. 36. The Allis-Chalmers Company has
been sued for the use of the sewage disposal
plant which you installed for them, has it not?
A. I am so informed.
Adjourned till Friday, August 11, 1905, at 10
o’clock A. M.
August 11, 1905, met pursuant to adjournment;
present at before.
XQ. 37. Please state, if you can, the cost of
the Sewage disposal plant at the Soldiers’ Home
at Quincy; and also the cost of the Sewage dis-
posal plant at the National Soldiers' Home
at Milwaukee, and the number Of
persons intended to be served by these plants, re-
spectively. A. I have no recollection of the
cost of the work at these two places. I have no
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
574
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
recollection of the number of persons at the Sol-
diers’ Home at Quincy, and I think there were
about 2500 served by the plant at the National
Home, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
XQ. 38. Can you not approximate the cost of
the two plants inquired about, or furnish a
Statement as to the cost of such plants from your
memoranda? A. Owing to lapse of time and
Other circumstances I have no memoranda re-
lating to these plants. At the Soldiers’ Home
at Quincy, Illinois, the existing system of sew-
erage was sot interfered with further than to con-
nect to the existing sewer a short distance back
from its outlet into a neighboring brook. The
Work done was a preparation of a filtration area
of about three-quarters of an acre by under-
draining the same, delivering into the adjacent
brook, and by dividing the surface with earth
banks into convenient beds which were laid out
under the ridge and furrow system. An open
channel of half tile fitted with stop gates was pro-
vided to flow the sewage over the desired bed.
The whole work probably cost no more than two
thousand dollars.
At the National Soldiers’ Home, in Milwaukee,
the conditions were similar, the number of per-
sons served was considerably larger than at
Quincy, and the area of ground prepared was
larger. The area of it I do not recall, but it
probably cost less than five thousand dollars. In
both these statements the work of which the
cost is given is the added work, that is, the work
involved in the change and the old work to
575
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
which this added work was connected is not in-
cluded in the cost.
XQ. 40. In the course of your direct testimony
you have quoted from a book entitled “The Dis-
posal of Household Wastes by William Paul
Gerhard, C. E.” State how long you have known
of Mr. Gerhard and whether he was regarded as
an authority on the subject of sewage disposal.
A. I think I have known of Mr. Gerhard since
about the year 1890. I have known of his work
only in relation to plumbing and drainage of
buildings, which included sewage disposal from
the building in some instances as outlined in the
book referred to. I do not know him as an au-
thority in the art of sewage disposal.
|XQ. 41. Are you familiar with Mr. Gerhard’s
book, “The Disposal of Household Wastes,” and
if so, how long have you been familiar with that
book? A. I am not specially familiar with that
book. When I bought it I read it and I have
only referred to it on this occasion for a descrip-
tion of the overflow used by Colonel Waring be-
tween the receiving tank and the siphon cham-
ber used by him in connection with the system
of sewage disposal by sub-surface irrigation.
XQ. 42. At the time that you read Mr. Ger-
hard’s book did you question the fact that he
expressed fairly therein the generally enter-
tained opinions of the better class of civil engi-
neers with respect to the subjects treated of in
the book? A. T do not remember what impres–
sion was made upon me by Mr. Gerhard’s book
at the time T read it.
2870
2871
2872
2873
287.4
576
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
XQ. 43. Referring now to the irrigation plant
designed by you for St. Joseph Orphan Asylum,
please state whether or not the drawing illustrat-
ing the receiving tank is upon a scale? A. It is.
XQ. 44. Did you ever see the St. Joseph Or-
phan Asylum tank or plant in operation? A. No,
sir.
XQ. 45. So that of your own knowledge you
cannot speak as to the various conditions under
which the receiving tank and other parts of the
System actually operated? A. Not of my own
observation.
|XQ. 46. How far was the inlet opening of the
tank above the water line—I mean the normal
water level of the tank? A. It was built as
shown, and it is about six inches above the nor-
mal water level. It is about one-third the way
between the end of the tank and the dam. It is,
as shown, a six-inch pipe.
XQ. 47. Did this inlet pipe project into the
tank any distance? A. Merely sufficiently to al-
low bricking in.
|XQ. 48. Did you ever examine the effluent from
the tank of the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum sys-
tem? A. No, sir.
XQ. 49. State how the pump by which the ef-
fluent was removed was connected to the tank of
the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum system. A. The
pump was a Worthington pump set in the pump
room shown upon the plan connected by a suc-
tion pipe running over to and down into the tank
at the effluent chamber nearly to the bottom of
the tank, º
577
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
YQ. 50. State the character of pipe that led
into the effluent tank from the pump and how
this pipe entered the effluent tank? A. The pipe
was wrought iron pipe of the proper diameter
for the pump opening, possibly three inches in
diameter, which entered the tank either at the
manhole over the effluent chamber or through
the arch of said chamber, and was provided with
a foot valve at the bottom.
XQ. 51. Have you ever written or published
anything on the subject of sewage disposal other
than the description of the St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum sewage irrigation plant that has been
introduced in evidence? A. As editor of the
Sanitary department of the Building Budget, an
architectural journal, published in Chicago
monthly during the years 1886 to 1890 perhaps.
I have discussed these matters somewhat, and I
do not recall any other writing or any other pub-
lication.
XQ. 52. Did you ever at any time prior to
1897 write or publish a statement to the effect
that the action of a sub-surface irrigation tank
or of a tank like that installed by you at St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum, was other than or dif-
ferent from the action of subsidence or precipi-
tation? A. Before answering this question I de-
sire to amend my answer to the previous ques-
tion by saying that I have also written regarding
these matters in the Inland Architect of this
city, also a monthly journal. This may be at
any time between the years 1885 and 1904.
In reply to this question I do not recall a pos-
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
578
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
itive statement as to what occurs in the receiv-
ing tank of the sub-surface irrigation, but in the
issue for December, 1888, of the Building Bud-
get, I made the following statement in discussing
the project of disposal of the sewage of the city
of Chicago by the process of dilution in the pro-
posed drainage canal: “Bacteriology is a branch
of Science of recent origin in which few facts
are yet clearly defined and established; these
facts, however, give promise that the science will
aid wonderfully in the control of preventable dis-
ease. . . . We know that the food of bac-
teria is dead organic matter; that they increase
with wonderful rapidity under favorable con-
ditions; that their period of existence is un-
known.”
|XQ. 53. During the recess which occurred
after the last answer, have you made any effort
to ascertain whether or not you have published,
prior to 1897, any such statement as is called for
by XQ. 52? A. I have done so, and found pub-
lished in The Inland Architect, of September,
1895, a description of an apparatus and plant for
the sub-surface disposal of the sewage of a coun-
try house with a discussion of the system of such
disposal. This article is published under my
Ila Iſle.
XQ. 54. What was the capacity of the St. Jo-
seph Orphan Asylum tank below the water line?
A. The receiving chamber would hold between
1300 and 1400 gallons; and the overflow chamber
would hold about 2200 gallons.
XQ. 55. All the articles in the Building Budget
579
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
published under the name of William S. Mac-
Harg, were written and published by you, were
they not? A. They were either written and pub-
lished by me or acted on editorially by me.
XQ. 56. You were the editor of the Sanitary
and Engineering Department of the Building
Budget and as such editor you were at liberty to
express such views as you wished upon subjects
falling within your department, were you not?
A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 57. When did you first see or hear the word
“ septic * used in designating a sewage disposal
tank? A. It is some years ago, to the best of my
recollection, and I think it was an editorial in the
Chicago Tribune, referring to and discussing the
Exeter plant, built, as I understand, by Mr. Cam-
€I*OI].
XQ. 58. In cross question 52, I asked you wheth-
er you ever at any time prior to 1897 wrote or pub-
lished a statement to the effect that the action of a
sub-surface irrigation tank or of a tank like that
installed by you at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum,
was other than or different from the action of Sub-
sidence or precipitation. In your answer to XQ.
53, you state that you have found in The Inland
Architect of September, 1895, an article written by
you. Do you consider such article as giving the
best instance of such a statement as is called for by
XQ. 52, that you have made, prior to 1897? A.
So far as I know it is the best statement that I
have made regarding the matter inquired into in
XQ. 52.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Banning:
R. D.Q. 59. In some of your answers, or rather
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
, 580
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
Some of your publications, you have spoken of
screened sewage. Please state fully what you had
in mind in using this term, describing the screen-
ing action? A. Screened sewage is sewage from
which the coarser particles have been held back by
any means, as in the case of the use of the dam and
baffle in such plants as I have described, or by the
use of an overflow outlet taking the liquid from
between the heavier material which has subsided
and the lighter material is floating in any tank.
T. D. Q. 60. Please state why you did not put in
a plant similar to the one at St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum at the World's Columbian Exposition, in
1892-3? A. When the matter of treating the sew-
age at the World’s Columbian Exposition was re-
ferred to me with directions to adopt some method,
the method used in sub-surface irrigation and in in-
termittent filtration at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum
was suggested to me and was considered by me, but
I considered it impracticable because of the im-
mense amount of sub-surface tile, or irrigation
area required under the information which I had
at that time. Such a scheme would have required
a larger acreage than was at my command on the
World’s Fair ground in the light of the informa-
tion available at that day. This, taken in connec-
tion with the before stated reason for using a
chemical process, namely, that a high degree of
purification was not required, excluded the use of
a tank and filtration system.
R. D. Q. 61. Please quote into the record, the
description of the McCormick plant which you pub-
lished in The Inland Architect for September,
1895, first stating the character of such publication?
581
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
A. The Inland Architect is a high class archi-
tectural journal which circulates in and around
Chicago, where it is published, and also largely
throughout the United States. The magazine is
published monthly. In examining The Inland Ar-
chitect during recess to see whether I had pub-
lished anything such as called for by XQ. 52,
distinguishing the action in the tanks used with
Sub-surface irrigation, and that tank used at St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum in connection with inter-
mittent filtration from the tank ordinarily used
for subsidence or precipitation of sewage I found
an article containing a description of a plant in-
stalled upon my plans at the residence of Cyrus
H. McCormick, Lake Forest, Illinois, in 1895, and
which has been referred to heretofore in this case,
which article was written by me, and in addition
to the description, a discussion of the process oc-
curring in the tank, which distinguishes it abso-
lutely from any process of subsidence or precipi-
tation. The article begins with the description
of a proposed plan in which apparently Solution
of the solid matter was first proposed to be fol-
lowed in the same tank by the addition of lime,
a commonly used precipitant in Sewage cleans-
ing processes. I have made extracts from this
article, which extracts contrast the process pro-
posed with that I have comonly used known as
intermittent sub-surface irrigation, and the fol-
lowing are the extracts as made:
“In a recent periodical devoted to Sanitary
work, a plumber in a neighborhood cut up with
gulleys and ravines describes an apparatus put
in by him which both he and the editor expect
to work satisfactorily, but which will Surely
2900
2901
2902
2903
29()4
582
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
cause a nuisance. It consists of two cesspools,
or more properly, catch basins, the entire waste
from water closets, sinks, etc., in the house dis-
charging into the first catch basin, overflowing
from this to the second basin, and from the sec-
Ond overflowing into the ravine. It is proposed
to use occasionally, Say Weekly, a dose of quick-
lime in one basin which it is supposed will pre-
vent disagreeable consequences. Applied in this
way the lime will have little effect other than to
assist perhaps in sedimentation in the basin, and
to deter putrefaction, but the latter will occur
later in the ravine. Further, from the apparently
large size of the basins there will be but little
current to dissolve or carry away in suspension
fine particles of matter, so that most of the solids
will be held and must be removed and carried
away when in a state of high decomposition.
This description is given to illustrate the evils
of all methods of storage of solids and of con-
stant discharge of liquids upon the surface of
the ground, and to introduce to attention a sys-
tem diametrically opposite in which all waste is
dissolved or carried forward in finely divided
particles in suspension, and is finally disposed of
beneath the surface of the ground; final disposi-
tion meaning that the effete material is destroyed
and never appears in any form disagreeable to
eye or nose, nor can it contaminate the Source
of water supply. This system, which is techni-
cally known as intermittent sub-surface irriga-
tion, has been applied by engineers and Sanita-
rians for twenty years and more, but still re-
mains unknown to people generally.
The conditions which must be observed in the
application of the system are that the Sewage
must be collected in a water tight receiving basin
fitted with an automatic siphon by which it is
discharged periodically into the tile drains laid
with open joints at a depth of from nine to 12
inches below the surface of the ground. The
sewage so discharged is the food of certain bac-
teria which may exist at a slight depth under the
%
%
**)
%
E.
Longitudine Section Section Behind
-1–9 Tra
iſ,…ºf p
% § =% %2 %:
%3)ä #4%; ºf
&zº
Sectional Plan Mid height
Fig. 5
Flushing Basin Scale 1inch to 6% feet.











583
WILLIAMI S. MACHARG.
surface of the ground and which will grow and
live upon the sewage, provided the flow is in-
termittent so that the soil may become aerated
between the doses in order that the bacteria may
have the air necessary to their existence. This
process is complete and when applied in a differ-
ent manner to the sewage of towns the water
which flows from the works is innocuous, the or-
ganic matter having been reduced to nitrites and
nitrates.
A general plan of this system . . is shown
in Fig. 1. A section showing relative elevations
in the house and lawn is given in Fig. 2. Details
of the flushing basin are given in Fig. 3.
In the receiving compartment of the flushing
basin it will be noticed that the space is reduced
to the minimum which will permit a person to
get in in case of necessity. This gives reason-
able assurance that inflowing water, as from bath
or laundry tub, will agitate all contained in the
chamber and assist in dissolving or breaking up
solids, and it is found that it is never necessary
to remove or carry away matter from the basin.
The water from all fixtures, except the kitchen
sink, is admitted directly to the basin; in the
sink connection a catch basin is built or a grease
interceptor may be set, as the grease is carried
through would make it necessary to clean the
tile much more frequently. The catch basin is
not essential, but as it is customary to use it
on house drains in this city its use is continued
on disposal systems.
The trap and dam which form the front of the
receiving chamber serve to Screen the sewage,
floating matter being held by the trap and heav-
ier by the dam until dissolved or finally divided
and held in suspension. Toilet paper should be
provided in all water closets where disposal is
used, as it readily disintegrates in the water.
An apparatus of this kind set in operation will
work both summer and winter, as the decompo-
2910
2911
2912
2.913
2914
584
2915
2916
9917
2918
2919
WILLIAM S. MACHARG.
sition of the sewage will prevent freezing, and
no particular attention need be given it; no dis-
infectants or chemical should be used in it, as
they would probably be destructive of the bac-
teria. After ten or a dozen years it may become
necessary to lift and clean the tile, but with good
material no other repairs or maintenance should
be required.
It must not be supposed from the foregoing
that a system of drain tile laid to take the over-
flow of a cesspool just below the ground surface
will operate in similar manner. The efficacy of
this system depends wholly on the intermittency
of its action, allowing aeration of the soil, and
upon the complete filling of the tile by the full
flush from the basin. A trickling stream from
a cesspool, whether upon the surface of the
ground or in the tile immediately under the Sur-
face, means a clogged soil, which will become sour
with offensive decomposition, and the tile when
So used, will soon clog at the points where the
trickling stream leaves them, producing a wet
spot in the soil above.”
Counsel for defendants offers in evidence the
article published in The Inland Architect for
September, 1895, quoted by the witness in his
foregoing answer and as quoted; and it is stipu-
lated that either party may use such publication
for any and all proper purposes at the hearing of
this cause.
WILLIAM S. MacHARG.
Adjourned until Tuesday, August 29, 1905, at
10 o’clock A. M.
585
EIENRY W. HILL.
August 29, 1905, 10 o’clock A. M.; met pur-
Suant to adjournment; present as before.
Henry W. Hill, a witness produced, sworn and
examined on the part of defendants, deposes and
testifies as follows in answer to questions by Mr.
Banning:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence
and occupation. A. My name is Henry W. Hill,
my age is 53 years and 6 months, I reside at 235
Michigan Avenue, Chicago, my occupation is that
of an architect. I am senior member of the firm
of Hill & Woltersdorf. Before that I was junior
member of the firm of Bauer & Hill.
Q. 2. In your work as an architect have you
had and do you have anything to do in reference
to the construction of sewage disposal plants?
A. Yes, sir, we have occasionally, when we build
plants outside of the city where no direct sew-
age disposal can be obtained.
Q. 3. Did your firm construct what is known
as the Altenheim or German Old People’s Home
near West Madison Street and the Des Plaines
near this city—I mean as architects?
X. Counsel for complainant objects to
the question as calling for matters not
Set up in defense by the answer, and it
is agreed that to avoid repetition it
may be understood that the same ob-
jection is made to all questions and
answers relating to the Altenheim
System.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. 4. When was the Altenheim constructed
and what did you have to do with it personally?
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
586
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
HENRY W. EIILL.
A. It was built in the year 1885. I supervised
the making of all plans for the building in our
office and superintended the construction of the
building. When the matter of the disposal of
the sewage came up we called in Mr. William S.
MacHarg, as an expert, and the plan of the dis-
posal of the sewage was drawn in accordance
with his instruction, and it was done under my
personal Supervision.
Q. 5. If you have the drawings of that Sewage
disposal plant constructed at the Altenheim here
present, will you please identify the same? A.
The paper here before me is the identical plan
that was made in our office of that sewage dis-
posal system—it is the original drawing, made
under my supervision.
It is admitted by counsel that the drawing
identified by the witness in his foregoing allSWGI’
is the drawing referred to and identified by Wil-
liam S. MacHarg in his answer to question 6, di-
rect examination, and offered in evidence at the
end of such answer, and of which a tracing is to
be used marked “Defendants' Exhibit Altenheim
Plant.”
Q. 6. Please explain the construction and op-
eration of the sewage disposal plant illustrated
in this drawing identified in your last answer.
A. A brick tank circular in cross section about
32 feet in length and 8 feet in diameter was built
below the ground, the top of the tank being about
4 feet below the surface of the ground. The in-
side of the tank was divided by a dam, brick dam.
Each of these compartments had a manhole built
of brick extended to the surface of the ground
587
FIENRY W. EIILL.
and covered by an iron manhole cover. All the
sewage of the entire buildings was disposed in
the northern half of this tank, and the overflow
from the northern half of this tank ran into the
southern half as liquid, from which it was pumped
to an elevated wooden tank outside. This tank
had hose connection. The hose was placed on
a little truck which could be moved around the
vegetable garden, and the liquid was used for the
irrigation of the vegetable garden mainly. The
garden was tiled with lines of 3-inch drain tile
about 32 feet apart which emptied into a main
6-inch pipe conducting the filtered liquid which
was conducted to a little pond where several hun-
dred fish were kept. The overflow from this lit-
tle lake or pond was protected by a weir, so that
the fish would not run out, and the overflow ran
into a creek which led into the Des Plaines River.
The southern tank which contained the liquid
was ventilated by means of a 6-inch, sewer pipe
to the bottom of the main smoke stack. I will
state this, that a few years thereafter on a cold
winter day the man having charge of the tank
and the distributing of the liquid pumped it all
into one place without distributing it over the
area of the vegetable garden, and in Some way
it flowed directly through the one 3-inch pipe
into the main 6-inch pipe and into the pond, and
the next day the surface of the pond was covered
with the dead fish. They were all dead. There.
upon the executive committee of the Altenheim
sought permission to make direct Sewer connec-
tion into the Des Plaines River. They obtained
such permit and a 9-inch main sewer was con-
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
588
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
HENRY W. H.ILL.
structed into the Des Plaines River, and the fil-
tration was abandoned. A catch, basin was built
and the main sewer led into the tank and the use
of the tank was abandoned. During the use of
the tank I had occasion to go to Altenheim quite
frequently on account of building different out-
houses, cold storage buildings, etc., and whenever
the liquid was pumped from the tank I never saw
anything but liquid being discharged from it. I
never saw the northern tank being emptied, and
to my knowledge it never was emptied—I mean
So far as I am aware.
Q. 7. Just how long was that sewage disposal
tank used—from what time to what time? A.
From the fall of 1885 to the fall of 1888.
Q. 8. How many people did it serve? A. I
should say from 125 to 160 at different times.
Q. 9. Were your position and duties such that
you had occasion to know about it during all the
time it was in use? A. I was constantly con-
Sulted in regard to any alterations which might
be necessary to be made on the building or its
Surroundings regarding the original plan.
Q. 9-a. If it had been cleaned out at different
times would you naturally have been consulted
about it or known about it? A. I cannot say
exactly that I would, although Mr. A. C. Hessing,
who was the president of the institution, gen-
erally informed me of all that was going on. He
personally took a very great interest in the in-
stitution and the gardens and Outhouses and
everything pertaining to it. Mr. Hessing died sev-
eral years ago.
Q. 10. Did you know personally in reference
589
HENRY W. EIILL.
to the character of the liquid or effluent pumped
out of that tank? A. I have seen it distributed
Over the vegetable garden as dung liquid and I
have seen it come out of the mouth of the 6-inch
pipe at the pond as perfectly clear water; and
the fact that there were several hundred fish in
the pond is proof that it was pretty clear water.
Q. 11. Did that tank or plant operate success-
fully for the purpose for which it was intended
during the three years you have referred to, from
the fall of 1885 to the fall of 1888? A. Yes, sir,
it did.
Q. 12. After constructing that Altenheim plant
did you construct any other of the same kind?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. 13. When ad where, and how did you come to
construct the same? A. In the year 1891 we were
employed by the St. Benedictine Brothers to build
a large college in Bureau County, Illinois, about
one mile south of the City of Peru, in La Salle
County, Illinois. The college was intended for the
education of young men. It was also to contain
a convent for the monks and a wing for the sisters
Of the St. Benedictine Order. It is called St. Bede
College, and we are at the present time construct-
ing another wing to it. It is the intention in the
future to make it a very large institution. The
brothers have a piece of ground of several hun-
dred acres, part of which was a large plateau about
150 feet high above the Illinois River, and on this
plateau the buildings were to be erected. To the
south of the buildings the ground gradually slopes
down to the river, and there are ravines leading di-
rectly to the river. When the matter of sewage
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
590
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
HENRY W. HILL.
came up, we decided to lay a 15 inch main sewer
pipe down to the ravine, but in order to avoid bad
Smells resulting therefrom we built a tank similar
to the One constructed at Altenheim, of wood.
Q. 14. Please describe in detail the tank referred
to in your last answer as constructed at Peru, Illi-
nois, stating just when when it was constructed
and put in operation, how it operated, and all
about it?
Complainant’s counsel objects to the
Question for the reason that it calls for a
matter not set up in the answer, and it is
agreed, that, to avoid repetition, the ob-
jection may be understood as made to all
Questions and answers in regard to the
tank and system concerning which the
foregoing question is asked.
A. The tank was constructed in the Fall of
1891, and was about 25 feet long, ten feet high and
ten feet wide, and built of 3 inch pine plank. It
had in the middle of it a double overflow dam par-
tition. It was placed in the ravine and coveretl
over with ground, and the half tank nearest to the
building received the discharge from the main 15
inch pipe. The liquids overflowed into the other
half of the tank and from there through an over-
flow pipe into the ravine. From this latter tank,
a wooden ventilator was built in direct communi-
cation with the air above. So far as I know, the
system has worked with the greatest satisfaction.
I have never heard any complaints, and not longer
than six weeks ago when I was at the college super-
intending the erection of the present wing to the
building I personally went to the tank, saw the
591
HENRY W. HILL.
overflow from it, and did not notice any objection-
able Odors.
Q. 15. How many people has that tank at Peru
served? A. About two hundred and fifty.
Q. 16. And that has been the case ever since the
plant was constructed? A. When the college was
opened, they probably had a few less, may be one
hundred and fifty.
Q. 17. As I understand you, that plant was con-
structed and put in use in the Fall of 1891, and has
been in use ever since, serving from 150 people at
first to 250 at the present time. Is all this cor-
rect? A. Yes, sir.
Q. 18. Is that a closed tank? A. Yes, sir, a
closed tank and covered with several feet of earth
On top of it. (
Q. 19. Do you know whether it was ever cleaned
Out or not? A. I do not.
Q. 20. Do you know how long the sewage is al-
lowed to remain in it? A. Why it is constantly
flowing into it, and constantly flowing from it into
the ravine.
Q. 21. What I mean is, how long would it take
to fill the tank if it were empty, and how long
would it take to empty it if it were full, the inflow
and outflow respectively being at the normal rate?
A. The tank nearest to the building never emp-
ties, the contents are withheld by the partition
dam built in the center of it and the depth is about
two-thirds the height from the bottom, and the
overflow into the ravine is about at the same level,
it might be an inch or two lower, but it is kept
that much filled to preserve the wood. It is con-
stantly moist. Suppose the tank should be entirely
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
592
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
HENRY W. H.ILL.
empty and without rain it would take about seven
and a half days to fill the tank from the sewage and
waste water used at the buildings, each compart-
ment holding about seven thousand five hundred
gallons. When the tank is in operation, the out-
flow is about equal to the inflow, but the tanks
are about two-thirds filled constantly.
Complainant's counsel objects to the
foregoing answer, and to any similar
answers made or that may be made by the
witness with respect to the tank in ques-
tion as incompetent, not being the best
evidence as to the construction of the
tank, since the tank itself is in existence
and is capable of reproduction by accurate
drawings.
Q. 22. How are the inflow and outflow arranged
in that tank at Peru? A. The bottom of the inlet
is about two-thirds the height from the bottom of
the tank, and the outflow of the other tank is a
couple of inches lower.
Q. 23. In answer to question 6 you have stated
that “the inside of the tank was divided by a dam,
brick dam.” Referring to the drawing “Defend-
ants Exhibit, Altenheim Plant,” please indicate
this dam by putting on reference letters, and state
whether or not it was a single dam and what the
other line on the drawing indicates? A. The dam
I have indicated by the letter “X” and about a
foot away from it was the trap wall which I have
indicated by the letter “Y.”
Q. 24. Was that same construction used in the
tank at Peru? A, Yes, sir.
593
HENRY W. H.ILL.
Q. 25. Was that tank at Peru used publicly in
the ordinary course and for the ordinary purpose
of such a construction? A. It has been used ever
since for that purpose. The tank there was built
by our regular carpenter, Mr. Heine, the sewage
connection was made by Mr. Birkenshaw, both
since deceased. At that time Mr. Birenshaw was a
sewer builder in Chicago. They all knew about
it, as well as the abbot of the institution.
Q. 26. Please look at the article entitled “ St.
Joseph’s Asylum Sewage Irrigation Plant,” on
page 386 of the Engineering and Building Record
of November 30, 1889, quoted in Mr. MacHarg’s
answer to question 8 of his deposition in this cause,
and State whether it describes and shows the same
form of sewage disposal tank that you constructed
at the Altenheim, near Chicago, and at the St.
Bede College, near Peru, Illinois, as stated in your
previous answers? A. The plan and section of the
sewage disposal tank of the St. Joseph’s Orphan
Asylum, before me, is a facsimile of the tank built
at Altenheim, except that the tanks at Altenheim
were larger. It is also a facsimile of idea to the
tank built at St. Bede's College, Peru, with the
difference, as stated before that the tank at Peru is
built of wood and is square in cross section, in-
Stead of circular.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher:
Counsel for complainant, without waiv-
ing the objections hereinbefore made, but
insisting thereon, cross examines the wit-
ness as follows:
XQ. 27. How many sewage disposal systems
have you constructed or caused to be constructed,
296()
2961
2962
2963
2964
594
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
HENRY W. H.ILL.
in which a sewage tank was employed? A. The
Altenheim and the St. Bede College.
XQ. 28. Are these the only sewage disposal sys-
tems that you have built or caused to be built in
which tanks were employed? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 29. Have you had occasion, since 1885, to
design, or build, or instal any sewage disposal sys-
tems other than those mentioned by you? A. No,
sir, all the other buildings erected by us since that
time were sewered into existing systems.
XQ. 30. Have you had occasion, since 1885, to
design or erect any large buildings located away
from and inaccessible to the sewage systems of
cities? A. Only the St. Bede College, in 1891–
none since. ſ
XQ. 31. Did you design the building for the
Altenheim? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 32. Your work was the regular work of an
architect for that institution, was it not? A. Yes,
sir.
XQ. 33. Did you design the sewage disposal
system for the Altenheim? A. No, sir.
XQ. 34. The work that you had to do, so far as
concerned the sewage disposal system for the Al-
tenheim was to carry out the plant of the person
who designed that system, was it not? A. We
engaged Mr. MacHarg at that time to plan the sew-
age disposal system. The executive committee of
the Altenheim entered into contract with Mr. Mac-
Harg to build the system and it was built under
our supervision.
XQ. 35. But you had nothing to do with the di-
rection or superintendence of the operation of the
sewage disposal system of the Altenheim? A. Yes,
595
HENRY W. HILL.
sir, we had. We had general supervision, and be-
fore we issued the final certificate of payment to
Mr. MacHarg we were satisfied that the system
was working as contracted for. But we had noth-
ing to do with the further operation of the plant.
We gave no instructions in regard to operating it.
XQ. 36. Referring to the drawing “Defendants
Exhibit, Altenheim Plant,” will you please indi-
cate by reference letters upon such drawing, the
ventilating pipe that led from the sewage disposal
tank to the smoke stack? A. I will write down the
word “vent ’’ on that pipe.
XQ. 37. I observe that the pipe which you have
designated as the “went ’’ pipe on the exhibit draw-
ing last referred to is divided adjacent to the tank.
Will you please state what this means? A. The
Y branch shown on the plan, shows a vent connec-
tion for each of the tanks.
XQ. 38. Do you mean that each section of the
sewage disposal t ank was connected by a branch
vent pipe to the main went pipe that led to the bot-
tom of the smoke stack? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 39. What was the size of these branch vent
pipes that connected the two sections of the tank
to the main vent pipe? A. They were 4 inch pipes
connecting into one 6 inch pipe.
XQ. 40. State if you know what was the height
of the dam that divided the Altenheim tank into
two sections? A. Well I could not answer that
correctly, because I don’t remember that any more.
XQ. 41. State if you know the size of the inlet
pipe that delivered sewage into the Altenheim tank?
A. It was a 6 inch pipe, if I remember right.
XQ. 42. Do you know how far the inlet pipe of
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
596
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
EIENRY W. HILL.
the Altenheim tank was located above the level of
the liquid within the tank? A. I couldn’t swear
to that exactly, but naturally it was on a level or
One Or two inches higher than the overflow dam for
the purpose that it would have to be above it.
XQ. 43. In the Altenheim system, did the tank
receive the rain water from the roof of the building?
A. No, sir. The rain water ran into a separate
cistern, which was under the laundry, and the
water was used for washing purposes. The over-
flow of that cistern ran into a pond.
XQ. 44. How often did you see the liquid from
the tank at Altenheim pumped or distributed
over the vegetable garden? A. Well, now I did
not keep track of that, but I saw it on and off, may
be three or four times.
XQ. 45. When you observed the distribution on-
to the vegetable garden of the liquid from the Al-
tenheim tank, did the liquid appear at all thick or
simply like muddy water? A. More like muddy
water, like muddy clay water.
XQ. 46. Did you examine this liquid closely
enough to see how finely the suspended matter
therein was divided or macerated? A. I did not.
XQ. 47. Did you ever observe the pumping out
of the Altenheim tank? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 48. In what way was this done? A. It was
done with a hand pump.
XQ. 49. In examining the liquid that was pump-
ed out of the Altenheim tank, did the matter car-
ried thereby in suspension seem to be very finely
divided? A. I never examined the liquid closely.
I only saw it at a distance of from four to eight or
ten feet away. It seemed like regular muddy water.
597
HENRY W. EIILL.
XQ. 50. How far below the surface of the
ground were the drain tiles located in the Alten-
heim system? A. About two and a half feet below
the surface of the ground.
XQ. 51. How was the liquid from the tank dis-
tributed over the surface of the ground? A. Along-
side of the brick tank was a wooden circular tank
elevated on a wooden support about 8 feet above
the ground and the liquid was pumped into this
tank, and by its own gravity was filtered over the
ground by means of a hose. The man using the
hose distributed it wherever he saw fit.
XQ. 52. And in distributing this liquid from the
tank the person using the hose directed the flow
uniformly over the garden, did he? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 53. Did you ever look into the Altenheim
tank and examine its contents after the tank was
placed in operation? A. I have not.
XQ. 54. When the direct connection was made
with the Des Plaines River by means of the sewer
pipe at the Altenheim, what became of the tank?
A. It was removed and the ground filled up.
XQ. 55. How long was it after the Altenheim
tank was put in operation before you gave Mr. Mac-
Harg his final certificate? A. That, I couldn’t
tell, without looking at the books. We generally
pay the final certificate in about thirty days after
the work is completed, and I judge that is what
happened in that case. I feel quite sure it was
within thirty days.
XQ. 56. Did you observe whether the liquid
pumped from the Altenheim tank left a yellowish
deposit in the garden on which it was distributed
by the hose? A. Apparently it did not leave any-
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984.
thing.
598
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
HENRY W. H.ILL.
XQ. 57. Did you not observe that the effect up-
On the garden was what you would naturally expect
to see from Spraying or distributing upon a garden
yellowish muddy water? A. I know that the
vegetables that were raised there, the corn and
Onions, were of a profound growth.
XQ. 58. Do you know how often the Altenheim
tank was pumped out? A. I do not know. I
should judge about every second day. I have no
way of knowing.
XQ. 59. About how often did you examine the
Altenheim tank after it was placed in service? A.
I had no occasion to examine it at all.
XQ. 60. How often did you see the operation of
pumping sewage from the Altenheim tank during
the first three months after the tank was placed
in service? A. May be twice.
XQ. 61. In the sewage disposal system which
you installed at the college of the Benedictine
Order at Peru, Illinois, was the tank connected
with the down spouts that received rain water
from the roof? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 62. What was the area of the roofs of the
buildings from which the down spouts led to the
Sewage disposal tank? A. About fifteen thousand
square feet of roof.
XQ. 63. Did you make any drawings from which
the sewage disposal system at Peru was installed?
A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 64. What became of such drawings, and
where are they now? A. I have looked over our
drawings at the office this noon, and yet I cannot
find the drawing of the tank.
XQ. 65. How far was the tank at Peru located
599
HENRY W. H.ILL.
from the building? A. I should judge about four
hundred feet—from three to four hundred feet,
and the grade down from the building to the tank
must have been from 25 to 30 feet.
XQ. 66. What was the size of the pipe that con-
ducted the sewage from the buildings to the tank
at Peru? A. Fifteen inches internal diameter. It
was of vitrified socket sewer pipe. The joints were
cemented.
XQ. 67. How far above the level of the sewage
in the tank did this fifteen inch delivery pipe dis-
charge? A. It was about seven feet above the bot-
tom of the tank.
XQ. 68. In what way was the Peru tank cov-
ered? A. It was covered with earth which was
placed on top of the boards that formed the roof of
the tank.
XQ. 69. How many openings were there in the
roof Of the Peru tank? A. As far as I remember
there was one square pipe or box, twelve inches
Square about from the outer tank open to the air.
XQ. 70. If I understand your testimony correctly,
there was a straight run of fifteen inch sewer pipe
from the buildings to the sewage disposal tank at
Peru, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
X(?. 71. There was no catch basin, or chamber
of any kind interposed between the buildings and
the tank, were there? A. There was one manhole
Where several of the main branches ran into the 15-
inch pipe near the building, but that was no catch
basin. There was no trap in it. It was merely for
the purpose of being able to go down to the bottom
of the sewer and rod the branches for the purpose
of cleaning them if it should become necessary, and
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
600
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
HENRY W. H.ILL.
this manhole was within the building groups and
from there the fifteen-inch pipe ran uninterruptedly
to the tank.
XQ. 72. At what noint of the Peru tank did the
15-inch delivery pipe enter? A. It was at the end
about seven feet above the bottom of the tank.
XQ. 73. What pipes, if any, were there leading
from the Peru tank? A. Just the spout; the Over-
flow spout.
XQ. 74. At what point of the tank was this Over-
ſlow spout located? A. It was probably an inch
or two below the inlet pipe at the opposite end of
the tank.
XQ. 75. How far into the tank did the inlet pipe
extend? A. Probably a couple of inches inside.
XQ. 76. What was the size of the outlet spout
of the Peru tank? A. About the same size as the
inlet.
XQ. 77. Were all the closets and discharges
from the buildings connected with the sewer pipe
that led into this Peru tank?. A. Yes, sir. All
plumbing fixtures of whatever kind, also the blow
off pipes from the boiler and all conductor pipes
from the roof.
YQ. 78. What provision was made for obtaining
access to the interior of the Peru tank for the pur-
pose of cleaning the tank? A. There was a man-
hole left in it in the top of it but if it was ever
Opened I don’t know.
XQ. 79. Where was that manhole located? A.
About in the middle of the tank. ©
XQ. 80. What was the size of the manhole? A.
Eighteen inches square.
601
HENRY W. H.ILL.
XQ. 81. Did that manhole communicate with
the receiving end of the tank? A. Yes, Sir.
XQ. 82. How much earth covered the Peru tank?
A. I should say about two feet.
XQ. 83. With what did the discharge spout of
the Peru tank communicate? A. It emptied into
the raw in 2.
XQ. 84. What was the length of the discharge
spout? A. I don’t think it was more than One
length of 15-inch pipe.
XQ. 85. Will you please describe the discharge
spout more accurately and just how the effluent
passed therefrom? A. The spout was a 2-foot
section pipe, sewer pipe, vitrified pipe same as used
for the inlet, and just discharged into the ravine.
We packed the earth up around the Outside.
XQ. 86. If I understand your deposition cor-
rectly, it is that the discharge end of the Peru tank
was provided with a round hole, into which was set
one end of a 2-foot section of vitrified sewer pipe
that constituted the discharge spout of the tank.
Is that correct? A. That is correct.
XQ. 87. Did you ever examine the interior of the
Peru tank after it was placed in operation? A. I
have not.
XQ. 88. Do you know how often the Peru tank
was cleaned? A. So far as I know, it was never
Cleaned.
XQ. 89. The fact is, I suppose, that you know
nothing about whether the tank was cleaned or not?
A. That’s right.
XQ. 90. What became of the effluent from the
Peru tank? A. It ran into the ravine and from
there it passed to the Illinois River.
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
602
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
HENRY W. H.ILL.
XQ. 91. When did you last inquire or learn
about the operation of the Peru tank? A. Within
two months I was out there and where the tank
was placed you don’t see anything except the little
Wooden ventilator and the moisture in the ravine.
The grass grows over it and weeds and shrubs and
SO Oſl.
XQ. 92. Was the discharge spout of the tank so
that you couid see any liquid passing therefrom?
A. I did not particularly look for the discharge
spout. The bushes and grass were so grown over
it. I saw in the ravine a little moisture.
XQ. 93. When did you last observe the liquid
passing from the discharge spout of the Peru tank?
A. Not since it was completed. When the sewage
system was started I saw the liquid flowing from
the discharge spout, but since that time I have
never observed it.
XQ. 94. How long was it after the Peru tank
was built before you saw liquid passing from the
discharge spout? A. I saw it when the dedication
of the institution took place. I do not remember
exactly how long that was after the tank was built.
It was Several months.
XQ. 95. But you never observed the liquid flow-
ing from the tank except upon that one occasion
nientioned by you. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 96. As I understand, you never made any
inquiries about the operation of the Peru tank,
simply because you never heard any complaints in
regard to its operation. Is that correct? A. This
spring when I came out to Peru in connection with
the erection of the new wing, I did ask the brothers
there how the sewage system worked, and they said
“first rate,” and never made any complaint.
603
HENRY w. HILL.
XQ. 97. Have you at your office, or within your
possession, any specification or description show-
ing the exact dimensions of the Peru tank? A. No,
sir.
XQ. 98. Then your testimony with respect to
this tank is entirely from recollection, is it not? A.
That is right—from recollection.
XQ. 99. What was the character of the water sup-
ply system at the Benedictine College at Peru? A.
An artesian well was driven to a depth of more
than 2500 feet and the Water raised to within Sev-
eral feet from the surface; and by means of a steam
pump the water is pumped into a large receiving
tank about 60 feet high above the ground. The sup-
ply is taken "rom that.
XQ. 100. In designing the Peru tank and the
sewage system how many gallons of sewage outflow
did you estimate per capita? A. The part of the
building completed at the present time is only one-
third of what it will be some time hereafter; there.
fore we made the main sewer pipe a 15-inch pipe
which is abundant for a small town, and as the out-
flow of the tank is as large as the inflow we didn’t
care for the size of the tank. We didn’t take that,
into consideration because the outflow is as large
as the inflow.
XQ. 101. Have you made any changes in the
sewage disposal system of the Benedictine college
at Peru since you first planned that system? A.
No, sir.
XQ. 102. If I understand your testimony cor-
rectly, it is that you planned the sewage disposal
system at the Benedictine college at Peru, with a
view to a largely increased number of users of such
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
604.
3015
3016
301.7
3018
3019
HENRY W. H.ILL.
system, and you regarded the sewer pipe as a prop-
er size to take care of a large increase in the num-
ber of persons using the system and you regarded
the tank as a proper size for the sewage that could
be delivered through the 15-inch pipe. Is that cor-
rect? A. Yes, sir.
X Q. 103. Did you ever make any tests to deter-
mine the amount of sewage passing into or from the
tank at Peru ? A. I have not.
XQ. 104. So that you have no way of determin-
ing just how much sewage passed to and from the
tank, is that correct? A. That is correct. In my
judgment there was more rain water passing
thorugh it in the year than sewage.
XQ. 105. What do you understand to be the
character and extent of the flow to the tank of the
Peru system in event of a severe rain storm? A.
Well, last spring when we took our levels for the
new wing, I wanted to know the depth or the main
sewer in regard to the discharge of the subdrainage
Water and for that reason I opened the manhole
opening, and there was then in the main sewer
about a flow of five inches of liquid when I had it
opened in this 15-inch pipe. It was not raining
that day. That flow was from the normal action of
the systein. In a heavy rainstorm I should judge
that the 15-inch pipe would be filled to its full ca-
pacity—pretty near. I mean with the present roof
area. That would clean flush the tank. I may
have exaggerated the filling of the 15-inch pipe dur-
ing a heavy rain storm because I have not seen it
and a 15-inch pipe is a very large pipe, there being
mains in the Chicago streets, for instance, Wa-
bash Ave. and down town having only a 12-inch
605
HENRY W. EIILL.
sewer and it having to take care of a great many
juore roofs than the Peru college roof.
XQ. 1 (16. To what extent do you think an Ordi-
nary heavy rainstorm would flush the tank of the
Peru college system? A. Well, gentlemen that
would only be presumption on my part to make a
statement Of that kind.
XQ. 107. With the 15-inch pipe full or approxi-
mately full, and with the fall of twenty-five feet
between the buildings and the tank, what do you
flink would be the flow of liquid into the tank?
In answering this question you may assume that
the rainfall is one inch in an hour? A. With a
rainfall of one inch per hour the amount of rain
that would be brought down by the 15-inch sewer
would be equal to 1255 cubic feet, and the contents
Gf the tank being two-thirds of one thousand, or
about 666 cubic feet, would mean that the tank
would be filled twice or emptied twice during an
hour. º
XQ. 108. Was the Peru tank built of tongued
or grooved lumber? A. Yes, sir.
XQ. 109. Was the tank lined in any way? A.
No, sir.
XQ. 110. Were the joints of the boards caulked?
A. No, sir.
XQ. 111. What was the character of the soil in
Which the tank at Peru was embedded? A. Yel-
lowish clay.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Banning.
R-d-Q. 112. Referring to your answer to cross-
Question 57, was any deposit made on the vegetable
garden from the effluent of the Altenheim tank—
that is, What was the appearance of the garden in
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
606
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
HENRY W. HILL.
this respect? A. It did not seem to leave any sedi-
ment on the gi ound, and did not change the color
or appearance of the ground.
IR-d-Q. 113. Was there any odor from the effluent
of that Altenheim tank? A. It was not perfume
exactly that came from it. It had a kind of a dis-
agreeable smell or odor.
T-d-Q. 114. Did you say that the effluent of that
tank was like roily or muddy water? A. It had
a yellowish tint rather than a white tint. It was
more roily water, with a yellowish tint.
IR-ſl-Q. 115. What was your object in using the
tank you have described at St. Bede College, Peru,
Illinois, why did you not discharge the sewage
directly into the ravine?
Complainant’s counsel objects to the ques-
tion as immaterial and as not proper
redirect examination.
A. My judgment was that if we discharge the
sewage directly by the 15-inch pipe into the ravine
that in that case solid matter would be discharged
which would become a nuisance and I interposed
the tank to get rid of the solids as it had been a suc-
cess at Altenheim.
R-d-Q. 116. How did you expect to get rid of the
solids by the use of that tank?
Same objection.
A. Mr. MacHarg had explained to me previous
to the adoption of the system at Altenhelm that the
Solid matter would be consumed at the first tank
and that the 'iquid could be pumped away, and in
this case at Peru it flowed away on its own gray.
ity.
607
HENRY W. EIILL.
Complainant’s counsel further objects to
the answer as being hearsay and incom-
petent.
R. d-Q. 117. What was the character of the efflu-
ent from 1 hat tank at Peru—was it clear or roily?
A. It was roily.
R-(1-(). 118. In that tank did the discharge spout
permit full aeration by discharging into the ravine?
A. It was open, perfectly open, 15 inches in dia-
meter at the one end and 12 inches at the top SO a
circulation of air could take place through the
tank.
IR-d-Q. 119. But what I mean is, was the effluent
subjected to aeration after leaving the tank? A.
Yes it was open to the air. •
R-d-Q. 120. Was there any odor from the mois-
ture of that tank when you saw it within the last
few months? A. Not perceptible.
R-d-Q. 121. How about the odor the first time
you saw the tank in operation? A. I do not re-
member.
R-d-Q. 122. What did you say was the fall of
that ravine from the tank to the river? A. About
120 feet. The distance must have been at least 2500
feet if not more.
R-d-Q. 123. Was the manhole you have referred
to in c. linection covered with earth or not? A.
Yes, it was covered with earth.
R-d-Q. 124. Was there any vent on the receiving
of that Peru tank? A. The 15-inch pipe in itself
would make a first-class ventilator for that part of
the tank, as it is directly open to the air by means
of the different conductor pipes, and there was no
other vent but that pipe.
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
608
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
HENRY W. H.ILL.
Recross examination by Mr. Fisher, without
waiving Chjections heretofore noted.
R-XQ. 125. Will you please state more exactly
than you have done just how the receiving section
of the Peru tank was separated from the discharge
section? A. It was separated by means of a trap
partition and an overflow dam.
R-XQ. 126. At the time you installed the tank at
the Benedictine college, at Peru, was it not your
understanding that the sewage entering the tank
would be churned up or agitated, and hence would
pass away with the liquid from the discharge end
of the Lank? A. Yes, I think that with heavy rains
‘hat part of the solid matter would dissolve into
minute bodies and pass away with the liquid. I
have no knowledge of it, however, but guess so.
R-XQ, 127. And was it not your understanding
as the result of your talk with Mr. MacHarg prev-
ious to the installation of the Altenheim tank that
Such would be the action in that tank at Altenheim?
A. At Altenheim the rain water did not flow into
it.
R-XQ. 128. But did not you understand it with
respect to the Altenheim tank that the incoming
sewage at the receiving end of the tank would be
Churned up or agitated so that solid matter would
be broken up into such exceedingly small particles
that it couid be pumped away with the liquid from
the discharge section of the tank? A. No I did
Lot understand it that way when we were building
it. I understood that the time would come when
the solid matter would gather and would be taken
Out at the manhole for that purpose in the tank.
I never believed that all the solid matter would be
609
EIENRY W. EIILL.
thorough.ly dissolved. That was at the time we in-
stalled the tank at Altenheim.
R-XQ. 129. But you understood by the state-
ment which you say Mr. MacHarg made to you
previous to the adoption of the system at Alten-
heim that the solid matter would be consumed (as
mentioned in your answer to R-d-Q 116), that the
solid matter entering the receiving end of the tank
would be churned up or macerated so that part of
it would settle in the receiving tank to be subse-
quently removed while the remainder in suspended
condition would pass into the discharge end of the
tank from which it could be pumped. Is that cor-
rect? A. Yes, it is correct.
R-XQ. 130. Was the partition that extended
upward from the bottom of the Peru tank as high
or higher than the outlet opening of that tank? A.
It was about at the same level.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Banning.
R-d Q. 131. Referring to your answer to R-XQ.
129, did you understand from Mr. MacBarg’s state-
inent that there was any churning or agſtation of
the solid matter entering the receiving end of the
Altenheim tank or that the solid matter was dis-
solved by the natural action of the liquid itself or
things contained therein?
The question is objected to as leading.
A. I don’t remember that the word “churning”
was used, but I remember that Mr. MacHarg ex-
plained that the solid matter would be dissolved
by the liquid as the liquid of course comes in in
much larger quantities than the solid matter, but I
also understood that it might happen that the
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
610
3045
3046
3047
3048
HENRY W. HILL.
Solids would have to be removed from time to time.
I understood it so at that time.
R-d-Q. 132. Do you mean that you understood
from Mr. MacFIarg that in practical work a large
portion of the solids would be gotten rid of by being
held in the same tank with the liquid, but that you
do not remember exactly how he explained they
were to be gotten rid of?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, that is right.
Recross examination by Mr. Fisher.
R-XQ. 133. And that was the idea that you
wanted to convey by your answer to R-d-Q. 116
where you stated that Mr. MacHarg explained
“that the solid matter would be consumed at the
first tank,” is that correct. A. Yes, sir.
EIENEY W. EIILL.
Adjourned till Thursday, August 31, 1905, at 10
O’clock A. M.
3049
611
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Thursday, August 31, 1905, ten o’clock A. M.;
met pursuant to adjournment; present at before.
Benezette Williams, a witness produced, sworn
and examined on the part of defendants, deposes
and testifies as follows, in answer to questions by
Mr. Banning:
Q. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occu-
pation? A. Benezette Williams, 60 years old;
residence, Western Springs, Illinois; office, 153
La Salle Street, Chicago; occupation, civil engi-
Iſleeſ.
Q. 2. Please state what experience you have
had as an engineer, particularly in the line of sani-
tary work? A. My greatest experience has been in
the line of hydraulic work in a general way, and
which has embraced as a matter of fact a good deal
of sanitary work, that is the sewerage and sewage
disposal for cities and towns, as well as private
house drainage. I graduated at the University of
Michigan in 1869. I began my first employment in
sewerage work in 1872, in the City of Chicago, and
for the City of Chicago. I have been employed in
sewerage work in almost all of what were once the
surrounding towns of Chicago, as Lake View,
Hyde Park, Town of Lake, Village of La Grange,
Western Springs, and I designed and practically
superintended the construction of the sewerage
system of the Town of Pullman, which involved a
pumping plant and land disposal of the sewage. I
have also designed sewerage systems for many
cities throughout the country— Saginaw, La- Cros-
se, Wisconsin; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Decatur, Illi-
nois; Marion, Indiana; Seattle, Washington; what
was Fair Haven, Washington, now a part of Bel-
3050
8051
3052
3053
3054
612
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
lingham, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and probably a
number of other places which I do not think of at
present. I was also employed after I left the regu-
lar service of the City of Chicago, in 1886, on the
commission for the sewage disposal of the City of
Chicago, of which Rudolph Hering was the chief
engineer; and I was subsequently chief engineer
of the sanitary district,
Q. 3. Have you examined and do you understand
the Cameron, Commin and Martin patent, No. 634,-
423, dated October 3, 1899, sued on in this cause,
and do you understand the apparatus and process
described and claimed therein? A. I have ex-
amined the patent referred to and I understand
its main features and method of sewage treatment
therein described.
Q. 4. Please state what particular methods of
sewage disposal you employed prior to 1897, and
particularly whether you had anything to do with
what is commonly spoken of as the Waring method,
the same being the method employed by Colonel
Waring and his associates? A. As applied to
, towns or cities, the only actual method of sewage
disposal which I had experience in prior to that
time consisted in discharge into water courses, or
bodies of water and land disposal ex-
cept that in connection with the main
drainage of Chicago, the commission made a study
of all known methods of sewage disposal. As ap-
plied to isolated houses, I have had experience with
one phase of land disposal known as sub-surface
irrigation, and in connection therewith became fa-
miliar with and employed the method developed by
Colonel George E. Waring, Jr., and others. I also
613
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
was familiar with, and employed in Pullman, what
was known as the Waring System of Sewerage, that
is a system in which the sewage is separated from
storm Water, or kept separate, and disposed of
without storm water.
Q. 5. Please describe the Waring system in de-
tail as used prior to 1897, with particular reference
to its bearing on the process and apparatus describ-
ed in the Cameron patent sued on in this cause. In
this connection you may also explain in detail any
Other process or apparatus of which you had per-
Sonal knowledge prior to 1897, and which you may
consider in any way material.
Complainant's counsel objects to the
question and any answer thereto So far as
such answer may relate to matters of de
fense not set up in defendants' answer;
and it is agreed that this objection may,
to avoid repetition, be understood as made
to any other questions and answers of
similar character.
A. Before describing the apparatus used as a
part of the system of sub-surface irrigation de-
veloped by Colonel Waring and others, it may be
well to observe that the principle or biological
method of sewage purification by means of the
work of bacteria which reduce or decompose the
Organic matter contained in sewage from one form
to another, was in a sense discovered through the
tentative work and experiments of Colonel Waring
and others. In order that the whole subject may
be presented consecutively in the manner in which
the development took place, and that the several
Steps leading up to the discovery and application
3060
3061
8062
3063
3064
614
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
of what is now termed “septic action ” may be
fully understood, and to show that the develop-
ment of the elements of septic sewage disposal was
made during the professional career of Colonel
Waring, mainly by himself, though with certain
inventions and applications of methods made by
others, I refer to the various writings of Colonel
Waring. The most complete historical record of
this development and the description of the meth-
ods used is to be found in such writings. It is suf-
ficient, however, to trace this development in
Colonel Waring’s principal work, “Sewage and
Land Drainage,” which was published in first
edition in 1889. This historical record contained
in the work referred to, shows that septic action
as it relates to sewage disposal was understood and
put into application with an apparatus which, in
its main features, is a counterpart of the Cameron
Septic Tank, some years prior to 1889, the date
of the publication of this work. It may be observ-
ed that not only was this method of sewage dis-
posal understood, so far as the results were con-
cerned, but that it was attributed to bacterial ac-
tion. This record shows that it was at first Sup-
posed that bacterial action would only take place
in the presence of oxygen, but it was discovered by
Colonel Waring in his experiments or in the ap-
plication of his methods that the suspended solids
of the sewage were decomposed in chambers from
which light and air were excluded, and which were
variously called by himself and others “grease
traps,” “settling basins,” or “intercepting cham-
bers.” To bring out the force of this statement,
a number of quotations will be made from the rec-
615
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
ord referred to, which are indicative of the gradual
growth or the step by step process by which he ar-
rived at his final conclusion or result. The follow-
ing quotation from page 15 of Sewerage and Land
Disposal, under the head of “Bacteria " is a recog-
nition of the fact that bacteria are the cause di-
rectly or indirectly of all organic decomposition.
“As the study of the micro-organisms has gone
on many of these notions have been shown to be
unfounded. It is still too early to speak positively
as with scientific accuracy on any department
of the subject, but enough is known to justify a
much less alarming view of the case. Indeed,
there can be no doubt that not only are bacteria
as a class beneficial and not hurtful, but that
their development and activity lies at the root
of all fertility of the soil and of the ability of
the earth to support vegetable and animal life.
It is not to be doubted that waste organic mat-
ter before it can again become food for plants
must be subjected to a process of disturbance
which, formerly supposed to be due to chemical
oxidation, is now known to be due to the action
of bacteria.”
In speaking generally of sewage disposal, on
page 233, Colonel Waring says:
“It is these processes which we must employ in
the successful destruction of all organic waste
other than such as is consumed by fire. They go
on in spite of us. We may delay them or conceal
them, or change the seat of their activity. We
may hasten them, or modify them, but we cannot
prevent them. Sooner or later by combustion,
by direct putrefaction or by indirect fermenta-
tion they will work their destructive end, bring-
ing all matter that has once lived again back to
the domain of life. The cycle is unceas1ng, and
according to our action concerning it, or accord-
ing to our neglect, will its influence be good or
bad. Thus far we are not quite sure how our
action should be guided.”
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
616
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Colonel Waring has the following to say, on
pages 235 and 236, with reference to the processes
Which occur in land purification of sewage mat-
ter:
,” “Precisely what change they undergo and in
what way is not fully determined, but we are
justified by investigations already made in ac-
cepting a theory which accounts for the remark-
able results with which we are familiar, and which
is in accordance with such knowledge as we now
possess. The engineers, chemists and biologists
who have made a study of the works at Genne-
Villiers show good reason for their belief that
the organic matter thus decomposed becomes
food for the bacteria of putrefaction and nitro-
faction, which are abundant in all soils contain-
ing organic matter, and to which the air has free
access. They believe that in a porous soil suit-
ably constituted and containing the impurities of
town Sewage, these bacteria multiply enormous-
ly, consuming the pabulum presented to them,
combining with it the oxygen in the air with
which the soil is pervaded, and reducing it en-
tirely to such organic compounds as constitute
the food of plants available for the uses of vege-
tation during the proper season and readily re-
moved in Solution by the water percolating
through the ground at all times. The complete
destruction of these wastes as organic matter is
effected before they are taken up by plants and
before they can be removed from their contact
with the soil by the water descending through it.
tº º tº As long ago as 1876 Pasteur in
his studies on fermentation indicated clearly the
difference between decomposition taking place
with full exposure to the air, and that going on
in liquids from which air was entirely or mainly
excluded. It is now well understood that the
bacterium termo on which we so largely depend
for the destruction of organic matter in sewage
is not active except in the presence of air. In
the experiments carried on in the laboratory of
617
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
the Surgeon General’s office in Washington it was
found that various specific germs planted in rows
on gelatine plates could be identified and studied
throughout their development so long as the
growth of the bacterium termo could be excluded,
but the germ of this taking root on the plate it
grew rapidly in all directions and seemed en-
tirely to destroy all of the specific cultures. The
inference therefore seems not unreasonable that
under suitable conditions of seeding, pabulum and
aeration as in the surface soil the processes of
putrefaction will destroy germs which, if exist-
ing beyond the reach of these processes, that is,
in a position where atmospheric air is excluded,
may remain unharmed and may retain their
power for mischief.”
On page 237, Colonel Waring quotes from a
paper by R. Warrington, read at the Montreal
meeting of British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science in 1884, as showing the then exist-
ing knowledge of bacterial reduction of organic
Compounds:
“Up to the year 1877 it was supposed that the
formation of nitrates from ammonia and from
Organic compounds containing nitrogen was the
result of atmospheric oxidation. The belief had
long existed and had been a favorite one with
Liebeg and his followers that the oxygen of the
air contained in the soil was condensed on the
surface of its particles, and was renewed by the
fresh access of air as rapidly as it was taken up
by the process of oxidation in which it was sup-
posed to be especially active. In the year named
Schloessing and Muntz showed that nitrofaction
as studied in the action of soils on sewage is due
to an organized ferment. Later experiments of
these chemists and of others have sustained this
theory. . . . . . . . The oxidation of the
nitrogenious organic matter of river water is still
spoken of by some as determined by mere con-
tact with atmospheric oxygen and the agitation
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
618
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
of the water with air as a certain means of effect-
ing oxidation; while by others the oxidation of
nitrogenous organic matter in a river is denied,
simply because free contact with air is not alone
sufficient to produce oxidation.”
Though there are hints of bacterial disintegra-
tion of the organic matter contained in sewage
taking place with and without the presence of
Oxygen in some of the foregoing quotations, it is
under the head of the Disposal of House Wastes,
and after having used for some time a grease trap
or intercepting chamber in connection with a flush
tank for sub-surface irrigation that full recog-
nition is made of the fact that bacteria act in clos-
ed besins from which light and air have been ex-
cluded. As bearing upon this statement, quota-
tions are made from pages 287, 288, 289 and 290 of
Sewerage and Land Drainage:
“Wherever there is a considerable amount of
land available, not too near occupied buildings,
the safest and best means of disposal is by Sub-
surface irrigation, being in a smaller way the
same system as is recommended in the chapter
on Sewage Disposal in the case of towns. Where
this means is adopted it is important to collect
the sewage in a vessel from which it may be in-
termittently discharged in volume sufficiently to
cover a considerable area of land. The ordinary
settling basin and flush tank described below ac-
complish this purpose in a satisfactory manner.
. . . . . This system originated, as far as
we know, with the Rev. Henry Moule, of Eng-
land, the inventor of the earth closet, who pub-
lished a description of its application in 1868.
He had found that the use of the earth closet was
objected to for the reason that it fails to provide
for the disposal of the liquid wastes of the house,
leaving it necessary that a cesspool or sewer
should be resorted to for this purpose, which
might as well be used in connection with water
619
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
closets. He tried the experiment of laying an
open jointed tile drain a few inches below the
surface of the ground along the foot of a trellis
covered with grape vines. The result was a vig-
orous growth and improved fruitage of the vines
and an inoffensive and inoccuous disposal of the
waste liquids.
A few years later Mr. Rogers Field made use
of the same system in connection with the drain-
age of houses at Leatherhead, Supplementing the
drain with a flush tank arranged to hold back
the flow until it became full, and then to dis-
charge it with one rush into the tile, effecting
thereby a long period of intermission during
which the Soil was exposed to aeration and con-
Sequently purification, avoiding the constant sat-
uration that a steady trickle from the house
drain would produce at the beginning of the
drain, and bringing its whole length into equal
requisition with each periodic outflow.
In this form the apparatus was somewhat ex-
tensively used in England and elsewhere. At my
own house in Newport, where about 200 feet of
absorption tiles performed their office satisfac-
torily for eleven years, I interposed a settling
basin of about 100 gallons capacity in the course
of the drain leading from the flush tank to the
absorption area. This held back coarser matters
and a large proportion of the grease. There was,
however, always some difficulty resulting from
the adhesion of grease to the outlet of the flush
tank requiring frequent cleansing of the siphon,
and later such a disturbance of the accumulated
matters in the settling basin has caused floccu-
lent and greasy particles to float forward and in
time to choke the drains. It became necessary
from time to time (three times in the eleven
years) to lift the whole series of tiles, and wash
them and replace them.
The next improvement was to place the settling
basin between the flush tank and the house serv-
ing as a grease trap protecting the siphon of the
flush tank against the gradual accretion of grease,
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094.
626
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
and leaving only a relatively clear liquid to be
discharged into the pipe. This was a great im-
provement and practically effected all that was
necessary where only the small flow of the
kitchen sink was to be taken care of. It was
found, however, when it became a question of
disposing of the entire waste of the house includ-
ing water closets, baths, etc., that the flow into
the Settling basin had at times sufficient force so
to disturb its deposits as to cause a considerable
amount of semi-solid matter to pass over into the
flush tank, leading in time to the obstruction of
tne drains. This has been remedied by construct-
ing in the settling basin a division wall at right
angles to the line of flow, and built to about the
height of the ordinary water level. This wall
dividing the basin into two chambers confines the
disturbance caused by the inflow to the first
chamber. The flow from this into the other cham-
ber being in a thin stream over the top of the
wall does not disturb the deposits and only the
liquid passes into the flush tank.
These developments of the system, simple
though they are, have been slowly worked out to
meet a succession of difficulties which have arisen
in practice. They have now had sufficiently long
application and sufficiently extensive trial to
make it prudent to assert the practical efficiency
of this method of disposal.
It is in fact a perfect system for the disposal
of liquid household wastes, practically and theo-
retically with a single limitation, namely, it still
involves the retention of a cesspool of inconsid-
erable size. It is impractical to allow the dis-
charge of kitchen and water closet matter, in-
cluding paper, to flow directly into the flush tank.
It would soon obstruct the siphon and so much
of it as is passed on into the drains would soon
obstruct these. It is imperative that such mat-
ters should be withheld until by maceration or
by decompisition they will pass on in solution or
in suspension in a liquid flow. In so far as de-
621
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
composition is necessary the settling basin is in
a less degree subject to the theoretical objections
that are made to the cesspool. It is, however, to
be considered that this settling basin which is
perfectly tight as to its walls is so small that the
volume of water passing through it takes up the
products of decomposition and carries them on to
the drains before they assume a condition at all
comparable to that of the permanent cesspool. It
is found practicable that the arrangement is in-
offensive and safe. . . . . . . . . . It
has been a matter of surprise to all that have had
experience with this system that the most severe
frost seems to have no effect upon its working. In
my own ground, where the absorption drains
were five feet apart, the ground between them
has been frozen to a depth of three and one-half
feet, yet the warmth of the sewage was always
Sufficient to secure its entrance into the soil.
It may be worth, while to say a further word
concerning the atmosphere of the settling cham-
ber, which is in a certain sense a permanent cess-
pool. This air cannot fail to be made foul by the
decomposition of the sewage there retained, but
the frequent renewal of the Small volume of sew-
age reduces this difficulty to the minimum. It is
desirable to remove the deposits of the settling
chamber from time to time, as observation may
show to be necessary. No rule can be fixed as to
this. In some cases the decomposition is so com-
plete that the chamber never accumulates much
deposit. In others it should be cleaned out
monthly. The proper relation between size of
chamber, amount of water discharged and pro-
portion of foreign matter in the water cannot be
fixed in the present state of experience with the
apparatus.”
On page 291 is shown the settling chamber, flush
tank, siphon outlet and absorption field, which will
be described more fully in another place.
On page 292 is the following statement as to the
places where the sub-surface irrigation system has
been put to use:
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
622
3105
3106
3107
3.108
3109
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
‘‘I introduced this system for the disposal of
the entire sewage of the village of Lennox, Mas-
Sachusetts, about 1876. It worked well from the
Start, Save for one or two cases of gross neglect,
and has continued in use up to the present time.
During the past three or four years it has been
greatly overtaxed. What was intended for a pop-
ulation of 1200 has been made to serve the needs
of two or three times that population with a
greatly increased water supply. Works have re-
cently been constructed to carry a large part of
the sewage of the village in another direction for
disposal by sub-surface irrigation, but the old
field will be retained permanently to serve the
western slope of the village. I constructed the
same system for the disposal of sewage at the
Woman’s Prison, at Sherbourn, Massachusetts, in
1879. The area available was small and the soil
was not especially suitable. But in spite of this
the disposal and purification have been effected
and satisfactory, at least up to 1887, since which
I have had no information concerning it. The
same system constructed for the disposal of the
sewage of the hotel at Bryn Mar, Pennsylvania,
was entirely successful from the date of its con-
struction in 1881. until the hotel was burned
five or six years later. I should not hesitate to
adopt this system wherever needed for an insti-
tution or even a village of considerable size.”
A better description and explanation of the pro-
cess of sub-surface sewage disposal was made by
Colonel Waring in a paper on House Drainage,
published in Pepper's System of Practical Medi-
cine, Lea Brothers & Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in 1884, and re-published in Sewer-
age and Land Drainage, pages 294 to 303. The
following quotations are from pages 302 and 303:
“The process in its best development, as ap-
plied to the drainage of single houses, may be
thus described, many of the appliances used being
the subject of patents. 'The outflow from the
623
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
house is delivered into a settling basin or grease
trap of sufficient size to still the flow to cause
solids to Settle to the bottom and grease and other
light matters to float at the top. The outlet from
this basin is through a pipe having its inlet at
some distance below its overflow point, that is,
at the level of the comparatively clarified liquid
below the grease and above the sediment. The
outflow passes into another vessel known as the
flush tank where it accumulates until it reaches
the summit of a self-acting siphon. This height
being reached any considerable additions to the
flow sets the siphon in action, and the whole con-
tents of the flush tank are discharged with ra-
pidity into the drain beyond. The discharge com-
pleted, air is automatically admitted to the siphon
and no farther flow can take place until the flush
tank has again been filled. The drain of iron or
vitrified pipe tightly jointed is continued to the
edge of the ground upward for purification. It
here delivers into a series of open-jointed agri-
cultural tiles laid with their bottoms not more
than ten inches below the surface of the ground.
The total length of these tile drains is regulated
according to the discharge of the siphon of the
flush tank with a view to their becoming entirely
filled at each discharge. Within a short time
after the flow has ceased the liquid has left all
the pipes and entered the soil, its impurities be-
ing retained and its filtered water settling away
into the porous or artificially drained ground be-
low. During the interval between the discharges
of the flush, tank, a day or more, the process of
purification (oxidation) of the retained impuri-
ties goes on in the soil, and its thorough aeration
prepares it to purify the exit discharge. This
method of disposal is now employed in connec-
tion with hundreds of houses and its use, which
has in some cases continued for a dozen years is
constantly increasing. . . . . . . .
For an intermittent discharge some form of
flush tank is an absolute necessity. It is often
found in practice where the flow of sewage from
3110
31.11
3112
31.13
3114
624
31.15
31.16
3117
31.18
3119
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
the house is considerable that the discharge of
the house drain into the settling basin produces
Such an agitation of its contents as to set in mo-
tion and carry into the flush tank bits of paper
partly macerated, grease, etc. This has been met
by recent improvement which consists in build-
ing a transverse wall in the settling basin which
checks the current from the house drain and
causes the flow from the house side of the wall to
pass over its top in a thin, Small current which
does not materially agitate the contents of that
part of the basin from which the overflow pipe
is fed.”
The process of sub-surface irrigation finally de-
veloped by the successive labors of the Rev. Henry
Moule, Rogers Field and Colonel Waring, who pat-
ented the settling basin between the flush tank and
the house was finally taken up about 1887 by Flush-
Tank Company of Chicago that was organized by
Colonel Waring, myself and others, and of which
I was president, as one branch of the business in
which the company was engaged. This published
two catalogues each of which showed and describ-
ed the structures and apparatus used for the pur-
pose. I have no copy of the first catalogue. The
second and the last one, however, was published by
the company January 1st, 1892. The design of the
intercepting chamber, flush-tank, and siphon shown
on page 24 of the catalogue was made by myself
and the description accompanying it was written,
or at least revised by me. The action which was be-
lieved to take place in the intercepting chamber
which is the analogue of the “septic tank” was
thus described, pages 24 and 25 of the catalogue:
“The sewage is allowed to flow into the inter-
cepting chamber where the solid matter is held
until by decomposition it is so thoroughly mac-
625
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
erated that it will pass off in solution or into the
form of Small particles in suspension with the
liquid. It has been found that unless the par-
tition wall in the intercepting chamber is used the
disturbing effect of the inflow from the sewer is
Sufficient to cause considerable solid matter to
reach the flush tank, and hence the drains. This
wall confines the disturbance to the first part of
the chamber. The flow over the wall, being a
thin stream, does not seriously disturb the de-
posits and only what is mainly liquid passes into
the flush-tank. For the flush-tank a modifica-
tion of the Rhoads-Williams siphon is used which
will not need explanation here, as it is more fully
described under the appropriate heads in previ-
Ous pages. The system of intermittent sub-sur-
face irrigation as here described has been suc-
cessfully applied, not only to numerous country
houses, but hotels, prisons, and even villages are
using it with satisfaction. It is practically and
theoretically a perfect system for disposing of
household wastes except that it involves the re-
tention of a cesspool of limited size which the in-
tercepting chamber amounts to in effect. By
ventilation the air of this chamber is far less foul
than that of the ordinary cesspool, and as it is
water tight the unpurified sewage is not allowed
to find its way into the sub-soil. Deposits should
Occasiosally be removed from this chamber,
though, in Some cases the decomposition is so com-
plete that it does not accumulate much deposit.”
During the time that the business of the Flush-
Tank Company was conducted under my manage-
ment from about the year 1887 to 1894 or '5, the
company manufactured the siphons for and fur-
nished plans for building a great number of flush
tanks with the intercepting chambers for systems
for sub-surface irrigation. I did not attend to the
direct superintendence of much of this work, and
cannot now state from memory a great many places
in which they were built. I call to mind, however,
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
62%;
3125
3126
31.27
3128
3129
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
one at Blain Lodge, on the north
Shore of Lake Michigan another one
which I gave personal attention to,
and the Only one I gave personal attention to was
built at Clarendon Hills, or West Hinsdale, Illi-
nois, for George M. Bogue. These siphons for sub-
surface irrigation and the plans as shown in the
catalogue were shipped and sold all over the coun.
try.
The complete apparatus in all its parts for sep.
tic sewage purification as set forth in the Camer-
On patent, consists in their order, of a sewer or
drain discharging into a settling tank which is con-
nected with what is known as the septic tank in
which the heavier solids go to the bottom and the
lighter float to the top. From this tank the sew-
age is drawn off through an outlet disposed above
the bottom of the tank and below the surface of the
Sewage, which said outlet consists of a slotted
Opening extending the greater part of the way
across the tank. This outlet leads into a basin ill
which are placed aerating weirs or overflow dams
designed to prepare the sewage for its final reduc-
tion by the aid of aerobic bacteria. The anaerobic
bacteria having done their work in the septic tank.
The apparatus developed by Colonel Waring and
others as finally shown and described on page 291
of Sewerage and Land Drainage, and page 24 of
Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue consists of a
sewer or drain discharging into a basin which is
divided into two parts and is termed the intercept-
ing chamber, the first part being analogous to the
settling tank of the Cameron patent, and the two
parts together being the complete analogue of the
627
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
combined settling tank and septic tank of the Cam-
eron patent. The outlet from the intercepting
chamber or septic tank, as it might well be called,
is disposed above the bottom of the chamber and
below the surface of the sewage, the only difference
between the two apparatus thus far being, that the
outlet of the Cameron septic tank is made with a
long slotted opening, while the other one is made
as shown in the plain with a round pipe elbow turn-
ed down into the liquid. These elements comprise
really all that are essential to the septic tank as a
sewage purifying apparatus. After the sewage
leaves the outlet, the question of aeration is a
mere matter of method in detail. The Cameron
patent shows a succession of Overflow weirs. The
sub-soil method of sewage disposal by means of
the flush-tank developed by Colonel Waring and
others, accomplishes a thorough aeration by the
flow of the sewage from the outlet of the inter-
cepting chamber (septic tank) into the flush-tank
which is accomplished by a direct fall ranging
from the total depth of the flush tank to zero. This
is the first aeration. A second one is accomplished
when the automatic siphon begins to overflow. The
air is for a time drawn in with the liquid and
passes off with it. The third aeration is accom-
plished most completely in the sub-surface ab-
sorption drains the sewage flows through the drains
which consists of a wide ramifying system. The
fourth ‘aeration is accomplished as the Sewage
passes out through the drains into the soil and as
it percolates through the soil itself.
Considering the process part of the Cameron
patent in comparison to the action that takes place
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
628
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
in the Waring apparatus, it may be said that each
liquifies the solid matter of the contained sewage
by the exclusion of light, air and the minimization
of agitation, and by the action of anaerobic bac-
teria which works advantageously under such con-
ditions.
Adjournment is here taken until to-morrow,
Friday, September 1st, 1905, at ten o’clock.
Friday, Sept. 1, 1905; met pursuant to adjourn-
ment; present as before.
Q. 6. As I understand it, the Flush Tank Com-
pany, of which you were president, was organized
for the purpose of constructing and illstalling ap-
paratus for sewage disposal and for flushing Sew-
el's, and especially, so far as sewage disposal Was
concerned, for the purpose of constructing and in-
stal, ºng the Waring apparatus described in your
answer to question 5. Is this correct? A. Flush-
Tank Company was organized for the purposes
which you have named.
Q. 7. When was that company organized, where
and liow long was it in business, and in how many
instances did it apply the Waring apparatus for
sewage disposal? A. It was organizeuſ under the
laws of the State of Illinois, during the year 1887,
as I now remember. The business of the company
was transacted in Chicago, and the company had
a manufacturing establishment here for several
years. The company continued in business under
the original organization until 1894 or 5, when the
st "k of the company was bought by others who
conducted the business for a few years, and it was
finally sold to Walcott, Hurlbut & Company of
Chicago, and has passed into the hands of Mr. Mil-
629
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
lor who is now advertising certain parts of the
apparatus originally manufactured by the com-
pany. As before stated, I cannot give the number
of instances in which we applied the Waring ap-
paratus. I only know that we sold a large number
( ſ the siphons used for the flush-tank in sub-SOſ)
irrigation as shown on page 24 of the company’s
Calaic gue and with which the company furnished
plans of the type shown. In most instances these
were shipped to a distance from One coast of the
Country to another, and were set by the purchasers.
In some instances near Chicago the superintendent
of the company would give personal attention to
placing them. In one instance I gave personal at-
tention, namely at the residence of George M.
Bogue, at Clarendon Hills, or West Hinsdale, at
Which place I advised him with reference to sewer-
ing his premises and in reference to laying out the
system of sub-surface irrigation in his meadow.
Q. 8. As ordinarily constructed and used, how
large W as the Waring apparatus, and so far as you
know, how many people did it serve in any given
case: A. Whenever an order was recerved by the
Company for furnishing the apparatus in any par-
ticular instance information would be obtained as
to the probable amount of sewage which would
bave to be dealt with, and the capacity of the flush-
tank and the intercepting chamber, and the length
of Sub-soil drains, would be determined with such
information at hand. The capacity of the flush
tanks was never made less than 500 gallons, and in
some instances a thousand and more. The capacity
of the intercepting chamber was generally slightly
less than the flush-tank, but in ordinary cases it
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
630
3145
3.146
3147
3148
3149
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
had sufficient capacity to retain the sewage an aver-
age of from twelve to twenty-four hours. The num-
ber of people which it would serve was dependent
upoli the establishment for which it was supplied,
The capacity of the flush tank was inveſided to be
sufficient to store the liquid portions of the sewage
for about two days. The catalogue of Flush-Tank
( 10pany makes the statement on page 25 that for
a family using water with ordinary freedom a flush-
tank capacity of 50 gallons for each person would
suffice.
Q. 9. Please look at this patent No. 223,826,
issued to George E. Waring, Jr., January 27, 1880.
and state what you know in reference to the appar-
atus described and shown therein? A. 'The patent
referred to was one obtained by Colonel Waring in
the course of his work of installing systems of sub-
surface irrigation. The first application made by
Rogers Field and himself of a flush-tank In connec-
tion with sub-surface irrigation was by admitting
the sew age direct to the flush-tank. It was found
that this gave trouble, that grease, particularly,
Would adhere to the siphon and finally choke it up.
To meet this difficulty Colonel Warring devised
the apparatus shown in said patent No. 223,826,
which consisted at that time of a tank, A, placed be.
tween the flush-tank and the source of sewage. This
tank as originally designed and as shown in said
patent consisted of one chamber only with an inlet
for the sewage and an outlet, the outlet being so
Constructed that it withdrew the sewage at a point
above the bottom of the tank and below the surface
of the sewage. This outlet led to the flush-tank as
before described. This was the first step made by
631
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Colonel Waring after the application of the flush-
tank itself to sub-surface irrigation. On putting
this apparatus into use it was found that there was
still too much disturbance in the liquid contained
in the grease trap, and that grease, before decom-
position had taken place, would find its way to the
outlet. To avoid this, Colonel Waring added a
transverse wall to the grease trap, and the com-
bined apparatus was finally developed into the
type shown on page 24 of our Flush-Tank Com-
pany’s catalogue and on page 291 of Sewerage and
Land Drainage. After being put into this shape it
was found that not only would it retain the grease
until it was disintegrated and dissolved so that it
would pass off through the flush-tank without diffi-
culty, but it was also found that other carbonace-
ous matter, such as rags, and paper, would be de-
composed in the basin—in other words, that the
action of the true septic tank was established.
These results were observed between the time that
the said patent was issued in January, namely,
January 27, 1880, and the time that Flush-Tank
{}ompany was organized prior to or about 1887.
Counsel for defendants offers in evidence
letters patent of the United States, No.
223,826, issued to George E. Waring, Jr.,
January 27, 1880, for improvement in
Flush Tank; and the same is marked
Defendants Exhibit Waring Patent No.
223,826.
Q. 10. The catalogue of the Flush-Tank Com-
pany which you have been referring to is a du-
plicate of the one offered in evidence in connec-
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
632
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
|BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
tion with Mr. Snow’s deposition as “Defendants’
Exhibit Catalogue of Flush-Tank Company, Chi-
cago.” I now ask you to state when and where
Such catalogue was issued, how many editions
Were issued, how many numbers in each edition,
how extensive the Sanle were circulated, and gen-
erally any facts or circumstances within your
knowledge relating to their circulation or use
prior to 1897. A. There was but one edition
of the specific catalogue referred to issued, dated
January 1, 1892. Flush-Tank Company, how-
ever, issued its first catalogue in March, 1889.
The first catalogue contained the most of the Sev-
eral apparatuses shown in the Second. It was
Somewhat different in form, but contained all the
essentials of the apparatus which the company
was manufacturing and selling at that time. Each
of these catalogues were issued to the amount
of a few thousand and were circulated widely to
cities and engineers engaged in Sanitary work
and possible users of any of the apparatus made
by the company. The business of the company
extended from the extreme New England States
to California. Many of Its siphons were sold in
the Pacific Coast States, and mány as far east
at least as New Hampshire. The list of testimo-
mials given in the catalogue of 1892 following
page 26 said catalogue will give some idea of
the widespread range of the company’s business
that existed prior to 1891. A few of the cities
from which testimonials were obtained are as fol-
lows: Leavenworth, Kansas; Omaha, Nebraska;
Pueblo, Colorado; Escanaba, Michigan; Canton,
Ohio; Beatrice, Nebraska; Willimantic, Con-
633
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
necticut; Kansas City, Missouri: Kearney, Ne-
braska; Massillon, Ohio; New Castle, Pennsyl-
vania; Gadsden, Alabama; Youngstown, Ohio;
Atchison, Kansas; Toronto, Canada; Pensacola,
Florida; Fair Haven, Washington; Clinton, Mis-
souri; Great Falls, Montana; Winston, North
Carolina; Butler, Pennsylvania; Jackson, Ten-
nessee; Natches, Mississippi; Little Rock Ar-
kansas; East Liverpool, Ohio; West New Brigh-
ton, Staten Island; Helena, Montana; Amster-
dam, New York; Keene, New Hampshire; Denni-
Son, Texas; Atlantic City, New Jersey. It also
contains a testimonial from Charles Paine & Son,
New York, with reference to the use of sub-soil
irrigation apparatus which they had installed in
accordance with the company’s plans.
I would also add that Flush-Tank Company
had manufacturing arrangements with the firm
of Gladding, McBean & Uompany, of San Fran-
cisco, California, who manufactured the com-
pany’s apparatus and sold them throughout the
Pacific Coast.
Q. 11. Please compale the construction and
operation of the Waring apparatus described in
your foregoing answer with the construction and
operation of the septic tank described in patent
No. 634,423, sued on in this cause, and state
wherein they are similar to or different from each
other, limiting your comparison to claims 1 to
8, inclusive, 11 and 12, inclusive, and 20 to 22,
inclusive of said patent. A. In the latter part
of my answer to question No. 5 I made a com-
parison of the analogies and differences exist-
ing between the entire apparatus described by
3160
3161
3.162
31.63
3164
634
31.65
3166
3167
31.68
3169
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Cameron in his patent and the entire sub-soil ir-
rigation apparatus described by Colonel Waring
in Sewerage and Land Drainage, page 291, and
in Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue, page 24.
Taking the claims named by your question and
Set forth in the Cameron patent, I trace the an-
alogies and differences between the process and
apparatus described in said Cameron patent and
the same for the Waring system of sub-soil sew-
age disposal, as follows, claim by claim:
Claim 1 of the Cameron patent is a process
claim, which consists in subjecting the sewage
under exclusion of air, of light and of agitation,
to the action of anaerobic bacteria, until the
whole mass of solid organic matter contained
therein becomes liquified, and then subjecting
the liquid effluent to air and light. In the War-
ing process of sub-soil sewage disposal with the
apparatus sold and installed by Flush-Tank Com-
pany, the sewage was subjected to the action of
anaerobic bacteria in the intercepting chamber
from which air, light and agitation were exclud-
ed, the liquid part of the sewage being retained
for twelve to twenty-four or more hours, and the
Solid parts indefinitely until liquefied or mac-
erated. The liquid, on passing into the flush-
tank and through the siphon and drain to the soil,
was thoroughly aerafed, but not in the presence
of light. The only difference in the two processes
as set forth by claim 1 of the Cameron patent
was that the Cameron claim requires light as a
part of the final process, while the sub-surface
Sewage disposal process was completed without
light.
63.5
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Claim 2 of the Cameron patent is also a pro-
cess claim, which is merely a restatement of the
process of claim 1 in different language, except
that it includes the action of cultivating the mi-
cro-organisms which dissolve the Sewage and
says nothing with reference to the final purifica-
tion of sewage after it has left the septic tank.
Claim 1, however, would necessarily embrace the
cultivation of micro-organisms, otherwise the
Sewage would not be subjected to anaerobic bac-
teria. Comparing claim 2 with the Waring Sys-
tem of sub-soil sewage disposal I find no differ-
ence in the two processes, each process being cut
short at the outlet of the septic tank or the inter-
cepting chamber.
Claim 3 of the Cameron patent is also a pro-
cess claim, and is identical with claim 2 except
that after the sewage has been subjected to the
dissolving and liquefying organisms in the Sep-
tic tank it is subjected to an aerating operation
after leaving the said tank. This process is
identical with what takes place in the Waring
sub-soil sewage disposal apparatus as sold and
installed by Flush-Tank Company.
Claim 4 of the Cameron patent, another pro-
cess claim, is identical with claim 3, except that
the septic sewage, after being aerated, is Sub-
jected to a filtering operation. In the Waring
sub-soil sewage disposal process the Septic Sew-
age is also subjected to a filtering operation as
it passes into and through the soil from the dis-
tributing drains. I, hence, find that the process
set forth in claim 4 is identical with the process
followed by the Waring sub-soil sewage disposal
method.
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
636
31.75
3176
3177
31.78
3179
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Claim 5 of the Cameron patent covers an ap-
paratus for the purification of sewage which con-
sists of the combination of a septic tank having
an outlet disposed above the bottom and below
the normal water level of the tank and open
across the greater part of the width thereof, and
an aerator connected with said outlet. The War-
ing apparatus for sub-soil sewage disposal also
consists of a septic tank called an intercepting
chamber with an outlet disposed above the bot-
tom and below the normal water level of the
tank, but it is not open across the greater part
of the width thereof, the opening being a cylindri-
cal one through an elbow turned down into the
tank. It also has adjuncts which serve as aera-
tors consisting of the flush-tank in which the Sep-
tic sewage falls from the outlet to the level of
the water or sewage in the flush-tank, and of an
automatic siphon by means of which a second
aeration takes place as the sewage flows through
the siphon, then of a system of open jointed dis-
tributing drains through which the sewage flows
in varying quantities and velocities and in which
a third aeration takes place, a fourth aeration
occurring as the sewage passes through the open
joints of the distributing pipes into and through
the soil. I, therefore, find that in all essential
particulars the Waring sub-soil disposal ap-
paratus consists in the combination of a septic
tank having an outlet disposed above the bottom
and below the normal water level of the tank,
and three mechanical adjuncts each of which
serves as an aerator, and is, hence, in all essen-
tial particulars identical with the apparatus de-
scribed in claim 5 of the Cameron patent.
637
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Claim 6 of the Cameron patent covers an ap-
paratus for purifying sewage, which combines
a drain or sewer, a settling tank connected there-
with, and adapted to receive the contents thereof,
a septic tank connected with said settling tank,
and provided with an outlet disposed above the
bottom and below the normal water level of the
tank and open across the greater part of the
width thereof. The Waring apparatus for sub-
Soil sewage disposal consists of a combination
of a drain or sewer, a receiving chamber formed
by a partition built transversely across the in-
tercepting chamber, and which acts as a settling
tank for the Solid matter which is so heavy as to
be deposited, and which is adapted to receive
the contents of the sewer, and a so-called inter-
cepting chamber which performs the functions
of a septic tank, the second chamber of which is
connected with the first chamber and is provided
with an outlet disposed above the bottom and
below the normal water level of the tank, but it
is not open across the greater part of the width
thereof. I, therefore, find that the apparatus de-
Scribed in claim 6 of the Cameron patent is iden-
tical with the Waring sub-soil sewage disposal
apparatus, part for part performing the same
function except as to the character of the out-
let.
Claim 7 of the Cameron patent covers the com-
bination of a septic tank and an outlet therefor
disposed above the bottom and below the normal
Water level thereof, said outlet comprising a
conduit having a longitudinal slot open across
the greater part of the width of the tank. The
3180
3181
3182
31.83
31.84
633
3.185
3186
31.87
3.188
31.89
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS,
Waring sub-soil sewage disposal apparatus con-
sists in the combination of an intercepting cham-
ber (septic tank) and an outlet therefor dis-
posed above the bottom and below the normal
Water level thereof, but it does not comprise a
conduit having a longitudinal slot open across
the greater part of the width of the tank. I
therefore find that the apparatus described in
claim 7 of the Cameron patent and the Waring
Sub-soil sewage disposal apparatus are identical,
except as to the character of the outlet.
Claim 8 of the Cameron patent is identical
with claim 7 except in the language used describ-
ing the apparatus, and the analogies and differ-
ences between the apparatuses described by
claim 8 and that of the Waring sub-soil sewage
disposal apparatus are the same as given under
claim 7.
Claim 11 of the Cameron patent covers the com-
bination of a septic tank, an inlet disposed above
the bottom of the tank and below the normal
water level thereof and occupying the greater
part of the width of said tank, and an outlet ex-
tending across the greater part of the width of
said tank and disposed above the bottom of the
tank and below the normal water level thereof;
and is identical with claim 7 except that it provides
for an inlet of the sewage below the surface and
above the bottom. The Waring sub-soil irrigation
apparatus consists of the combination of a septic
tank called an intercepting chamber an inlet dis-
posed above the bottom of the tank and below the
normal water level thereof and an outlet disposed
above the bottom of the tank and below the normal
639
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
water level thereof; but neither the inlet
nor the outlet occupy the greater part of
the width of said tank. I, therefore, find
that claim 11 of the Cameron patent de-
scribes an apparatus which is identical with
the Waring sub-soil sewage disposal apparatus
except as to the character of the inlet and the
outlet.
Claim 12 of the Cameron patent describes an
apparatus that differs only in an unimportant de-
tail of the outlet from that described by claim
11. Hence all remarks and conclusions made and
drawn under claim 11 apply to claim 12.
Claim 20 of the Cameron patent describes an
apparatus consisting of a combination of a sep-
tic tank, means for excluding air and light, a
non-disturbing inlet for said tank disposed be-
low the normal water level thereof and provided
with a broadened mouth, a non-disturbing outlet
for said tank disposed below the normal water
level thereof and provided with a broadened
mouth, and a sewage conduit connected with said
inlet. The Waring sub-soil sewage disposal ap-
paratus also consists of a septic tank called an
intercepting chamber, combined with means for
excluding air and light, a non-disturbing inlet
for said tank disposed below the normal water
level thereof, but not provided with a broadened
mouth, also with a non-disturbing outlet for said
tank disposed below the normal water level thereof,
but not provided with a broadened mouth, and a sew-
age conduit connected with said inlet. I, there-
fore, find that the apparatus described by claim
20 is identical with the Waring sub-soil sewage
3190
3.191
3.192
31.93
3.194
640
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
disposal apparatus except as relates to the shape of
the inlet and outlet.
Claim 21 of the Cameron patent is a process
claim, which consists of liquefying the solid mat-
ter contained in sewage by secluding a pool of
Sewage having a non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow from light, air and agitation until a thick
Scum is formed on the surface thereof, and a mass
of micro-organisms Eave been developed of a
character and quantity sufficient to liquify the
Solid matter of the flowing sewage, the inflow
Serving to sustain the micro-organisms and then
subjecting said pool under the cover of Said scum
and under a non-disturbing inflow and outflow to
the liquefying action of the so cultivated micro-
Organisms until the Solid matter contained in the
flowing sewage is dissolved. The process thus
described is covered fully by the process claims
1 to 4, inclusive, the only difference being in the
language used in describing the process, and all
the analogies and differences between the pro-
cess thus described and the process which occurs
with the Waring sub-soil sewage disposal ap-
paratus as noted under claims 1 to 4, inclusive,
exist in this case. I, therefore, find that claim 21
of the Cameron patent describes a process of Sew-
age liquefaction and disintegration identical with
that which takes place in the Waring sub-soil
Sewage disposal process.
Claim 22 of the Cameron patent covers an ap-
paratus consisting of the combination of a sep-
tic tank, means for excluding air and light, a
non-disturbing inlet for said tank disposed be-
low the normal water level thereof, a non-disturb-
641
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
ing outlet for said tank disposed below the nor-
mal water level thereof, and a sewage conduit
connected with said inlet. The Waring sub-soil
sewage disposal apparatus also consists of the
combination of a septic tank, called an intercept-
ing chamber, means for excluding light and air,
a non-disturbing inlet for said tank disposed be-
low the normal water level thereof, a non-disturb-
ing outlet for the said tank disposed below the
normal water level thereof, and a sewage conduit
connected with said inlet. I, therefore, find that
the apparatus described in claim 22 of the Cam-
eron patent is identical with the Waring sub-soil
sewage disposal apparatus
A comprehensive comparison between the pro-
cess of sewage purification described in the Cam-
eron patent claims 1 to 4, inclusive, and claim
21, and the process followed by the Waring sub-
Soil sewage disposal method shows that there are
no essential differences existing between them.
Each provides for the retention of the sewage in
a tank in substantially the same manner from
which light and air are excluded and in which
the liquefying and disintegrating process takes
place with the aid and through the instrumen-
tality of anaerobic bacteria as the main active
micro-organisms. Whatever changes will occur
in either case, or in the use of either process
through other instrumentalities than the anaero-
bic bacteria would be equally effective in each
of the described processes. It is true that in the
Cameron process mention is made of a final puri-
fication taking place by means of aeration and
in the light. As has been seen, both processes
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
642
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Supply thorough aeration. The final conclusion
of the process in the presence of light is no es-
Sential part of either process, the facts being that
final purification occurs in any method of purifi-
cation by reason of the activity of aerobic bac-
teria, which bacteria can operate and do operate
independently of the question of light, But even
as regards this it was apprehended that the oc-
casion might arise in which it would be prefer-
able to discharge the sewage onto the surface
of the ground rather than through sub-soil drains,
as will be seen on page 26 of Flush-Tank Com-
pany’s catalogue, which, says:
“In cases where tilled land or a garden lies in
a proper position household wastes can be dis-
posed of with success by the use of the same or
a similar apparatus as that described for sub-sur-
face irrigation with the omission of the absorp-
tion tiles. If the main discharge pipe be carried
to the surface, the sewage may be allowed to
spread over the ground without offense or in-
jury.”
In view of these considerations with reference
to the final disposition and purification of the
Sewage, I find that even in the matter of the pres-
ence of light, there is no difference between the
two systems. The reference in the Cameron
claims to the final decomposition of the sewage
being completed in the presence of light is only
Suggestive, at least is no more substantial than
that contained in Flush-Tank Company’s cata-
logue above quoted, with reference to its dispo-
sition over the surface of the ground. This view
is farther substantiated by the fact that in the
apparatus claims of the Cameron patent no meth-
od of final purification is suggested that involves
643
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
a mechanical invention, the only reference being
to a filter as the final apparatus to be used,
which may or may not be the ground surface
upon which the sewage is discharged.
A comparison of the apparatus described by
the Cameron claims, 5 to 8 inclusive, 11 to 12 in-
clusive, and in 20 to 22, inclusive, with the War-
ing sub-soil sewage disposal apparatus, in their
general and essential features, shows that there
is no difference between the mechanical parts in-
volved except in slight matters of detail the omis-
Sion or retention of which cannot have any ma-
terial modifying effect. These matters of de-
tail in fact relate to the form of inlet and out-
let; to the manner of combining the settling basin
with the Septic tank, and to the mechanical
method of aerating the septic sewage as it leaves
the Septic tank. The long slotted inlet and out-
let described in the Cameron claims each sub-
merged below the Surface of the sewage and each
disposed above the bottom of the tank, which
operate to minimize the disturbance in the flow
of the liquid through the tank is fully met in
the effect produced by the cylindrical and sub-
merged inlet and outlet of the Waring apparatus
combined with the transverse partition dividing
the first part of the intercepting chamber or sep-
tic tank from the second. The Sewage in passing
from the inlet to the second part of the chamber
would spread fanlike through the chamber and
overflow in a thin sheet. It would thence con-
verge in a reverse course to the outlet, the non-
disturbing effect being fully equal to the effect
and use of the apparatus described in this Cam-
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
644
3215
3216
3217
3.218
3219
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
eron patent. The third matter of detail in which
there are varations relate wholly to the mechani-
cal means for aerating the sewage In the Cam-
eron apparatus it is a succession of weirs placed
one lower than another in the same basin or
channel over which the sewage flows one by one.
In the Waring sub-surface sewage disposal ap-
paratus it is a succession of mechanical methods
of dropping the sewage from one height to an-
other and of its flow in an irregular way through,
the distribution drains into the soil. I hence find
that there are no essential differences between
the apparatus described by the Cameron patent
and that used in Waring’s sub-surface sewage
disposal process, while the results accomplished
by the two apparatuses are analogous through-
out.
Q. 12. In addition to the language which you
have already quoted, do you find anything in the
Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue relating to the
effect of the Waring process upon the solids in
sewage? If so, please refer to the same or make
such quotations thereof as you consider necessary?
A. There is one paragraph on page 26, Flush-
Tank Company catalogue which had its proper
place with the quotation given as a part of the
historical record of the development of the sys-
tem under consideration, as showing the purposes
which were aimed at at the time that said cata-
logue was published and prior thereto. The para-
graph is as follows:
“This company owns patents covering not
only the various forms of flush-tanks used for in-
termittent sub-surface and surface irrigation as
described, but it also owns the patent of Colonel
645
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
George E. Waring, Jr., covering the use of a
grease trap or intercepting chamber between the
flush tank and the house to hold back the solid
matter until dissolved or macerated; and to use
a dividing wall in the intercepting chamber al-
lowing the liquid to flow in a thin sheet over its
top for the purpose of more fully detaining the
solid matter until sufficiently macerated.”
Adjourned until Tuesday, September 5, 1905,
at ten O’clock A. M.
Wednesday, September 20, 1905, ten o’clock A.
M. ; met pursuant to adjournment; present as be-
fore. t
For entries showing sessions since
September 5, see depositions of John W.
Alvord and others, post.
Cross-examination of Mr. Williams by Mr. Fish-
€I* :
XQ. 13. In your answer to Q. 4, you stated that
“As applied to towns or cities, the only actual
method of sewage disposal which I had experience
in prior to that time (1897), consisted in dis-
charge into water courses or bodies of water and
land disposal.” Did any of these systems for
towns or cities involve the use of sewage disposal
tanks? A. Not a tank of the character to which
you refer, as I take it. The system of sewerage at
Pullman had a receiving tank for the sewage of
the town from which the sewage was pumped to
an irrigation field, passing through a screening
chamber before being delivered to the land; and
also a system of sewerage at Aberdeen, South Da-
kota, where the sewage was collected in a reser-
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
646
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
voir or underground tank and pumped for a dis-
tance to a water course.
XQ. 14. In your answer to Q. 4, you also stated
“As applied to isolated houses, I have had ex-
perience with one phase of land disposal known
as sub-surface irrigation, and in connection there-
with became familiar with and employed the
method developed by Colonel George E. Waring,
Jr., and others.” Had you prior to 1898 had ex-
perience with any other system involving the use
of a sewage disposal tank besides that mentioned
in your answer to Q. 4. A. No, sir.
XQ. 15. Do you regard the system employed
by Colonel Waring and the tank illustrated in
Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue as the nearest
approximation in the prior art to the invention
set forth in the Cameron patent in suit? A. It
was the nearest approach to the Cameron Septic
tank with which I was personally connected in a
constructive way. I had knowledge of other appli-
cations of tanks of a septic character that may or
may not have been a nearer approach than this.
XQ. 16. Who were the officers of the Flush-
Tank Company at the time you were connected
with it; and who were and are the successors to
the Flush-Tank Company? A. The first board
of directors of Flush-Tank Company, which as I
now remember were not changed while I had to do
with the company, were Colonel Waring, Mr.
Theodore Sheldon, of Chicago, and myself. I was
elected president of the company and held the
office as long as the company was under the man-
agement of this board of directors. I do not now
remember who was the first secretary of the com-
647
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
pany. Whoever it was, it was nominal. Subse-
quently as the business of the company became
larger and the company manufactured its own ap-
paratus Mr. Charles Poore, was, I believe, made
secretary, and among other things, looked after
the filling of orders, and the manufacturing and
shipping of the goods. Mr. Pontes Carlson, of
Western Springs, Illinois, was, I think, foreman
of the shop for at least a time. The firm of E.
Baggott & Company manufactured the siphons for
a while before the company fitted up a shop. The
firm had a shop in connection with its house drain-
age and plumbing works. The superintendent of
Mr. Baggott’s shop is a man by the name of Ter-
rell. I do not remember his initials. The stock
of Flush-Tank Company was finally sold to W. N.
Wilson, who conducted the business a while in
Chicago, and removed it to Richmond, Indiana,
and he subsequently sold to Walcot, Hurlbut &
Company of Chicago. The conditions of the sale
and character I know nothing about.
XQ. 17. State the names of any person or per-
sons who superintended the installation of any
flush-tanks like that described in Flush-Tank Com-
pany catalogue? A. Mr. Charles Poore, whose
present address is, I think, Los Angles, California,
superintended some of the tanks put in in the vi-
cinity of Chicago. When an order was received for
the apparatus and plans from a distance he would
ship the apparatus and send directions in regard to
constructing the tanks, and to the best of my knowl-
edge, never visited the place where the construc-
tion was going on. Many of these orders came
through the Drainage Construction Company, of
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
648
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Newport, Rhode Island, which was a company Or.
ganized by Colonel Waring and others for the con-
struction of sewage plants; and when an order came
through them it was generally connected with Work
they had in hand and presumably they looked after
its installation.
XQ. 18. Did you inspect or supervise any tanks
of the Waring type or such as shown in the Flush-
Tank Company catalogue other than that at the
residence of Mr. Bogue, at West Hinsdale, Illinois?
A. Not of the exact Waring type, where there were
two basins involved. I am very familiar with tanks
into which sewage is run and held and drawn off
gradually, and where septic action takes place.
XQ. 19. Give the locations of all flush tank in-
stallations of the type set forth in Flush-Tank Com-
pany catalogue that you ever saw or of which you
are aware? A. I cannot state the location of any
except those already mentioned. The Order book
of Flush-Tank Company and all their records pass-
ed out of my hands when the stock of the company
was purchased and without such records I could not
name the places where tanks had been furnished.
XQ. 20. Do you remember the relative dimen-
sions of the basins or chambers of the tank at Mr.
Bogue's residence? A. My impression is they were
five feet in diameter and whether there was any dif-
ference between the flush tank and the intercepting
chamber I cannot tell; nor can I be sure of the di-
mensions of either. These dimensions were always
fixed with a view to the probable amount of sewage
produced at the houses where they were installed.
XQ. 21. Do you know where any flush tanks like
that shown on page 24 of Flush-Tank Company’s
649
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
catalogue are in use at the present time? A. I do
not. Since I ceased to have any connections with
Flush-Tank Company, my work has been in other
lines and I have not followed up that particular
phase of it, except in the sewerage of towns and
cities in some instances.
XQ. 22. In your answer to Q. 10. you have giv.
en a list of testimonials that are found at the back
of the Flush-Tank Company catalogue. Please
State which of these testimonials refer to siphons
Imerely, and which refer to flush-tanks, such as
illustrated on page 24 of the catalogue? A. The
last one signed by Charles Paine & Sons, refers to
a sub-soil irrigation system of which Flush-Tank
Company furnished the siphon and plans. The next
to the last one from Atlantic City, signed by Fred
P. Currie, also refers to a plant of that nature, I
think, for the reason that at that time we sold no
Field-Waring siphon except in connection with
Sub-surface irrigation, or some method of sewage
disposal, and the places where these are used would
indicate that they were isolated plants, one being
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and the other
the Chelsea Improvement Company. I think that
the testimonials aside from those which I have just
mentioned, refer to sewer flushing tanks and sip-
hons, and it is possible that the one from Atlantic
City refers to the same.
XQ. 23. Have you designed any sewage disposal
Systems involving the use of tanks since 1898, and
if so, of what character? A. Yes, sir, I designed
a Sewage disposal system which involved several
tanks for the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota, since
1898. It involved septic action; and it also involv-
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
650
3.245
3246
3247
3248
3249
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
ed the filtration and final purification of sewage
through a mechanically aerated filter.
XQ. 24. Please describe what kind of sewage
disposal system was in use at Aberdeen before you
installed there the septic system mentioned in your
last answer? A. The system mentioned in my last
answer has not been installed. The question was
whether I had designed it. Plans were submitted
something over a year ago, but the city has not yet
made its financial arrangements for carrying them
out, or at least they had not at the time of my last
information. The system now in use at Aberdeen
is what is known as a separate system of sewerage
discharging into an underground tank or well,
from which the sewage is pumped by a hydraulic
pump into a dry stream. This system was installed
by me about in 1888. The sewage went into a
stream that carried no natural flow for a large part
of the year and the stream bed itself became a sep-
tic tank with a thick heavy scum over the top of
the sewage and being not very far removed from
the town, putrefaction set up and became offensive.
It was and is the desire of the city to overcome the
difficulty.
XQ. 25. Will you please describe somewhat more
in detail the septic tank that you say you have
designed for the City of Aberdeen 2 A. The
first tank was cylindrical in horizontal sec-
tion, possibly about thirty feet in diame-
ter, although I cannot remember distinctly
not having looked up the plans for some
time. This tank consisted of two chambers, a cen-
tral chamber, into which the sewage first enters
and from which the sewage flows into the Outer
651
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
chamber, the depth of sewage in these chambers be-
ing about fourteen feet. From this outer chamber
of the flush tank, the Sewage passes to two twin
tanks of the same size as the first tank, each of
which tanks are divided into three chambers which
are filled with rubble stone through which by a
system of ducts underneath sewage is passed suc-
cessively from one to another and finally to an
aerating filter.
XQ. 26. Are you the Benezette Williams to
whom U. S. letters patent, No. 252,344, were issued
January 17, 1882? A. Yes, sir.
It is stipulated between counsel that an
uncertified copy of Williams patent, No.
252,344 may be used upon the hearing of
this cause with the same force and effect
as if it were formally introduced in evi-
dence.
XQ. 27. Have you published any descriptions
Or statements in regard to sewage disposal systems
in which tanks are employed? A. No, sir, except
as found in Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue.
XQ. 28. State in what way, if at all, you are di-
rectly or indirectly interested in the installation of
any sewage disposal system involving the use of
septic tanks and in what way you are recompensed
for your services in this case? A. I have no inter-
est in any company or any patent that has relation
remotely or otherwise to any system of sewage dis-
posal. My compensation in this case comes because
I was employed to give the history and description
of the Waring sub-surface disposal apparatus. I
understood from Mr. Alvord, who made arrange-
ment with me, that the Village of Saratoga
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
652
3255
3256
3257
3258
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
Springs and some others, none of whom I now re-
member, except the Allis-Chalmers Company, were
supplying the funds for the testimony in this case.
My understanding is that I am to receive some com-
pensation through Mr. Alvord.
BENEZETTE WILLIAMS.
32.59
653
JOHN W. ALWORD.
September 5, 1905; met pursuant to adjourn-
ment; present as before.
The further taking of Mr. Williams's testimony
is suspended to enable the examination of Mr. Al-
word, and perhaps other witnesses, whose depo-
sitions are to be inserted in the record immediate-
ly following Mr. Williams’ completed testimony.
John W. Alvord, a witness produced, sworn
and examined on the part of defendants, deposes
and testifies, as follows, in answer to questions by
Mr. Banning:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. My name is John Watson Alvord;
I am 44 years of age, and reside in the City of Chi-
cago, and am by profession a hydraulic and sani-
tary engineer.
Q. 2. Please state what experience you have had
as an engineer, particularly in sanitary work? A.
I have been engaged in sanitary work for a little
over twenty-five years, commencing with the con-
struction of the Hyde Park and Lake View stations
of the Chicago Water Works, also assisting in the
design and construction of the sewer systems of
Hyde Park and Lake View, now annexed to the
City of Chicago. From 1884 to 1888 I was City En-
gineer of Lake View, now annexed to Chicago, and
had charge of the operation of the Lake View Water
Works, and the design and construction of the Lake
View sewer system.
In 1888 I visited Europe and commenced my
study of the subject of sewage purification by an
examination of the sewage farms of Berlin and
Paris, and a visit to some eighteen or nineteen
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
654
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
JOHN W. ALWORD.
sewage purification plants in England. Since that
time I have been a very close student of the sub-
ject of sewage purification by careful examination
of sanitation literature. Only since 1898, however,
have I been actively engaged in designing sewage
purification plants, and the first plant which I con-
structed was built in that year.
I have designed sewer systems, however, for some
forty-five different municipalities, a large portion
of which are constructed and in successful opera-
tion. Since 1898 in the work of sewage purification
I have advised in the design of something like 30
sewage disposal plants of which twenty-five were
for municipalities and others for large institutions.
Of these designs about two-thirds have been con-
structed and are in operation. The largest prob-
lem I have been permitted to study was of the sew-
age disposal of the City of Columbus, Ohio,
amounting to about 20,000,000 gallons of flow, my
report on, which was published by the city in 1898.
Among other larger plants constructed by me are
those at Wauwautosa, Wisconsin; Lake Forest,
Illinois; Holland, Michigan; Danville, Kentucky;
Princeton, Illinois; Bluefield, West Virginia; Bed-
ford, Indiana and DeKalb, Illinois.
Aside from the above described work, I have had
some laboratory experience in chemistry and bac-
teriology and have written a number of papers on
the subject of sewage purification for scientific and
technical Societies.
Q. 3. Please state what societies you are con-
nected with, particularly scientific societies? A. I
am a member of the American Society of Civil En-
gineers, the Western Society of Civil Engineers,
655
JOHN W. ALWORD.
and the Illinois Society of Engineers and Survey-
ors. I am also a member of the American Public
Health Association, the American Society of Muni-
cipal Improvements, the American Water Works
Association, and the New England Water Works
Association.
Q. 4. Please state whether you have been ac-
customed in your work to examine patents, par-
ticularly patents relating to the sanitary art, and
whether your education and experience has been
such as to enable you to readily read and under-
stand patent specifications and drawings? A. I
have had some experience with patents and their in-
terpretation, and believe myself capable of reading
and understanding them.
Q. 5. Have you examined, and do you under-
stand the Cameron, Commin and Martin patent,
No. 634,423, dated October 3, 1899, sued on in this
cause, and do you understand the apparatus and
process described and claimed therein? A. I have
and do.
Q. 6. Please explain the art of sewage disposal
as it existed and was known prior to 1897, with
particular reference to its bearing on the appara-
tus and process described in said patent No. 634,-
423, sued on in this cause? A. The art of sewage
purification is a very old one in its practical appli-
cation, and we find even in the time of Moses that
it was commended that the Offal and excrement be
taken outside of the camp and burned.
As the art exists to-day, however, its real inter-
est" and history is coincident with the rise and dis-
covery of the science of bacteriology with which it
is now closely identified.
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
656
3275
3276
3.277
3278
3279
JOHN W. ALWORD.
We find as far back as in the year 1825 that Cag-
nard de Lar Tour expressed the opinion that Organ-
ized susbstances, that is to say, micro-organisms,
played some role in fermentive and putrefactive
changes. (The sewage question during the last
century by Alfred Roeschling, Transactions of the
Society of Civil Engineers, 1901, page 193). Later,
about 1835, Schwam expressed substantially the
same opinion as La Tour, but independently. This
was theory only, and was successfully controvert-
ed for many years, commencing about 1845, when
Justus Von Liebig, denied the theories of La Tour
and Schwam, and advanced the Catalytic theory,
which was in brief that putrefying substances had
the abilities to communicate their chemical change
by actual contact.
During all this time in England, cesspoofs, tanks
and middens or privies were in common use, even
for large cities; but about the year 1847 sewers
began to be advocated to take their place, and it
was made compulsory to abolish cesspoofs. From
that time on began on a large scale the pollution of
the rivers of England, and as a practical conse.
Quence it was found that the difficulty had only
been transferred, and not remedied by the intro-
duction of sewers. The general introduction of
sewers was fully under way in England by the
middle of the century, and by 1857 the Thames
River below I/Ondon had reached the condition
which was considered a national disgrace.
Sewerage systems in the United States were gen-
erally introduced about the year 1850, that is to
say, systems designed on scientific principles.
About 1857 the pollution of rivers became so mark-
657
JOHN W. ALWORD.
ed that Mr. Henry Austin was engaged to make a
report to the general board of health upon the sub-
ject, he being the chief superintending inspector of
the board. Mr. Austin’s report recommended set-
tling tanks with filtering materials at the outlet,
and describes tanks at Clifton Union, Cheltenham
and Ely. He also suggests a form of tank of his
own, a copy of which has been introduced into the
testimony in this case, by Mr. Snow, and marked
“Defendants' Exhibit Proposed Sewage Works,
Austin.” Mr. Austin states, with reference to this
proposed tank, on page 32:
“The great bulk of the matters in suspension
is separated and retained. * * * The heavier
matters of the sewage deposit themselves at the
bottom of the tanks, but a large proportion of the
solids forms itself into a floating body, and ac-
cumulates to about eighteen inches thick on the
Surface. The liquid is conveyed from the angular
filters in the upper tanks by a line of pipes in
each division.’’
Mr. Austin’s plan shows non-disturbing outflow
from his tank, floating scum upon the surface of the
liquid and a tank of considerable capacity in pro-
portion of the flow within the sewer as shown by
the flow line within the sewer in the drawing. Mr.
Austin very accurately describes the physical ac-
tion of the solids in suspension which would take
place within such tanks, and which has been quoted
in the evidence in this case by Mr. Snow on type-
written page 39 herein. Mr. Austin's report was
the first organized attempt to adequately study the
problem of sewage purification, and it is signifi-
cant that his recommendations are along lines, so
far as preliminary stages are concerned, that are
considered today as desirable and rational. Fol-
328()
3281
3282
3283
3284.
(558
3285
3286
3287
3.288
3289
JOHN W. ALWORD.
lowing his report, attention began to be turned to
tanks for promoting plain subsidence, and in Janu-
ary, 1860 British patent No. 232 was taken out by
Thomas Walker, for an arrangement of tanks to
promote plain subsidence by bringing the sewage
to a state of rest in a broad pool. At Croyden, Eng-
land, sewage works were built in 1861, which con-
sisted of two small settling tanks in duplicate with
baffle boards and baffle walls, and with a submerged
non-disturbing inflow and an outflow through per-
forations in a masonry wall at middepth by which
the sewage passed into a coarse strainer. (Sew-
age Disposal Works, by W. Santo Crimp, page 151,
1890).
The significance of Mr. Henry Austin’s work in
recommending as a preliminary state brain subsi-
dence is not only seen in the use of these early tanks
at Croyden, but in a still more marked manner in
the sewage works of Ealing, which were built about
the year 1863, and were the first sewage works to
be built in the valley of the Thames, Ealing being
a Western Suburb of London.
These Works were notable for their extension of
tanks as a first stage, and indeed carried
separation tanks as a first stage, and indeed carried
this idea much further than was done by Mr. Aus-
tin in that they provided for a much longer stay
of the sewage within the subsidence tank than was
probably indicated by his recommendation. The
works are described in a book entitled “Sewage Dis.
posal Works, by W. Santo Crimp, published by
Charles Griffin & Company, Exeter Street, Strand,
London, in 1890, the description being found on
page 158 and following. I quote from page 163:
659
JOHN W. ALWORD.
‘‘ Probably that which strikes the visitor to
these works most is the very large area devoted
to effluent water tanks, and there can be no doubt
that to this specialty very much of the success of
the work is due. Mr. Jones claims to have a
larger amount of tank space at Ealing than at
any town in England.”
I quote from page 162.
“In designing these works, Mr. Jones, after
a careful investigation of the various best known
Sewerage works in the country, decided upon a
system of subsiding tanks, supplemented by
chemical precipitance (where and when neces-
sary) believing that an effluent might be pro-
duced which would satisfy the requirements of
the conservator of the River Thames into which
the effluent is discharged, and the fact that for
26 years these works have under the Supervision
of Mr. Jones met with the approval of not only
the Thames conservator, but of a very large por-
tion of the men best qualified to judge of their
merits, is a very fair evidence of their efficiency
and their work.”
On page 159 I find it stated that the capacity of
the deposit tank and the spaces under the filter bed
which are employed as deposit chamber amounts
to 17,500 cubic feet, which I have computed as
equivalent to a little over 131,000 gallons, and on
page 160 I find the daily volume of sewage flow
given at 400,000 gallons. The period then that the
sewage would be brought to a state of rest com-
parative within a continuously flowing tank of this
character would be practically eight hours, a period
which would afford ample opportunity for decom-
position of the solids. It is significant that in writ-
ing a description of these works many years later,
and at a time when the chemical purification of
sewage had reached its greatest vogue that the
3290
3291
3292
3293
3.294
66ſ)
8295
3296
3297
3.298
3299
JOHN W. ALWORD.
author of this book, Mr. Santo Crimp, should have
found it necessary to go into considerable explana-
tion as to the unsatisfactory character of these
Works. It is apparent from the information given
that the filtered sewage was run into the Thames
for many years by the board of conservators of
the River Thames, and considered a satisfactory
effluent, and even the analysis given by Mr. Santo
Crimp himself in 1890 when a considerably larger
sewage flow passing through the tank show a con-
siderable and distinct reduction of solids in their
passage through these tanks. The significance of
which he does not appear to grasp.
The ideas of Mr. Henry Austin are further seen
in the design for sewage works built in 1864, for
the Aldershot Camp Farm, a description of which
may be found with plans in the report of the Royal
Commission on Sewage Disposal, Volume 4, 1894.
The plans show three sets of tanks provided with
Scum boards and worked on the continuous inflow
and outflow principles, followed by aeration.
In 1864 the ideas suggested by Mr. Henry Austin
were still further exemplified by British patent No.
2329, granted to Thomas Walker and T. F. Walker,
for Improvements in Apparatus where sewage mat-
ters are collected in reservoirs in Order that the fluid
portion may be separated from the solids. These
reservoirs are shown by the plans to be provided
with a submerged non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow, and bafflle boards to retain the floating scum.
The effluent flowed over a weir by means of which
the liquid was aerated.
While there is no adequate perception in all of
these ideas for separating or sedimentation tanks
661
JOHN W. ALWORD.
of the principle of bacterial reduction, it must be
remembered that at this time bacteriology itself had
not advanced sufficiently to enable students of the
problem of sewage purification to adequately ex-
plain the character of the changes which they ob.
served going on in Such tanks.
Nevertheless it must be seen that the suggestions
of Mr. Henry Austin and those who followed his
ideas were evidently made because close study had
shown that a favorable change of some kind occur-
red in the solids of the sewage, and that an effluent
could be obtained by means of such tank provided
with a non-disturbing inflow and outflow generally
at middepth by suitable arrangements of baffile
boards to contain and hold the surface Scum, and
by aeration of the effluent which materially ad-
vanced the success of the treatment of the sewage.
We will now turn to the bacterial side of the
Question and we find that as early as 1850 Mit-
scherlich proved that cellulose was dissolved by fer-
mentation (Sewage, by Samuel Rideal, published
New York by John Wiley & Sons, 1901, page 89).
About 1860 Louis Pasteur established the fact that
fermentation and putrefaction were due to living
Organisms. His methods of biological examination
left much to be desired, however, and the subject
did not excite general interest at the time. He
showed pretty conclusively at the same time that
living organisms were the cause of some, and prob-
ably of all zymotic disease (Roechling, Transac-
tions of Engineers, for 1901, page 193). In 1865
Dr. Alexander Mueller, City Chemist of Berlin, re.
ported that bacteria did the purifying in irrigation
(Landwirthschaftliche, Versach Stationen XVI
273). He said of sewage:
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
662
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
JOHN W. ALWORD.
“The contents of sewage are chiefly of organic
origin, and in consequence of this, an active pro-
cess of decomposition takes place in sewage,
through which the organic matters are gradu-
ally dissolved into mineral matters, or, in short,
are mineralized, and thus become fit to serve as
food for plants. To the superficial observer this
process appears to be a chemical self-reduction;
In reality, however, it is chiefly a process of di-
gestion, in which the various—mostly microscopi-
cally small—animal and vegetable organisms uti-
lize the organically fixed power for their life pur-
poses.”
The work of Dr. Mueller in his experiments and
the patent which he latter took out will be referred
to later, but it is important here to know that he
was probably the first scientist to first experiment
with and fully and accurately describe the lique-
faction of the solid substances in the sewage by
means of bacteria.
Dr. Angus, in England, is said in 1867 by War-
rington, (British Association for the Advancement
of Science, 1887, page 653) to have first observed
the action of bacteria in sewage. He afterwards
published many experiments on the subject in the
reports of the local government board of 1882 and
1884.
In 1868 the Rev. Henry Moule, a clergyman in
England, published an account of the sub-surface
sewage system referred to by Waring and others
(Waring Sewerage and Land Drainage, page 288).
His system consists essentially in tile drains laid
just beneath the surface of the ground through
which the sewage was made to flow and percolate
by slow degrees into the surrounding soil. Later
Mr. Rogers Field installed a system at Sheffield, in
England, supplementing the drain of Mr. Moule
663
JOHN W. ALWORD.
with a flush tank arranged to hold back the flow
until a full, effecting intermittency of flow.
In 1880 Colonel George E. Waring, of Newport,
U. S. A., took out a patent for a grease trap located
between the house drain and the flush tank adopted
by Mr. Field, thus originating what was later well
known as the sewage disposal system for household
wastes to be hereafter referred to at greater length.
In 1868 experiments were made by Dr. Franklin
in England on the filtration of sewage through vari-
ous soils. This work was done for the Rivers Pol-
lution Committee and his conclusions are found in
page 60 of their report for that year. The experi-
ments show that the process of filtering through
sand, gravel, chalk, if properly carried out, to be a
most efficient means of purifying sewage. He did
not at that time perceive that the action was other
than a chemical change, however.
In 1868 the Rivers Pollution Commission report
recommended limits to the pollution of streams.
In 1868 also presumably following out the earlier
ideas of Henry Austin, Galvin Chapman took out
British patent No. 3203, for Improvement in Treat-
ing Sewage in order to obtain valuable products
therefrom. The process consisted of collecting in
a large reservoir the sewage in such a manner that
it might be decomposed, the decomposition being
hastened by always leaving in the tank a quantity
of previously decomposed sewage, and by maintain-
ing the sewage at a temperature of 70 to 80 degrees
Fahrenheit. This seems to have been a clear per-
ception of the liquefaction of the solids in sewage
by means of physical environment.
The same year (1868) Thomas Smith and John
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
664
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Van Norden Bazelgette took out British patent No.
3562, for Improvements in Deodorizing and Manu-
facturing Manure from Sewage. Their process pro-
vided that the sewage should be introduced into a
settling tank through openings in the wall of the
tank at different heights, giving practically a non-
disturbing inflow and outflow.
In 1870 Mr. Fritz Hille took out U. S. patent No.
138,250, for a process of treating sewage by deposit-
ing tanks, and combinations of depositing tanks
and filter. Suitable baffles were provided to retain
the floating scum.
Also in the year 1870 George William Wigner, a
chemist of London, took out British patent No. 364
for Improvements in the Mode of Apparatus for
Treating and Purifying Sewage, consisting first of
a pit or tank through which the sewage was caused
to pass slowly On its way by means of a non-disturb-
ing inflow and outflow, after which aeration is ob-
tained by means of a suitable weir.
In 1870 Beven G. Sloper obtained British patent
No. 1706 for Improvements in Treating Sewage
Favoring Fermentation. His idea seemed to be
to mix fresh sewage with purified sewage con-
taining an abundant quantity of sewage ferment,
Such as acts very rapidly on the urea contained
in the Sewage, and leaves it thus mixed until
the urea has disappeared, an estimated time of
about one hour. This result was obtained by a
suitable arrangement of tanks and baffle boards
accompanied by slow agitation of the bottom of
the liquid and withdrawal from the top.
There seems to have been here clear perception
of the value and desirability of decomposition
as a preliminary stage in further purification.
665
JOHN W. ALWORD.
In 1870 George William Wigner took out U.
S. patent No. 108,664 for Improvement in Sew-
age Apparatus consisting in a combination of
brick chambers with settling tanks having a sub-
merged outlet and being divided into different
Compartments by a transverse partition wall, the
Sewage passing in and Out of the tank by a con-
tinuous flow.
In 1871 Janus Brow Pow took out British
patent No. 2760 for Improved Arrangements for
Filtering and Purifying Sewage, also for Collect-
ing Solids. The process consisted of first con-
ducting the sewage into tanks for the subsidence
of the solids, secondly, introducing in other tanks
certain chemicals, and thirdly, means for filter-
ing the effluent. It is stated that the deposit will
be mainly found in the first tank which will not
have to be emptied more than once a week.
In all of these patents about this time are seen
in one form or another the earlier suggestions
of Henry Austin for subsidence, and the means
for controlling the solids and preventing their es-
Cape by means of non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow, baffle boards for retaining the surface Scum,
and in some cases a combination with aeration.
In 1870 and 1871 following the experiments of
Dr. Franklin, which, I have before alluded to,
Mr. Bailey Denton, an English engineer, first in-
troduced sewage purification by means of inter-
mittent filtration in Merthyr Tyvdil, in Wales.
This was the precursor of land methods of treat-
ment, both in England and in this country, which,
for sometime distracted attention from liquefac-
tion and decomposition as a first stage in Sewag
purification. *
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
666
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Nevertheless, in a Small, and perhaps at this
time, it even might be said an insignificant way,
knowledge of bacterial nature of decomposition
was gaining ground, at first among scientists ac-
customed to the experiments of the laboratory,
and from them to engineers who kept in close
touch, with a scientific research of the day. In
1872 the Berlin Sewage Commission reported
that sewage was converted into nitrates by or-
ganisms present in the natural sewage and Soil,
and not simply by a molecular process. (Sew-
age by Samuel Rideal, page 176.)
In 1872 also the Massachusetts State Board of
Health in a special report discussed the possibili-
ties of disposing of the sewage of the city of
Worcester, Massachusetts, by intermittent filtra-
tion, and in their report of the same year they
State that there are in England fifty-nine Sew-
age farms, twenty-six chemical works, sixteen
filtration fields, ten plain subsidence tanks, and
three intermittent filtration systems. It will be
seen from this census of the state of Sewage puri-
fication in England that the subsidence tank Sug-
gested by Henry Austin and exemplified at the
works at Ealing was still in high favor, and had
not yet been so superseded by the chemical idea
as later unfortunately became to be the case.
I have heretofore spoken of the sub-soil in-
termittent filtration of the Rev. Henry Moule, its
development by the sewage flush tank, and the
addition by Colonel George Waring, of Provi-
dence, of the grease trap, so-called, between the
house drain and the flush tank.
In 1876 Colonel Waring introduced what was
667
JOHN W. ALWORD.
perhaps the first sewage purification plant for a
considerable town at Lennox, Massachusetts.
This system was mainly a sub-soil intermittent
filtration system, but there was a tank in con-
nection with it which was designed to retain the
sewage for a considerable length of time so that
the solids would not be passed over and clog the
drain. This plant was intended for a popula-
tion of twelve hundred people, and an account
of this system was published in Colonel War-
ing’s book in 1876. (See also Sewage Purifica-
tion in United States by Rafter & Baker, page
560.) (Also The Sanitary Drainage of Houses
and Towns, by George E. Waring, 1876.) In
this book of Colonel Waring’s he notes that mat-
ters in grease traps, such as he introduced and
patented, decomposes, and he describes an air-
tight tank with submerged inlet and outlet,
which he constructed at his house, New-
port, Rhode Island, which was about four feet
in diameter, in which the solids are liquefied.
It is evident to me, from a review of the writ-
ings of Colonel Waring, that his original idea of
a grease trap, so-called, which he patented in
1880, was entirely designed to prevent solids
from being passed over into the flush tank and
the sub-soil drains of the filtration system which
was the usual accompaniment. I doubt, if, at the
time of taking out this patent, he distinctly per-
ceived that any process of reduction went on in
the solid substances, but it is very evident to a
close student of his writings that immediately
after the adoption of this appliance, and its prac-
tical application, he began to perceive that there
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
668
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Was an action going on, which tended to reduce
or liquify the Solids and decompose them. This
action he describes six years after taking out his
patent in his book published in 1876, and in later
publications, notably his book published in 1884,
he describes this action as being a maceration.
Mr. Benezette Williams, in his testimony in this
case, has quoted extensively from Colonel War-
ing’s later writings, to show that he fully ap-
preciated this reduction of solid organic matter
by maceration and decomposition, and he even
goes so far as to state that under proper con-
ditions such grease traps, so-called, may not
have to be cleaned.
To my mind it is peculiarly significant that
Colonel Waring, whose views are everywhere ur-
gently emphasized to the effect that sewage
should not be allowed to decompose upon the
premises or adjacent thereto, should have been thus
compelled to discover under his own observa-
tion, and by means of his own patent appliances,
that Sewage may be properly decomposed in
tanks comparatively air and light proof without
offense, and with great assistance to the subse-
Quent aeration and filtration that was necessary
to complete the process.
One of the first and most successful liquefying
tanks in the United States was installed in 1876
at the insane asylum at Worcester, Massachu-
setts, by Messrs. Butrick & Wheeler, civil engi-
neers. This plant is described in a book entitled
“Sewage Disposal in the United States,” by
Rafter & Baker, published by D. Van Ostrand
& Company, New York, 1894. The description
669
JOHN W. ALWORD.
on page 456 giving plan and elevation of the plant
and stating that it is the first successful irriga-
tion works in this country which have continued
to successfully dispose of the sewage. The plant
consists of a large covered tank with a baffle wall
across the center, a submerged non-disturbing
inlet and outlet, means for examination and
cleaning, and of the capacity of about 30,000 gal-
lons. The sewage is conducted from this tank
to from thirty to forty acres of irrigation fields,
where it is aerated and filtered, with a normal
flow from 600 people this tank would give the
Sewage a rest period of from ten to sixteen
hours, during which time decomposition and
liquefaction would have ample time to reduce
the solid matters. No mention is made in the
description of the frequency with which the
Sludge is cleaned from the settling tank.
In 1876 a sewage purification plant was built
at Wimbleton, England, which is described in a
book entitled “Sewage Disposal Works,” by W.
Santo Crimp, published in London, in 1890, page
214. The plant consisted first of two sets of
tanks for the reception of the sewage, having a
total capacity of about one day’s flow of sew-
age. These tanks are provided with coke strain-
ers at mid-depth, and the sewage enters from the
bottom of one end of the tank, as shown by the
diagram opposite page 215, and outward over
the end of each tank. The diagram shows that
Solids were expected to be deposited upon the
bottom of the tank. The description of this plant
by Mr. Santo Crimp calls these tanks straining
tanks, and Mr. Santo Crimp does not appear him-
3340
334.1
3342
3343
3344
670
8345
3346
3347
3348
3349
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Self to have had any perception of the liquefying
action which we now know have inevitably taken
place under such conditions.
It is evident to me, however, that the original
designer of these tanks must have been largely
influenced by the suggestions contained in the
reports of Henry Austin, hereinbefore quoted,
and the work of other designers along the same
line in taking advantage of tanks intended to re-
duce the solids into such state that the resultant
effluent might be more readily treated. That
these designers were not aware that this was ac-
complished by bacterial action must be conceded,
but the persistent design and application of these
tanks seems to conclusively show that, so far as
physical appearances could determine, favorable
results were obtained in the resulting effluent
which made them desirable. We shall see as we
progress in the history of the knowledge of this
art that from this time on the advantages of
Such tanks began to be lost sight of in the grow-
ing tide of the interest in processes which en-
deavored to clarify the sewage by the introduc-
tion of chemicals such as lime and alum; but it
must not be lost sight of that during all this time
a small minority were working toward the solu-
tion of the sewage purification problem by
means of the reduction of the solids in tanks
called at various times separating or subsiding
tanks, and in which distinct advantages in the
reduction of the solids had been physically ob-
servable from the time of Henry Austin on.
From 1877 on the growth, and development of
the science of bacteriology began to be rapid. In
671
JOHN W. ALWORD.
the year 1877. Messrs. Schloessing and Muntz,
two French chemists, published experiments
which had been conducted at the Paris Sewage
farm proving that nitrification in the soil is due
to the action of a living ferment, and of their
work Mr. Robert Warrington says (Journal So-
ciety of Arts, Volume 30, page 533) “This is
the first instance in which, the action of living
ferments has been shown to extend to inorganic
bodies.” These French scientists found that
nitrification proceeded ten times more rapidly at
37 degrees centigrade than at 14 degrees centi-
grade.
In 1877 Professor Tanner, in the minutes of the
proceedings of an institute of civil engineers, vol-
ume 49, page 180,182, describes sedimentation
tanks with non-disturbing inflow and outflow,
baffles for retaining the surface scum, and a ca-
pacity for dealing with a quantity which would
give it all the essentials of a tank capable of
liquefying the solids.
In 1878 Colonel George E. Waring issued a
new edition of his book, entitled “Sanitary Drain-
age of Houses and Towns,” published by Hurd
& Houghton, Cambridge, Mass., The Riverside
Press, 1878. On pages 195 to 202 are essentially
the same information published in the original
edition of 1876.
In 1878 Dr. Alexander Mueller took out Ger-
man patent 9,782, for a process of disinfecting
purification and utilization of putrescent waste
liquid or liquid sewage by the rational publica-
tion of fermenting organisms. This patent has
been quoted in this case by Mr. Snow on type-
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
672
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Written page 49. I will not repeat here the Sub-
stance matter except that I should say that it
would be difficult at the present time from known
and true facts to make a much more exact and
Scientific statement of the process of bacterial
liquefaction of solids, than is given by Dr. Muel-
ler in his patent.
In England, in 1878, C. T. Kingzett described
bacterial oxidation by micro-organisms (Annual
Journal of Chemistry, page 44).
In 1879 at Sherborn, Massachusetts, in the
Woman’s Prison, Colonel E. Waring installed a
subsidence tank and Intermittent filtration,
which he describes in his book, “Sewage and
Land Drainage,’’ page 292.
In 1880 Colonel Waring took out U. S. Patent
223,826 for a combination of a grease trap and
a flush tank in the course of a drain or sewer.
This is the patent which I have before alluded to
as being an important step in the progress of Col.
Waring’s discovery of what he terms maceration
of the solid matter in sewage.
In 1881 Hatton investigated the conditions un-
der which oxygen was absorbed by sewage
(Chemical Society Journal, May, 1881, Action of
Bacteria on Gases and Reduction of Nitrates by
Sewage). In 1881 also Dr. Alexander Mueller
published an account of his experiments, volume
6, page 263, of Landwirthschaftliche. A transla-
tion is also found in the journal of the society of
arts, volume XLVI., November 19, 1897, page
165, George Bell & Son, Convent Garden, pub-
lishers.
In 1881. Dr. Franklin published a paper in the
673
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Journal Royal of the Royal Agricultural So-
ciety, pages 241-311, entitled “On the Amount
and Composition of the Rain and Drainage
Waters Collected at Rothamsted. This paper
was an account of the experiments which were
commenced in 1870 and which were regularly
conducted since 1877, showing that nitrification
in the Soil was due in origin to living ferments.
In 1881, at Amherst, Massachusetts, a small
purification system was installed which is de-
Scribed in a book entitled “Sewage Disposal in
the United States,” by Rafter & Baker, page 61.
The sewage of this plant was first received into a
Settling tank which was later built in two com-
partments, and the effluent from which was
flowed upon land.
In 1881 Colonel George E. Waring installed a
tank for the 'maceration of solids and a filtra-
tion system for a hotel at Bryn Mawr, Pennsyl-
vania. This tank and filtration system is said by
him to have worked for six years successfully
until the hotel was burned.
In the Engineering Record of September 1st,
1881, appears a description by an unknown “Con-
stant Reader,” of a proposed air-tight cesspool,
on top of which the illustration shows floating a
thick scum, the liquid from which was to be re-
moved by submerged pipe and filtered through
charcoal or another open tank. This may have been
derived from the patent of Louis Mouras, who, in
the same year was granted French patent, No. 144,-
904, for an Automatic Scavenger. This patent has
been quoted in Mr. Snow’s testimony, on typewrit-
ten page 50, and is one of the exhibits in this case.
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
674.
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
JOHN W. ALVORD.
I will not repeat here further than to observe that
it is a singularly correct description of liquefac-
tion, or septic-action, so-called, as we know it to-day.
A full description of the workings of this tank was
described. In Cosmos Mondes, December 18, 1881,
page 622, and in 1882, page 97, and in 1883, page
110. Quotations from these articles will be found
in Mr. Snow’s testimony on typewritten pages 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59. A large number
of the so-called automatic scavengers were installed
in Paris, and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 9th
edition, volume 18, page 280, states that night soil is
collected in three different ways, from cesspolls of
masonry work which ought to be water tight, from
open buckets, and from filtering tinetts. This ar-
ticle further shows that the quantity of solids taken
from the tinetts was very much less than from any
other source, showing, undoubtedly that reduction
of solids had taken place to a much greater degree
in these tanks with which the automatic scavenger
was classed.
The use of Mouras’ automatic scavengers con-
tinued in Paris for many years until the Paris sew-
ers were thrown open for all forms of sewage. The
scavenger of Mouras consisted essentially of an air-
tight and light-tight tank with submerged non-dis-
turbing inflow and outflow, in which the solids
might liquefy by bacterial action.
In 1882 Robert Koch published new methods of
bacterial investigation which so greatly simplified
the study of the subject that bacteriology may have
been said to have taken its rise as a general science
from this date (Roechling Transactions, Engineer-
ing Society, 1901, page 193).
675
JOHN W. ALWORD.
In 1882, the Engineering News of New York
City, published an acount of the Mouras Automatic
Scavenger, under date of April 15, which was prob-
ably the first description in America. The article
was accompanied with cuts showing the arrange-
ment of the tank.
In 1882, M. F. Mogno, editor of Cosmos Mondes
wrote an article describing the Mouras Automatic
Scavenger, and attributes the liquefying acton to
anaerobic bacteria.
In 1882 there was installed at the school for boys
at Lawrenceville, New Jersey, a sewage purifica-
tion plant consisting of a large tank holding
twenty-four hours or more sewage flow, arranged
with non-disturbing inlet and outlet, a number of
compartments being practically air-tight and light-
proof, followed by aeration and filtration system.
This tank is in all respects built as it would be to-
day if it were designed to use liquefying action of
bacteria upon the solids in the sewage. This plant
is fully described in a book entitled “ Sewage Dis-
posal in the United States,” by Rafter & Baker,
page 511. It is stated that sewage was emptied
from the effluent well eight times a month in which
case solids would have had an opportunity of four
days' rest in the liquefying tank. The liquefying
tanks were not cleaned until 1887 when 300 cubic
feet of sludge were taken from the first section.
In 1883 there was published in the Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, page 359, volume 72, an
account of the automatic scavenger by Abbe F.
Mogno.
In 1883 there was installed in the reformatory
at Concord, Massachusetts, by William Wheeler,
3370
33.71
3372
3373
3374
676
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
JOHN W. ALWORD.
civil engineer, a Sewage disposal plant, consisting
of a liquefaction tank, 12 feet square and five feet
deep, covered with a masonry roof and with an out-
let at mid-depth. This plant is described on page
468, of Baker & Rafter. The effluent from this tank
was received into a second chamber for storage and
finally filtered. The capacity of the liquefaction
tank was such that one and one half hours rest for
the sewage was required, the solids of course, re-
maining until they were dissolved. This plant, un-
doubtedly produced liquefaction as we now under-
stand the same and must have been intentionally
designed for that purpose, in my opinion.
In 1883 there was published in the Sanitary En-
gineer of May 10, and 17, an article by Edward S.
Phillbrick, a professor in the Massachusetts School
of Technology, describing a system of sewage puri-
fication by means of liquefying or macerating
tanks, with non-disturbing in-flow and out-flow,
baffle wall, and practically light and air tight. This
tank was to be followed by aeration through a flush-
ing tank and filtration. This article with its ac-
companying diagrams is on file as one of the ex-
hibits in this case, and gives a clear and scientifie
account of the reduction of the solids of sewage by
means of such tank and the increased possibility of
their aeration and filtration. In the Sanitary Rec-
ord, Volume 8, page 444, Mr. Phillbrick, in reply
to an open letter, suggests for a hospital of 25 beds
a mascerating tank, 5 feet in diameter and 5 feet
deep, which would give eight to ten hours rest for
the flowing sewage.
In 1883 a Mouras automatic scavenger was in-
stalled at the works of Mr. Herzog, at Logelbach.
677
JOHN W. ALWORD.
This tank was air and light tight, with non-disturb-
ing in-flow and out-flow, as was customary in the
Mouras tanks. It had a capacity of 14,000 gallons.
The liquid was received into a second tank, and after
aeration was distributed over a meadow and Vine-
yard and further purified by filtration through the
soil. These works are described in the proceedings
of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Volume 78,
page 502, and are of interest as showing the adop-
tion of the automatic scavenger of Mouras on a
large scale.
On July 3, 1883, Silas Wilcox took out U. S. pat-
ent No. 580,545, for an Improved Form of Grease
Trap. His drawings show a tank protected from
light and air with submerged non-disturbing inlet
and outlet and divided at One end by a baffle wall.
In 1883 Dr. Sorby remarked on the very large
proportion of the detrius of faeces which was lost
in the River Thames, owing to the action of count-
less thousands of living creatures.
In 1884 the installation testified to in this case
by Mr. W. S. MacHarg, at Altenheim, Chicago, was
made. This installation as well as many others of
similar type, which have been made in this coun-
try in the last twenty years, may, in my opinion,
be all traced to the discoveries and writings of
Colonel George E. Waring, as noted in my testi-
mony before.
In 1884 Robert Warrington 'read a paper on
nitrification at the 54th meeting of the British As-
sociation of Agricultural Science, at Montreal, P.
Q., and in which he reviewed the subject and des-
cribed the nitrification of organic waste in soils.
He complains that evidence of this ferment should
no longer be neglected.
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
678
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
JOHN W. ALWORD.
In 1884 Professor E. Franklin read a paper be-
fore the British Association for the advancement
of science, page 681, on chemical changes in their
relative organisms. Also in 1884 a German scien-
tist, Eberth, together with Gaffky and Koch, dis-
covered the baccilus of typhoid fever, DuPre, in a
report to the local government board of England,
of the results of experiments on aeration, states
that the consumption of oxygen from the dissolved
air of a natural water is due to the presence of
growing organism, and that in the complete absence
of such organism little or no oxygen would thus
be consumed. He further states that living organ-
isms were essential to the destruction of sewage.
Thus, from these last citations, it will be clear-
ly seen that the art of bacteriology was fully put
upon its feet in the years from 1880 to 1884, and
that not only was it understood among a few scien-
tists who had conducted experimental research, but
that it was well published in the technical journals
of the day. And it will be further noted that these
articles indicate fully that the liquefaction of the
solid matter in sewage were due to living micro-
organisms, thus establishing fully the origin and
the nature of this important chemical reduction.
While these steps were being taken by an intelli-
gent minority, and while the nature, character of
liquefaction of sewage solids were fully demon-
strated, nevertheless it was a fact at this time,
especially in England, that the process of purifica-
tion of sewage was being most extensively conduct-
ed along the lines of chemical precipitation, and
that nearly all of the principal writers and import-
ant books of that day ignore the established facts
679
JOHN W. ALWORD.
which the intelligent minority had come into pos-
session of. Chemical precipitation was being gen-
erally adopted by many of the larger cities, despite
the fact that it was well known and fully tested
in the instance which I have cited both in England
and in America, that liquefaction of solids would
ensue, providing the sewage were brought to rest
in tanks secluded from light and air, and with non-
disturbing inflows and outflows, such as were in
use by Waring, and earlier recommended by Henry
Austin, patented by Dr. Alexander Mueller, and
Louis Mouras.
This singular state of affairs somewhat obscure
the value and importance of the work that was
being done to demonstrate the liquefaction of sew-
age, but that such work was being done, and was
important, can be seen from the citations which I
have made. Perhaps one of the greatest setbacks
which liquefaction received was at the hands of the
Royal Commission 1882 and 1884, who, notwith-
standing the known facts as to bactertial life and
their activity in liquefying the solids of sewage,
which was pointed out by the writer which I have
cited, decided against the discharge of crude sew-
age into the River Thames and prescribed some
process of deposition or precipitation the solid mat-
ters to be applied to the raising of low lying
ground, or to be burned, dug into land, or carried
away to sea. This latter alternative having been
adopted for the City of London, together with a
preliminary chemical precipitation many smaller
municipalities followed the example of the City of
London by adopting similar means of sewage puri-
fication. And in England, for perhaps ten years
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
680
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
JOHN W. ALWORD.
sewage purification by means of chemicals were the
Only methods which the superficial observer could
prominently find.
In the United States no such marked setback to
natural methods has been observable. The early
work of Colonel Waring from 1880 on developed
the so-called macerating tank, in which he recogniz-
ed the principle of dissolution of solids by bacterial
action, not all at once, but gradually in the course
of six or seven years following his patent of 1880.
Colonel Waring being a writer of great popularity,
was enabled to spread the knowledge of this form
of action very broadly over this country, and had
many imitators who followed sewage purification
along the lines which he laid down. Save in one
or two instances where cities studying the sewage
purification problem had been led to look to Eng-
lish practice, no large number of chemical purifi-
cation plants were installed, and it is safe to say
that prior to 1890 in this country the majority of
sewage purification plants, both large and small,
followed along the lines which Colonel Waring had
laid down in his early books of 1876 and 1884.
Even in the later work in this country in which
intermittent filtration had been extensively adopt-
ed, the ideas of Colonel Waring are seen to survive
in many places in the adoption of tanks so arrang-
ed as to receive the solids of the sewage, and retain
it a suitable length of time until it has become, to
use his own expression" macerated and dissolved.”
In 1885 Dr. Emmich experimented in Germany
on the changes which occurred in water and sew-
age on exposure to air. He said when left standing
and after agitation with air the self-purification
681
JOHN W. ALWORD.
only took place if the water had not been sterilized
through boiling, and had not been protected
against the entrance of germs during the period
of observation, (Chem. Centrabatt for 1885).
In 1885 Robert Corscadn, took out U. S. patent,
No. 315,912, for collecting and drying sedimenta-
tion matters in sewage. In his arrangement he pro-
vides two deep catch basins for sedimentation with
non-disturbing inflow and baffle wall. These pat-
ents are merely cited to show how common to the
art were the contrivances for retaining the solids
of sewage in tanks, so that they might be dissolved
and liquefied.
In 1885 Mr. Rudolph Hering, sanitary engineer
of New York City, installed for the Sagamore Hotel
at Green Island, Lake George, a plant consisting
of a macerating tank practically air and light
tight, with submerged inlet and outlet and dividing
wall, the effluent from which after being aerated in
a flush tank, was distributed upon a filter field.
This installation, like the others which I have cited
in this country, show distinctly the influence of the
ideas of Colonel George E. Waring in his publica.
tions of 1876 and 1894, in which such macerating
action, so-called, is fully described.
In 1886, Messrs. Gay & Dupetit published a re-
search upon the reducing of certain individual
species of bacteria, and the reduction to nitrates
they find to be the usual property of bacteria,
(British Association for the Advancement of
Science, page 653).
In 1886 it was said, before the English Society
of Arts, that during spontaneous subsidence, which
is a much slower process than precipitation, fer-
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
682
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
JOHN W. ALVORD.
mentation sets in, solids are converted into liquid
and both solids and liquid into gases, and Dupri
proposed before the Society of Arts to cultivate the
low organisms on a larger scale and discharge them
with the effluent of the London tanks into the river,
as the power of those low organisms to reduce sol-
ids of sewage was remarkable.
In 1886 also, Messrs. Gay & Dupetit investigated
the change of nitrates with the evolution of nitro-
gen oxides and nitrogen gas by the agency of bac-
teria. Two organisms were isolated from sewage
which in the presence of organic matter decompos-
ed nitrates with the production of nitrogen and
nitrous oxides, (Journal Society of Chem, page
1160, December, 1898).
In 1887 Dupri at the Sanitary Congress of Bol-
ton, England, said: “Whatever scheme may be
adopted, except the destruction of sewage material
by fire, the agents to which the ultimate destruction
of the sewage is due are living organisms, not
necessarily micro-organisms, either vegetable or
animal. Our treatment should be such as to avoid
the killing of these organisms, or even hampering
them in their actions, but rather to do everything
to favor them in their beneficial work, (Sewage by
Samuel Rideal, page 177).
In 1887 Garre in Corresp. Fur. Schweizer Aertze,
demonstrated the antagonism for certain bacteria
for each other which under certain conditions pre-
vent fermentation, (Sewage by Samuel Rideal,
page 81).
It is evident from a research of these Scientists
that not only was the bacterial activity in fermenta-
tion and decomposition being actively studied, but
683
JoHN W. ALvoRD.
that liquefaction was well understood to such as
cared to read what they had written.
In 1886 the legislature of Massachusetts com-
mitted the general oversight and care of inland
Water to the state board of health and conferred
upon it power to employ experts, advise towns and
make experiments. The impetus which this action
of the Massachusetts legislature gave to the art of
sewage purification in this country was very great,
and the experiment station of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health became of great interest to
all sanitarians. The obvious methods of disposal
in the section of the country which came under its
influence were not such as to cause the State Board
of Health to investigate the methods of liquefac-
tion, in aeration, introduced by Colonel Waring,
Phill brick, Dr. Alexander Mueller, Louis Mouras,
an others. An abundance of cheap, Sandy soil ex-
isted throughout the New England states, which
gave promise that land methods of filtration would
be the most successful from a financial standpoint.
Accordingly the Massachusetts State Board of
FTealtli devoted its attention and experimental work
to the filtration of sewage through sand, and de-
Veloped knowledge which made that method of sew-
age purification pre-eminently successful in the
New England States, to the exclusion of other
methods of liquefaction in the preliminary stage
Which had been adopted elsewhere. But the work
of the Massachusetts State Board of Health being
very prominent in this country, did, for a time,
SOmewhat obscure the earlier work of Colonel War-
ing, Edward Phillbrick and their followers until
to day it is not readily appreciated what a large
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
684
3415
3416
34.17
3418
3419
JOHN W. ALVORD.
part Colonel Waring had in independently discov-
ering and applying liquefaction methods as a prelim-
inary state of sewage purification. As I have before
said, remnants of his ideas exist, even in the sewage
purification plants of New England, installed under
the auspices of the State Board of Health in the
adoption of preliminary macerating or separating
tanks.
In 1887 the city of Medfield, Massachusetts, in-
stalled a purification plant which is described in
the 19th Annual Report of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health, page 100, also in a publication
entitled “Sewage Disposal in the United States,”
by Messrs. Rafter & Baker, page 490.
Adjourned till tomorrow, Wednesday, September
6, 1905, at 10 o’clock A. M.
Wednesday, September 6, 1905, 10 o’clock A. M.;
met pursuant to adjournment; present as before.
The witness resumes his answer as follows:
The works at Medfied, were designed by Mr. Elli-
ott C. Clark, a civil engineer of Boston, and were
approved by the Massachusetts Board of Health
in August, 1886. I quote from page 490 of Rafter
& Baker's book the following description:
“Much ground dyewood is used at the straw
works " " Accordingly to exclude the spent
dyewood from the sewer there was built adjacent
to the dyehouse a settling basin with a filter
whose construction may be understood by the aid
of the accompanying drawing. It was made in
two parts side by side, exactly alike, in order
that one-half may be in use if necessary while
the other is being cleaned out. The discharge
from the vats can be turned by a wooden gate in
a trough which brings it from the dyehouse into
685
JOHN W. ALWORD.
either side of the settling basin separately. En-
tering by the four-inch openings the liquid flows
generally in both sides with a total width of ten
feet and a depth of four feet less the thickness
of the deposit of sediment. The velocity of flow
is thus checked and the ground dyewood has a
chance to settle.
To get into the second pair of compartments
it has to pass over the brick dividing wall whose
elevation is the same as the bottom of the inlet
pipe. Here is another opportunity for settle-
ment to take place, but apparently very little col-
lects in the second compartments until the first
are pretty well filled. In the third compartments
by a tight board partition the liquid is obliged
to pass downward and escape by upward filtra-
tion through a mass of excelsior held between two
sets of wooden slats as exhibited in the drawing;
the upward flow being preferred as a precaution
against choking the filter.
The filter was in use nearly a year before the
excelsior was changed; it worked very satisfac-
torily, but the excelsior had by that time become
So rotted that probably it would soon after have
gone to pieces and escaped through the sewer. A
new supply was accordingly substituted.
The sediment needs to be shoveled out and
carted off once or twice a year. It has a similar
appearance to sawdust except for its black color.
Near the lower end of the sewer the sewage
passes through a cesspool arranged as shown on
the accompanying drawing (Fig. 80), so that the
outflow takes place from beneath the surface of
the Sewage standing in the cesspool.
The effect is that objects which either float or
sink are held back until they are sufficiently
changed by chemical or other action to flow uni-
formly with the rest of the liquid and are pre-
vented from being thrown out on the ground at
the outlet.
Very little sediment collects in the cesspool,
only about a foot in depth in the course of a
year; when it fills up the sediment will have to
be filled out.”
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
686
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
JOHN W. ALWORD.
The description is accompanied by a drawing a
copy of which is in evidence in this case, marked
“Medfield Filtering Tank”. This drawing shows a
covered tank practically air and light tight, and
baffle walls so arranged as to substantially pre-
vent disturbance of the contents by the inflow and
Outflow.
This significant description would be practi
cally identical with the description of the septic
tank of today substituting only the name of septic
for filtering tank, settling basin and cesspool.
The description further shows that the capacity
of the tank is about 7,000 gallons, and that the flow
as given at that time would occasion a detention in
the tank of about 8 hours, a sufficient period to cause
the liquefaction of the solids by anaerobic action
especially in view of their further retention by
means of a baſille wall and arrangement of the ex-
celsior filter near the outlet.
A further description of this plant may be found
by Mr. Brooks in the journal of the association of
engineering societies, volume 7, No. 7, pages 235 to
244, for July, 1888; also in the Engineering and
Building Record, Volume 18, pages 27 to 30, 1888.
Mr. Elliott C. Clarke was a sanitary engineer of
high repute in Boston, who, in his ideas and prac-
tice, followed closely the ideas of Colonel George E.
Waring heretofore alluded to.
The year 1887 witnessed considerable activity in
sewage purification matters. Mr. Dibdin, in Eng-
land, read a paper on sewage precipitation, in
Which he says: “One object claimed for the use of
an excessive quantiy of lime * * * * is that
it destroys the living organized bodies such as
687.
JOHN W. ALWORD.
bacteria, etc., which give rise to the phenomena
known as putrefaction.
As the very essence of sewage purification is the
ultimate destruction or resolution into other com-
binations of the undesirable matters, it is evident
that an antiseptic process is the very reverse of the
object to be aimed at.”
This significant language from the very chemist
who had in 1884 reported for the local government
board in favor of the chemical purification of LOn-
don sewage shows the beginning of an awakening
to a reaction against the chemical processes which
were at this time so much in vogue in Eugland. Mr.
Dibdin's attention was evidently thus turned at this
time to the processes of bacterial liquefaction and
Observation which he developed by means of experi-
ments which we will later refer to.
Mr. Dibdin in the same year in a paper read be-
fore the Institution of Civil Engineers, says: “Bac-
teria are most potent in sewage purification,” and
he prophesies that aid in the cultivation of bacteria.
Will be found to be the final solution.
In the year 1887 Robert Warrington also read a
paper before the British Association for the Ad-
Vancement of Science, page 653, entitled “The Re-
duction of Nitrates by Micro-organism.”
Also in the year 1887 foecal matter was admitted
to the Paris sewers for the first time, thus doing
a Way With the necessity for the automatic scaven-
gers of Louis Mouras.
In 1887 also the Massachusetts State Board of
Health gave a description of a decomposition tank
in the 19th Annual Report, page 101, which is
Quoted in his testimony by Mr. Snow, typewritten
3430
3431
34.32
3433
3434
688
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
JOHN W. ALWORD.
page 210. In this description the significant lan-
guage is used as follows: “The effect is that objects
which either float or sink are held back until they
are sufficiently changed by chemical or other action
to flow uniformly with the rest of the liquid, and
are prevented from being thrown out upon the
ground at the outlet * * * Very little sedi-
ment collects at the cesspool, only about one foot
in depth in the course of a year. When it fills up
the sediment will have to be taken out.”
This seems to me to have been clearly the inten-
tional utilization of the liquefying process, and its
recognition by the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, in spite of the fact that their later experi-
mental work was devoted to other lines of study. I
attribute this recognition, together with the ap-
proval of the Medfield design, to the influence of
Colonel Waring’s ideas upon the Board.
In the year 1887 United States patent No. 366,-
333, was taken out by Albert T. Marble and George
W. Knapp, for Purifying and Aerating Sewage.
The apparatus consisted of large settling tanks with
an outlet from the bottom, and aeration produced
by a weir in combination.
On August 2nd, 1887, United States patent 367,-
576, was taken out by George A. Allen, for an im-
proved water system, which improvement consisted
in assuring the discharge of the water from the
level below the surface thereof and above the bot-
tom of the tank, to avoid the passage of either sur-
face scum or impurities, or sedimentary deposits
into the discharge pipe. The outlet consists of a
flowing conduit or compartment having a series
of slots or openings in its wall. These openings
689
JOHN W. ALWORD.
deliver the water from the tank into the said cham-
ber and thence into the outlet pipe.
In 1887 Wilhelm Gurtler took out British patent
No. 7134. The appliance consisted of a tank with
a submerged non-disturbing inlet and outlet cham-
ber and a series of apertures above the bottom and
below the top for the purpose of preventing the es-
cape of surface scum.
In 1888 it was said by a German scientist O.
Loew (Pflugers Archives 27, page 203) that fer-
ments in human faeces allied to diastase or inver-
tase were investigated, and their hydrolycis found
to be very rapid, so that very little trace of them is
found after a short time. (Sewage, by Samuel
Rideal, page 92).
In 1888 began the experiments of the Massa-
chusetts State Board of Health which were au-
thorized by the law which I have before men-
tioned. These experiments, as I have before
stated, temporarily diverted attention from the
liquefying and macerating tanks which had been
worked out by Colonel George E. Waring.
In 1888 appeared the book entitled “Sewerage
and Land Drainage,” by Colonel George E. War-
ing, published in New York by D. VanOstrand
& Company. Several editions of this book were
published in the years following. I have an
edition marked 1891, which I have carefully com-
pared with the 1888 edition and find them identi-
cal except as to the title page.
In this book Mr. Waring reviews the subject
of sewage purification at length and emphasizes
his earlier ideas. Mr. Benezette Williams in this
case has quoted liberally from Mr. Waring’s book
and I will not here repeat those quotations.
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
690
3445
3446
344.7
3448
3449
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I desire, however, to call attention to a marked
peculiarity of all Colonel Waring’s work, which
I think is especially significant. In drawing
ideas from English engineers Mr. Waring em-
phasizes always and everywhere in his book the
necessity of preventing injurious decomposition
from taking place in file sewage and of providing
Suitable means for its rapid removal after for-
mation to a considerable distance from its ori-
gin to such points as may be selected for its final
disposition. Colonel Waring’s well-known advo-
cacy of a separate system of Sewers especially
designed for this purpose caused him to reiterate
this principle in many different and varied ways
in his numerous writings.
Now, it is especially significant to me that in
Spite of his adoption of this well understood
principle, Colonel Waring was compelled to ad-
mit, as he frankly does in the quotations made
from his book by Mr. Benezette Williams in this
case, that under some circumstances in suitable
air and light tight tanks with non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow decomposition, or as we now
call it, Septic action, might properly take place
without offense and by which action, which he
did not attempt to fully explain, actual reduction
of the solids of the sewage were effected with the
practical result that such tanks seldom needed
to be cleaned and sometimes operated without
the necessity of any cleaning whatever.
Colonel Waring himself seems to have felt
the incongruity of this idea with his repeated
and oft-mentioned warnings against decomposi-
tion in general, and apologizes in a measure for
the apparent opposition of his own views.
691
JOHN W. ALVORD.
It seems to me that this is especially signifi-
cant, and I desire to point out that the evidence
of Colonel Waring’s discovery of liquefaction,
or as he would have called it, maceration, is thus
rendered exceptionally strong, from the fact that
in discovering it he was apparently violating one
of his own long cherished principles and be-
liefs.
In 1889 there was installed in the Massachu-
setts School for the Feeble Minded at Waltham,
Massachusetts, a sewage purification plant con-
sisting of a sludge trap patterned after the ideas
of Colonel Waring, following which was a de-
taining tank from which the fluid was aerated by
means of a flushing siphon and delivered to an
irrigation field. A description of this plant may
be found in the book entitled “Sewage Disposal
in the United States,” by Rafter & Baker, page
507; also in the Engineering and Building Rec-
ord, Volume 21, page 300. I quote from Mr.
Baker’s book, at page 507:
“The plan prepared by Mr. Johnson and car-
ried out was as follows: From the Custodial
Ward building asd the laundry just south of it
the sewage is conducted into a brick sludge-trap,
shown in detail by Fig. 89, where it halts until
the grease has risen in a Scum to the surface, the
insoluble matter settled to the bottom, and the
paper, etc., became broken up and held in suspen-
sion. The 6-inch inlet enters about a foot above
the surface of the sewage. From the sludge-trap
a 4-inch ventilating pipe runs into the boiler-
house chimney. The 5-inch iron overflow from
the sludge-trap to the detaining tank is T-
shaped, and so placed as to allow the effluent to
pass over from below the scum of the grease on
the surface and from above the sediment at the
bottom of the sludge-trap. An 8-inch iron pipe
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
692
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
JOHN W. ALWORD.
and gate at the bottom of the sludge-trap permits
the grease and sediment to be run off to a com-
post heap as often as may be necessary, probably
about once in three months.”
In 1889 at Frankfurt, Germany, these works
were described by Mc. Lindley in Volume XCVI
of the minutes of the proceedings if the Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers, in 1889, page 292,293.
A quotation is made quite fully by Mr. Snow
in his testimony typewritten page 73, and I will
point out that it seems to describe very com-
pletely a tank which must of necessity have pro-
duced liquefying action.
It appears that the designers of such tank as
this had fully in view that some distinct gain
was made by causing the Sewage to come to a
state of rest so that floating solids were retained
within the tank; and although means were pro-
vided for removal of the sludge as they practi-
cally have to be provided in the septic tanks of
today, yet reducing action was expected of such
tanks in accordance with the Scientific studies
and ideas which I have pointed out were pos-
sessed by the Small minority of thinkers all this
time.
Unfortunately most of these tanks have been
described by ardent advocates of chemical pre-
cipitation, who have either failed to understand
the intention of the designer, or themselves not
kept pace with the progress of Science, as re-
gards the liquefaction of the solids of Sewage.
This is notably the case in England, and particu-
larly true of the work of Mr. Santo Crimp, who
was an enthusiastic advocate of chemical precip-
itation.
693
JOHN W. ALWORD.
In 1890 Messrs. Brown and Morris (Transac-
tions Chemical Society, 1890, page 497) isolated
from fungi a ferment called cytase quickly dis-
solving celluloses. In this work they corroborated
upon Von Senus who, in 1890, proved the fermen-
tation of fiber to be anaerobic, that it was occasion-
ed by symbiosis or concurrent action of several or-
ganisms, and that gaseous products remained. Ven
Senus isolated an enzyme that dissolves fiber, also
a group of the resolving bacteria from mud, stom-
ach contents and decaying vegetable matter. (Sew-
age by Samuel Rideal, page 91).
In 1890 Dr. Armstrong, in a paper read before
the Transactions of the Chemical Society, for
June, 1890, page 528, proposed the term Zymo-
sis for fermentation by living organisms, and
enzymes or unorganized ferments (Sewage by
Samuel Rideal, page 83).
In 1890 there was published by Van Ostrand
& Company, New York City, a book entitled
“The Disposal of Household Wastes,” by Wil-
liam Paul Gerhard, a civil engineer of New
York City. In this book will be found, pages 75
to 79, a description of liquefying tanks similar
to those earlier recommended by Colonel George
E. Waring, and consisting of a closed tank prac-
tically air and light proof with submerged non-
disturbing inflow and outflow, baffle walls for
retaining the Scum, and aeration by means of
a weir over which the effluent from the tank
flows. Descriptive cuts of these appliances will
be found on page 180 and page 184.
In 1890 Messrs. Adney & Perry took out Brit-
ish patent No. 3312 for keeping sewage under
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
694.
3465
34.66
34.67
3468
3469
JOHN W. ALWORD.
conditions favorable for rapid multiplication of
micro-organisms, soluble inorganic compounds
being added to assist the action.
This patent has been examined and quoted by
Mr. Snow in this case, typewritten page 76, and
I would only point out that in its description it
shows a clear appreciation of liquefaction by
anaerobic action, as a preliminary stage in Sew-
age purification. And some of the necessary ap-
paratus for detaining solids, so that such action
could take place.
April 1st, 1890, United States patent No. 424,-
838, was taken out by Frank L. Union for an im-
proved cesspool for separating Solids. The ap-
pliance shows a covered water-tight tank Sub-
stantially air and light-proof, a non-disturbing
inflow and outflow and dividing wall. The ap-
paratus is substantially that used and recom-
mended by Colonel George E. Waring in his ear-
lier writings; and is evidentiy intended to take
advantage of the liquefying action of anaerobic
bacteria. A very large installation was made
on this system at the Danverse State Lunatic
Asylum in Massachusetts; also at Milford, Mas-
sachusetts, and for many private houses.
In 1891 at Gardner, Massachusetts, there was
installed a sewage purification plant which con-
sisted of allowing the sewage first to enter two
tanks seven feet wide, twenty feet long and five
feet deep, there to remain at rest during which
time the solid matters were settled and sepa-
rated from the liquid. These tanks had an out-
let below the surface of the liquid at mid-depth,
and contained about 10,000 gallons of sewage
695
JOHN W. ALVORD.
when full. A description of this plant is found
in a book entitled “Sewage Disposal in the
United States,’’ by Rafter & Baker, page 516.
From this description it is found that the flow
through the tank amounted to about 125,000 gal-
lons a day in 1893, which would allow a period
of retention in the tank of about two hours. A
sufficient period, in my opinion, under favorable
circumstances, for anaerobic action to take
place tending to reduce the Solids, especially in
view of the baffle walls and other features pro-
vided for the purpose of retaining such solids
within the tank.
In 1891 Professor L. Pagliani, professor of
hygiene and director of public health in Rome,
Italy, read a paper before the Seventh Congress
of Hygiene and Demography, held in London, in
1891, in which he describes his application of a
reservoir interceptor made on the Mouras type
and connected with a peat filter. A considerable
quotation from this paper was made in Mr.
Snow’s testimony in this case, pages 59 and 60,
which I will not here repeat except to observe
that Professor Pagliani seems to have had a clear
idea of the liquefying action of anaerobic bacteria
upon the solids in sewage, and the means to be
provided in tanks intended for this purpose.
Professor Pagliani goes into the method of op-
eration of such tanks in Some detail and mentions
three instances of the use of these tanks on a
large scale at Rome.
In 1891 Professor J. W. Dibdin began experi-
ments at Barking, near London, on the bacterial
purification of the effluent from the precipitation
3470
34.71
34.72
3473
3474
696
3475
34.76
3477
3478
34.79
JOHN W. ALWORD.
tanks of the London purification plant, thus car-
rying out ideas expressed by him in 1887 as to
the reduction of Solids in sewage by micro-organ-
isms.
In 1891 also Mr. Scott Moncrief began experi-
ments at Ashted in Surrey, England, with a bac-
terial tank in which the sewage entered at the
bottom and passed with an upward flow through
a certain coarse material, such as broken stone,
etc., his idea being that those broken stones
would serve as fixed surfaces upon which the
putrefying bacteria could live; and he called his
tank a cultivation filter. (Sewage by Samuel
Rideal, page 229.) Reports on this tank and
analysis were published in 1893 by Dr. Houston,
and will be mentioned later.
In 1892 there appeared an account of the pro-
cess as described by Mr. Moncrief in the Pall Mall
Gazette of September 24, 1892, which has been
quoted by Mr. Snow in typewritten page 62 of
this case. Also an article in the Suffolk Times of
September 30th, 1892, describing the process,
which has also been quoted in typewritten page
62 in this case by Mr. Snow. Also in the Engi-
neer of October 14, 1892, a publication having its
offices in London, which quotation will be found
on typewritten page 63 of this case by Mr. Snow.
Also a description in the Hampshire Advertiser,
of July 26, 1893, which has also been quoted by
Mr. Snow on typewritten page 63 of this case.
Also in the Builder of London, of August 12,
1893, and Industries and Iron, October 6, 1893,
which are quoted by Mr. Snow on typewritten
page 65 of this case.
697
JOHN W. ALVORD.
I will not repeat these quotations, but will
merely point out in passing that they are all
clear and concise statements of the art of purify-
ing Sewage by a preliminary stage in which mi-
cro-organisms liquefy the Sewage after it has
been brought to rest in suitable tanks or other
receptacles containing apparatus for retention of
the solids by means of non-disturbing inflow and
outflow. Mr. Scott Moncrief was granted a
patent which I will notice later.
In 1892 the Flush-Tank Company of Chicago
published a catalogue which has been testified to
in this case by Mr. Benezette Williams, and which
describes apparatus for the purification of Sew-
age, the first stage of which consists of a reten-
tion of the Sewage in tanks with non-disturbing
inflow and outflow, baffle walls for retention of
the Scum, and practically air and light-tight. The
effluent, on leaving the tank, is to be aerated over
a Weir in a flushing chamber and afterwards pu-
rified by filtration. The apparatus described in
this catalogue follows strictly the lines laid down
by Colonel George E. Waring, which developed in
the patent in 1880 for an improved grease trap
and flush tank, and the results noted therefrom in
his book of 1876 hereinbefore described, and his
later works of 1888 and 1891. Mr. Williams has
very fully described the operations of the Flush-
Tank Company and I will not undertake to go
into them fully except to say that a good many
installations made by this company have come
under my notice in various parts of the country
and have appeared to be working well and giv-
ing good satisfaction.
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
698
3485
34.86
3487
3488
3489
JOHN W. ALVORD.
In 1892 there was installed a sewage purifica-
tion plant at Marlborough, Massachusetts, which
is described in the book entitled “Sewage Dis-
posal in the United States,” by Rafter & Baker,
page 504, and illustrated with plates. This plant
is also described in Engineering News, a publica
tion of New York City, in Volume 27, page 170,
for August 25, 1892. It appears from the descrip-
tion in Rafter & Baker’s book that the sewage
first passed through settling tanks in which there
were located baffle walls and a screen, and that
the outlet from such tanks made in such a man-
ner that the scum or floating solids at the surface
and bottom of the water would not be permitted
to flow out. I quote from page 505: ‘‘A separat-
ing or settling tank removes the sludge of the
Sewage, after which it passes through iron pipes
to the filter beds. * * * * It is of brick of
two compartments, with gates permitting Sewage
to be admitted to or drawn from either one at
will. The course of the sewage in passing
through the tank is shown by the drawing. The
screens perform only a slight service, as most
of the solid matter settles before the sewage
reaches the screen. The sludge can be removed
from either tank to the sludge carrier by opening
the cleaning-out gate.” It appears from the quo-
tation that the capacity of the tank in its propor-
tion to the amount of sewage flowing in 1892 was
such that the contents of the tank would be theo-
retically changed in about one and a half hours,
but by means of the baffle walls and screen the
solids of the sewage were, of course, retained a
very much longer time than this. It is my opin-
699
JOHN W. ALWORD.
ion that under these circumstances some degrees
of liquefying action would obtain, and I base this
opinion upon observation of similar tanks with
about the same proportion of flow.
In the plant at Marlborough the tank is fol.
lowed by aeration and filtration, and it would ap-
pear to me that the introduction of the tank in
the manner shown is a survival of the ideas of
Colonel Waring, which appears in much of the
work of the Massachusetts purification engineer-
ing, which are ostensibly intermittent filtration
systems in their nature.
In the report of the Massachusetts State Board
of Health in 1893 appears a description of a num-
ber of such plants which I have referred to, on
page 560 and following.
In 1893 Mr. Scott Moncrief read a paper before
the South Midland Branch of the British Medi-
cal Association, held at Towcester, October 13,
1893, in which he describes the liquefaction of
the solids by bacterial action, and the nature of
the tank which he has adopted for that purpose.
In 1893 also Mr. Percy Frankland, in England,
in a report to the British Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science, page 441, entitled Bac-
teriology in its Relation to Chemical Science,
shows that ferment preceding the exhaustion of
dissolved oxygen is responsible therefor, and is
bacterial in origin, and that upon the exhaustion
of oxygen, only anaerobes and facultative bac-
teria survive necessarily.
Also in 1893 Dr. Houston made a report on
Scott Moncrieff’s process at Ashtead (Sewage by
Samuel Rideal, page 229).
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
700
3495
3496
3497
3498
34.99
JOHN W. ALWORD.
In 1892 Earnest Edgar Sculby obtained United
States patent 484,823, for Apparatus for Purify-
ing Sewage. This apparatus shows a tank B
connecting by a pipe C to an aerating chamber,
which chamber is air-tight into the upper part
of which the sewage is ied by the pipe C and
then showered or broken up into spray as much
as possible by means of a showering plate which
may be coned or semispherical or of other suit-
able form.
September 19, 1893, Oluf E. Meyer obtained
United States patent, 505,166, for sewage ap-
paratus, comprising a series of tanks containing
divisional walls, baffle boards and submerged out-
let, combined with filters and aeration.
In 1892 Elmer St. John obtained United States
patent No. 478,654 for an improved catch basin,
showing the submerged inlet and outlet.
In 1894 a sewage purification plant was in-
stalled in Oberlin, Ohio, described in the Engi-
neering News of September, 1905. This plant
consisted of two settling basins, each, ten feet by
thirty feet in area, and three feet deep, having a
capacity of about 13,000 gallons.
In 1894 Frank Pullen Candy took out Brit-
ish patent No. 8671 for Improvements in Up-
ward Flow Precipitation Tanks. This descrip-
tion shows a submerged inlet, equal distribution
and aeration.
In 1894 Professor A. N. Talbot constructed an
experimental tank at Urbana, Illinois, which he
has testified to in this case, and which is known
as the “Urbana Tank,” and which he has traced
in its conception to tanks at Wellesly College and
701
| JOHN W. ALWORD.
to suggestions made to him by the automatic
scavenger of Louis Mouras. In articles subse-
quently published, which will be later referred
to. Prof. Talbot used the term ‘‘Sedimentation
and Subsidence” to cover process for which the
popular conception had as yet become familiar
with no term adequate to describe what action
really went on. In the same way the word “fil-
ter” has come to be used to cover many kinds
of installation in which filtering proper has no
part, and it has remained for Mr. Cameron, of
Exeter, to coin a word which has caught the pop-
ular fancy and has been generally adopted by
Sanitarians in consequence. I refer to the use
of the word “septic” to describe what I have
heretofore termed as liquefying of solids, what
was early called by Colonel Waring maceration
of solids, what has been described by Mouras and
Dr. Alexander Mueller as fermentation, and what
was called by Professor Talbot Sedimentation
and Subsidence.
In 1894 Professor Talbot installed at Cham-
paign, Illinois, what is known in this case as the
First Champaign Tank, and later designed a sec-
ond and permanent tank for Champaign, which,
was built and put into operation in 1897. The
drawings and descriptions of these tanks are
very fully spread upon the records of this case
and I will not allude to them further here, Save
to note that they contained the essential features
for promoting anaerobic bacterial action in the
detained solids within the tank, such arrange-
ments consisting of practically air and light-tight
covers, non-disturbing inlet and outlet, and Sub-
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
702
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Sequent aeration. The flow of sewage into these
tanks bore such ratio that the time of retention
of the sewage would be at least from one to four
hours, and of course being detained by baffles
and deposition upon the bottom, had a very much
longer time than that in which to be subjected
to the liquefying action of the anaerobic bacteria.
I have on several occasions inspected the work-
ing of the second Champaign tank and found it
Satisfactory.
In speaking of the terms non-disturbing inflow
and outflow, I would suggest that these are relative
terms only, as it is not possible that liquids should
flow into a tank and absolutely create no distur-
bance under any circumstances. It is therefore per-
ceived that in using these terms there is meant such
a degree of non-disturbance that the life and ac-
tivity of the anaerobic bacteria, whose office it is to
liquefy the solids shall not be seriously retarded.
In speaking of liquefaction as a process requiring
appreciably little time I do not wish to be under-
stood as expressing the conviction that measurable
time is equally applicable to all conditions and cir-
cumstances. What may be conducive to rapid bac-
terial action under one condition of temperature
and flow may not be so conducive under other cir-
cumstances, and it is my conviction that no limits
can be placed in measurable time upon what con-
stitutes reasonable anaerobic bacterial activity in
the liquefaction of solids.
The process of breaking down complex organic
matter commences, in my opinion, so soon as the
wastes of life have been created, and are bound to
continue in the ordinary process of nature unless
703
JOHN W. ALWORD.
interrupted by sterilization induced by extreme
heat or antiseptic chemicals. Under such circum-
stances, therefore, it is not possible to say that
liquefaction does not progress in any given tank,
however, short the periods may be, in which the
sewage is brought to a state of rest within the tank.
Such liquefaction may be seriously retarded by the
rapid accumulation of solids, due to the small size
of tank in proportion to the flow of sewage, but it
cannot, in my opinion, be wholly stopped, and
there is, therefore, in my opinion, no possible line of
demarcation between a tank intended for the lique-
faction of solids and one intended for plain sedimen-
tation. Indeed it appears to me that in all plain
sedimentation tanks however operated always pro-
Viding antiseptic chemicals are not added, some con-
siderable reduction of organic matter must take
place.
In October of ’95, Mr. J. W. Dibdin made his re-
port on the experiments at Barking to the London
County Council in a pamphlet entitled, “Report by
the Chemist on Experiments on the Filtration of
Sewage Effluent During the Years 1892, 1893, 1894
and 1895.” The publication of these experiments
produced a widespread interest among engineers
everywhere, both in England and America, and
caused a renewal of study of the rapid bacterial
methods in sewage purification among many sani-
tarians who had not before given the subject much
attention.
On December 11, 1894, Mr. W. D. Scott Moncrief,
took out United States patent, No. 530,662, for the
treatment of sewage and apparatus therefor, which
had for its object to purify sewage and discharge
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
704
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
JOHN W. ALWORD.
a clear inoffensive effluent. This, it was clearly
stated, was accomplished by the action of microbes
which liquefy and break up the organic matter of
Sewage. A very full quotation from this patent is
made by Mr. Snow in the evidence in this case type-
written pages 89 and 90, and will not be repeated
by me here, only so far as necessary to observe that
the description is a clear and exact statement of the
Operation of what we know now to be liquefaction
by micro-organisms.
The invention provides for the treatment of sew-
age by what is now called septic action combined
with filtration and aeration.
On March 17, 1896, Mr. Frank L. Union obtain
ed United States patent, No. 556,596, for the Aera-
tion and Filtration of Sewage after the solids and
semi-solids have been separated therefrom. This
patent, therefore, combines aeration and filtration
with any previous treatment of the sewage for the
removal Of the Solids therefrom.
We have seen heretofore that the Science of bac-
teriology was revolutionized and well established
between the years 1880 to 1884. We have followed
the fact that in England for the decade prior to
1890, the disinfection of sewage by chemical pre-
cipitation was largely in vogue, and that the ef-
fort to introduce bacterial knowledge in sewage
purification was confined to the minority. We have,
however, traced the fact that even in England the
minority were actively engaged in carrying out
their ideas, and that while they frequently had
their plants described by those who were opposed
to their ideas, such as Santo Crimp and others,
nevertheless their designs speak for themselves, and
705
JOHN W. ALVORD.
show that some beneficial action by them then not
easily explained, was expected from tanks in which
plain subsidence was used, and the solids separated
from the liquids of the sewage. We have also fol-
lowed the work of Dr. Alexander Mueller, and Lou-
is Mouras, and shown that their ideas, especially
those of Mouras, were put into practical operation
abroad. We have developed the fact that Profes-
sor Pagliani in Italy had received from some source,
we do not know where, but in all probability from
the work of Mueller, Mouras, and others, the defi-
nite conception of the liquefaction of the solids in
sewage by anaerobic bacteria in suitable tanks ar-
ranged for the purpose, and that several actual
working plants which had been installed with this
idea in view are mentioned by him.
We have seen how the gradual educational work
of the bacteriologists had made its impression on
sanitary engineers so that they began to turn their
attention to the bacterial purification of sewage as
evidenced by the remarks of Professor Dibdin in
1887 which I have quoted, and the experimental
work of the Ilondon County Council.
In this country we have traced the early percep-
tion of Colonel Waring of liquefaction due origin-
ally to the introduction of the combined grease trap
and flush tank for ordinary house sewage, which
brought to his observation and others who used his
ideas the fact that the solids in such an arrange-
ment were macerated and caused to disappear. We
have seen that his ideas were published as early as
1876 and enlarged and elaborated in 1888 and 1901 .
in published books; we have observed that as a
popular writer he was enabled to spread these ideas
3520
3521
3522
3523
706
3525
3526
3527
3528
JOHN W. ALVORD.
broadcast, and that they were followed by many
sanitary engineers, such as Elliott C. Clarke, Pro-
fessor Phillbrick, Mr. Benezette Williams, Mr. W.
S. MacHarg, and numerous others, and that they
practically formed the nucleus of all of the early
sewage purification work in this country.
We have seen how those ideas of Colonel Waring
became partly obscured by the work of the Massa-
chusetts Board of Health in carrying on the experi-
ments devoted almost exclusively to the purification
of sewage by sandy soils such as exist in great
abundance in the New England States we have seen
how the wide publicity given to this work brought
sewage purification problems prominently before
the country, and to many engineers to whom the
science of sewage purification as a problem had new-
er before presented itself, and who were ignorant of
the earlier work of Colonel Waring along this line,
It was at this psyhcological moment in the his-
tory of the art, when attention had for several
years been turned to bacteriology as a solution to
the sewage problem and when the fallacy of disin-
fecting sewage by precipitating it with chemicals
had begun to be seen even in England, that Mr.
Cameron, in my opinion, drawing his inspiration
from the minority scientists whose work and writ-
ings I have here outlined began to experiment at
Exeter, England, with closed tanks, similar to those
in use by Louis Mouras and suggested as early as
1852 by FHenry Austin, and in common use in the
the United States through the work of Colonel
Waring.
Mr. Cameron’s first small tank was installed April
5, 1895, and was 12 by 15 by 21% feet in dimensions,
707
JOHN W. ALWORD.
and took the flow from thirty houses. Finding this
successful in liquefying sewage, Mr. Cameron con-
structed a larger tank, and then a third tank which
is the one commonly referred to as the Exeter tank.
In November 8, 1895, he filed an application for
British patent, No. 21,142, which was accepted
April 25, 1896. A later patent was taken out, Brit-
ish patent, No. 23,042, filed October 17, 1896, and
complete specifications filed June 18, 1897.
In these patents, Mr. Cameron claims that the
entire exclusion of light and air in combination
will cause an entire disappearance of the solids in
the sewage, a result which no tank, before his time,
had ever succeeded in accomplishing, except under
the most exceptional conditions; and it may be add-
ed that no tank since this patent was granted, eith-
er built along the lines indicated by Mr. Cameron,
or in any other fashion, has succeeded in accom-
plishing this result. The claims, however, for the
complete disappearance of the solids, attracted
wide attention through Mr. Cameron’s work and the
introduction by him of a word absolutely new to the
art of sewage purification, that of septic action,
added to the popular interest and riveted for a time
attention to his work to the entire exclusion of the
earlier work of Waring, Phillbrick, Benezette Wil-
liams, W. S. MacHarg, and others of Colonel War-
ing's followers in this country, as well as the ear-
lier works of Dr. Alexander Mueller, Louis Mouras,
Professor Pagliani, and their imitators abroad.
It is agreed between counsel that to
save repetition, all objections made in the
course of the deposition of the Witness
Snow and elsewhere, with respect to any
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
708
3535
3536
3537
3.538
3539
JOHN W. ALWORD.
of the publications or matters referred to
in the foregoing answer may be under-
St00d as made here.
Q. 7. Please summarize in the briefest and clear-
est Way possible such of the prior patents and pub-
lications referred to in your previous answer, as in
your opinion ſiisclose or describe the process or ap-
paratus of the Cameron patent, No. 634,423, sued on
in this cause, or material parts thereof, limiting
your answer to Claims 1 to 8 inclusive, 11 and 12
inclusive, and 20 to 22 inclusive of said patent—
explaining points of similarity and difference, and
giving reasons for any opinions you may express?
A. Claim 1 of the Cameron U. S. patent, No. 634,-
423, reads as follows:
“The process of purifying Sewage, which con-
sists in subjecting the sewage under the exclus-
ion of air, of light and of agitation to the action
of anaerobic bacteria until the whole mass of
Solid organic matter contained therein becomes
liquefied, and then subjecting the liquid effluent
to air and light.”
As I understand this claim, it is a process claim
for the purification of sewage by subjecting the
same to the action of anaerobic bacteria, under the
exclusion of air, light and agitation. This is con-
tinued until the whole of the solid organic sub-
stances become dissolved. The liquid effluent is then
subjected to air and light.
I cannot see that this claim possesses any ele-
ments of novelty not heretofore well known and un-
derstood and practised in the art of sewage purifi-
cation. The early tanks of Colonel Waring for
the purification of household wastes embodied all
of the features which are heroin described. On
709
JOHN W. ALWORD.
page 291 of his book, entitled “Sewerage and Land
Drainage,” published in 1891, is shown a drawing
of a tank which, together with the written descrip-
tion as quoted in this case by Mr. Benezette Wil-
liams, shows that it was intended to subject the
sewage to the liquefying action of anaerobic bac-
teria until the whole mass of solid organic matter
contained therein became liquefied, then subjecting
the liquid effluent to air and light. This was accom-
plished in the apparatus of Colonel Waring, by pro-
viding an underground tank practically sealed from
light and air, with a baffle dividing wall across the
center over which the sewage might flow, and in
which tank the sewage might be brought to rest
a suitable length of time for the liquefaction of the
solids of its contents. Colonel Waring says, on page
290 of his book: “In some cases the decomposition
is so complete that the chamber never accumulates
much deposit.” Again on page 236 he states: “As
long ago as 1876, Pasteur, in his studies on fer-
mentation indicated clearly the difference between
decomposition taking place with full exposure to
the air and that going on in liquids from which the
air was entirely or mainly excluded.” On page 238
he says: “The presence or absence of light is im-
portant. Nitrification is most rapid in darkness,
and in case of solutions exposure to strong light
may cause nitrification to cease altogether.” Again,
on page 289, he says: “These developments of the
system, simple though they are, have been slowly
worked out to meet a succession of difficulties
which have arisen in practice. They have now had
sufficiently long application and sufficiently exten-
sive trial to make it prudent to assert the practical
efficiency of this method of disposal. . . . . .
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
710
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
JOHN W. ALWORD.
It is impracticable to allow the discharge from
kitchen or water closet matter, including paper,
to flow directly into the flush tank; it would soon
Obstruct the siphon and so much of it as passed on
into the drains would soon obstruct these. It is,
therefore, imperative that such matters should be
withheld until by maceration or by decomposition
they will pass on in solution or in suspension in the
liquid flow. Insofar as decomposition is necessary,
the settling basin is in a less degree, subjected to
the theoretical objections that are made to the cess-
pool. It is, however, to be considered that this set
tling basin, which is perfectly tight as to its walls
is so small that the volume of water passing
through it takes up the products of decomposition
and carries them into the drains before they as-
Sume a condition at all comparable to that of the
permanent cesspool. It is found practically that
the arrangement is inoffensive and safe.”
German patent, No. 9792, granted to Dr. Alex.
ander Mueller, of Berlin, clearly describes the sub-
jection of the sewage under exclusion of air, light
and agitation to the action of anaerobic bacteria,
until the whole mass of solid organic matter con-
tained therein becomes liquefied, and then subject-
ing the liquid effluent to air and light. He says:
“The process herein described aims at the methodi-
cal cultivation of those small leaven-like organisms
to the liability of which modern science has traced
the so-called self-unmixing processes, namely, acidi-
fication, fermentation, putrefaction, decay or the
like, in accordance with the rules of physiclogy
with a view to bringing them into requisition in the
task of precipitating out the liquid waste sub-
711
JOHN W. ALWORD.
stances or bringing about their complete mineraliz-
ation ( that is reduction to simple inorganic com-
pounds) * * * * * Only in a very few cases
will it be necessary to actually sow the seed of those
leaven-like organisms; they will mostly develope in
amply sufficient quantities from the numerless
germs in suspension in the atmosphere which are at
all times ready to settle or colonize in suitable soil,
while their growth is further induced by the or-
ganic admixtures which are added for the purpose
of applying an adequate proportion of nutritive
substances in the form of meat, blood, flue, gluten
or human excreta, etc.”
In Mouras’ French patent, No. 144,904, taken out
September 22, 1881, and in Scott Moncrief's patent,
No. 530,622, and in British patent, No. 3312, of
1890, to Adney and Perry, are described apparatus
for producing the action of anaerobic bacteria un-
der the exclusion of air, light and agitation, so as
to liquefy solid organic matter in the sewage. In
the Mouras patent the sewage was to be admitted
to an air tight tank hermetically closed. The in-
let was so arranged as to pass sewage into the body
of the tank at mid-depth, and an elbow pipe like-
wise arranged served to discharge the sewage con-
tained in the tank.
In the Mueller patent, the mechanical and struc-
tural arrangements required were three or four
basins, as is stated “for the digestion and defication
of the waste liquid. Altogether they should have a
capacity for receiving a full day’s output of waste
liquid and provided with means for continuous ad-
mission and discharge. They are lifted out of the
ground and receive a floating top cover of coarse
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
712
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
JOHN W. ALWORD.
material, such as straw, chaff, froth, scum, etc., so
as to retard cooling and evaporation.”
Mr. Scott Moncrieff says: “My invention relates
to certain improvements in the treatment of Sew-
age and the apparatus therefor, and has for its
object to purify sewage and discharge a clear and
inoffensive effluent. This I effect by the action of
microbes, which liquefy and break up the organic
matter in the sewage. * * *I had discovered
that the total solid matter in the ordinary sewage
can be dealt with as the actual food supply of the
organisms if it is properly conveyed to them.” The
apparatus which he provides in a tank in the bot-
tom of which there is a chamber arranged for the
purpose of delivering sewage so as not to cause agi-
tation, and the exclusion of air and light was ef-
fected by a covering of filtering material. In his
tank there was an apparatus for the purpose of
supplying air at times, but this could not prevent
the action of anaerobic bacteria in the layers below.
In the tanks mentioned by Professor Pagliani he
states that he had proposed long since with prac-
tically good results a type of Mouras reservoir
somewhat modified, and on page 2, “As in every
Mouras reservoir mine has for Over-
flowing liquid an opening but provided
with a grate through which cannot
pass directly those bodies in the reservoir. * *
Experience has proven that such a reservoir can
work properly without any inconvenience for a
very long period, and perhaps indefinitely when to
it is supplied an abundant flowing of water.” The
apparatus as described is similar to the tanks of
Mouras in every way.
713
JOHN W. ALVORD.
The Adney & Perry British patent, 3312 of 1890,
comprises the intentional utilization of liquefying
organisms to destroy the solid matter in the sewage.
In the third method described in said patent herein-
before particularly mentioned the destruction of Or-
ganic matter in the subsidence or incubation cham-
ber can only be through the agency of organisms
more specifically of the anaerobic species, as no
chemicals are used in the third method.
In the Phillbrick article in Sanitary Engineer,
of May 10, 1882, occurs a description of an apparat-
us for producing liquefactions of solid substances
in sewage in which the following occurs:
‘‘It has been found necessary to provide a tank
or tight cesspool in which the solid particles of
the Sewage may become macerated and finally di-
vided by fermentation before entering the distrib-
uting pipes.”
Mr. Phillbrick was a follower of the ideas of
Colonel Waring and his descriptive article, accom-
panied with cuts, was merely a part of the educa-
tional campaign which Colonel Waring had insti-
tuted to disseminate information on that subject in
this country.
Adjourned till Thursday, September 7, 1905, at
ten O’clock A. M.
Thursday, Sept. 7, 1905, 10 o'clock A. M.; met
pursuant to adjournment; present as before.
Claim 2 of the patent reads:
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in Sewage, which consists in secluding
a pool of Sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow from light, air and agitation until
a mass of micro-organisms has been developed of
a character and quantity sufficient to liquefy the
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
714.
3565
3566
3567
3568
£569
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Solid matter of the flowing sewage, the inflow
Serving to sustain the micro-organisms, and then
subjecting said pool under exclusion of light and
air and under a non-disturbing inflow and out-
flow to the liquefying action of the so-cultivated
micro-organisms until the solid organic matter con:
tained in the flowing sewage is dissolved.”
This claim is similar to the first claim, except
that certain successive steps in the process of lique-
faction are detailed, and the subsequent subjection
of the liquid effluent to air and light is not includ:
ed. The successive steps not indicated in the first
claim are specifically for a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow and the sustaining of the micro-Organ-
isms by the inflow until the solid organic matter in
the flowing sewage is dissolved.
It appears to me that the process thus involved
is not new in the art and is specifically covered by
the instances cited in my analysis of Claim 1. 11
all of the instances there cited the inflow is to be of
such a character as to be non-disturbing, and the
outflow is likewise arranged. This is accomplished
in the Mouras automatic scavenger by eſbow pipes
which turn down beneath the surface. In the tanks
of Waring and Phillbrick by a similar contrivance,
and in the art generally it is often accomplished by
baffle boards placed across the tank directly in front
of the inflow or outflow. In fact in all tanks, weth-
er for chemical precipitation or sedimentation, the
seclusion of the sewage in a broad pool with non-
disturbing inflow and outflow is common to the art.
With these additions I believe the quotations
which I have made in connection with claim 1 dis-
close the art as it covers claim No. 2, so that claim
2 presents no elements of novelty.
715
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Claim 3 in suit calls for :
‘‘The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in Sewage, which consists in secluding
a pool of sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow, from light, air and agitation until
a mass of micro-organisms has been developed
of a character and quantity sufficient to liquefy
the solid matter of the flowing sewage, the in-
flow serving to sustain the micro-organisms, then
subjecting said pool under a non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow and under exclusion of light and
air to the liquefying action of the so-cultivated
micro-organisms until the Solid organic matter
contained in the flowing sewage is dissolved, and
then subjecting the liquid outflow to an aerating
operation.’’
This claim is a precise duplicate of claim 2 with
the addition of the words “and then subjecting the
liquid outflow to a aerating operation.”
The combination of aeration with the liquefy-
ing tank is common to the art, and appears in all
of Waring’s tanks and those of his imitators in that
the sewage, after having been secluded in the lique-
fying tank is emptied therefrom through a non-
disturbing outlet over a weir into a flush-tank. The
effuent is further aerated by the air drawn into
the flush tank siphon and is further aerated in the
case of intermittent filtration as a third stage of
Sewage disposal.
Aeration is also a necessary accompaniment of
the Mueller patent and the Mouras patent when
the effluent is further filtered as was the case at
Logelbach. The history of the art shows that al-
most all tanks for plain sedimentation or liquefac-
tion, or even chemical precipitation, were followed
by aeration in various forms, either in simply flow-
ing the sewage through an open channel or over
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
716
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
JOHN W. ALVORD.
a weir to the more complex arrangements by which
it was sprayed or broken up in its descent by
special contrivance. Mr. Scott-Moncrieff’s culti-
vating filter U. S. patent 530,622, of 1894, and Brit-
ish patent No. 3312, of 1890, to Adney & Parry, also
provided for aeration of the liquid effluent.
Claim 4 reads as follows:
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in Sewage, which consists in secluding
a pool of sewage having a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow from light, air, and agitation until
a mass of micro-organisms has been developed
of a character and quantity sufficient to liquefy
the solid matter of the flowing: sewage, the in-
flow serving to sustain the micro-organisms, then
subjecting said pool under a non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow and under exclusion of light and
air to the liquefying action of the so-cultivated
micro-organisms until the solid organic matter
contained in the flowing sewage is dissolved, then
Subjecting the liquid outflow to an aerating op-
eration, and then to a filtering operation.”
This claim reads the same word for word as
claim 3 of the patent with the words added “and
then to a filtering operation.” As I understand
the claim, it does not seem to me to describe any-
thing novel to the art of sewage purification as it
existed prior to the date of this patent. The com-
bination of a liquefying tank with non-disturbing
inflow and outflow secluded from light and air,
the effluent from which was aerated and then fil-
tered is found in nearly all of the installations of
Waring in this country and described in his publi-
cations of 1876, 1888 and 1891.
It is found in the automatic scavenger of Mouras
as installed at Logelbach, and as applied by Profes-
sor Pagliani in Italy. It is found in the tanks at
717
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Medfield, Massachusetts, Altenheim and St. Joseph
Hospital, Chicago, at Lawrenceville, New Jersey,
and other places cited by me in the history of the
art.
Claim 21 reads as follows:
“The process of liquefying the solid matter
contained in Sewage, whicn consists in seclud-
ing a pool of sewage having a non-disturbing in-
flow and outflow from light, air and agitation un-
til a thick scum is formed on the surface thereof
and a mass of micro-organisms has been devel-
oped of a character and quantity sufficient to
liquefy the solid matter of the flowing sewage,
the inflow serving to sustain the micro-organisms,
and then subjecting said pool under the cover of
Said Scum and under a non-disturbing inflow and
outflow to the liquefying action of the so-culti-
vated micro-organisms until the solid matter con-
tained in the flowing sewage is dissolved.”
This claim is the same word for word as claim 2
of the patent, with the exception that in the 5th
line of claim 21 after the word “until” the follow-
ing words are added: “a thick scum is formed on
the surface thereof and,” while in claim 2 these
Words are not used.
I do not find anything novel in the combination
of a thick Scum upon a liquefying tank. Such a
Scum is the necessary accompaniment of the con-
ditions of bringing the sewage to a rest in a closed
tank with non-disturbing inflow and outflow and
subjected to the exclusion of light and air. Under
such conditions the solids in the sewage which have
a greater specific gravity than the liquid drop to
the bottom of the tank, while those that have a less
specific gravity than the liquid rise to the top and
are there detained by the non-disturbing outflow
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
( 18
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
JOHN W. ALVORD.
from leaving the tank. Under such circumstances
they form the thick scum mentioned in the claim
Which varies more or less in accordance with the
amount of solids in the tank. Such scum is spe-
cifically mentioned by Dr. Alexander Mueller in
his patent and by Professor Pagliani.
Claim 7 of the patent reads:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sew-
age the combination of a septic tank and an out-
let therefor disposed, above the bottom and below
the normal water-level thereof, said outlet com-
prising a conduit having a longitudinal slot open
across the greater part of the width of the tank.”
Claim 7 does not seem to me to disclose any
novel appliance, but such as has been common to
settling tanks, sedimentation tanks, and ſiquefying
tanks heretofore cited. In this connection I would
specifically cite the Cheltenham tanks, described
on page 32 of Mr. Austin's report, one of the ex-
hibits in this case, British patent No. 2329, of 1864
to Thomas Walker and another heretofore cited,
British patent No. 3562, of 1868, to Thomas Smith
and another, heretofore cited, British patent No.
2760 of 1871, to James B. Pow, British patent No.
7134 to Wilhelm Gurtler, in 1887, U. S. patent No.
505,166, of 1893, to Oluf E. Meyer, U. S. patent No.
580,793, of April 13, 1887, to G. D. Mitchell. These
patents all show to a greater or less extent an open-
ing extending across the greater part of the width
Of the tank, and insofar as such opening admits the
Outflow of the sewage at middepth the particular
device here described, speaking broadly, does not
seem to possess novelty.
If, however, it is intended to specifically confine
Said outlet to a conduit, as seems to be the case,
719
JOHN W. ALWORD.
such precise interpretation as may be given to this
claim may be considered to be novel, aſthough it
is difficult to see wherein the improvement con-
sists over the prior method.
Claim 8 reads:
“In an apparatus for the purification of Sew-
age the combination of a septic tank having an
outlet consisting of a pipe extending across the
greater part of the width of the tank and dis-
posed above the bottom and below the normal
water-level thereof, said pipe having an open-
ing in its wall throughout its length for admitting
the effluent.”
This claim is like claim 7, but provides that the
outlet conduit shall be a pipe disposed above the
bottom and below the normal water-level of the
tank, said pipe having an opening throughout its
length.
If this claim is to be construed broadly, the same
citations which I have used in case of claim 7 will
apply here. If, however, it is to be construed as a
Specific and exact appliance it may be possessed of
some elements of novelty, as I can find nothing in
the prior state of the art exactly conforming to the
description in this claim. I apprehend, however,
that the construction of the tank in this suit, as I
understand it, does not answer to this specific de-
scription.
Claim 5 reads as follows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sew-
age, the combination of a septic tank having an
Outlet disposed above the bottom and below the
normal water-level of the tank, and open across
the greater part of the width thereof, and an
aerator connected with said outlet.”
This claim calls for an outlet disposed above the
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
720
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
JOHN W. ALWORD.
bottom and below the normal water-level of the
tank, open across the greater part of the Width
thereof, and an aerator connected with said outlet.
As I understand this claim, it does not present any-
thing new or novel in the art. The tanks of Colonel
Waring and his imitators had a submerged inlet
extending across the width of the tank which was
formed by means of a bafflle wall across the tank
extending from a point above the surface of the
liquid to some distance below the surface thereof,
and the liquid passing below this wall the full
width of the tank, passed then upward and out-
ward through the outlet and was aerated by then
falling into the flush tank.
British patent No. 2760 of 1871 to James B. Pow,
provides for an outlet disposed above the bottom
and below the normal water-level of the tank and
open across the greater part of the width thereof,
and an aerator connected with said outlet through
which the effluent passes over a weir where it is aer-
ated in the form of spray by three successive falls
of the effluent accomplished by special device.
U. S. patent No. 505,166, 1893, to Oluf E. Meyer
comprises an outlet similar to that described in
claim 5.
Claim 6 reads as follows:
“In an apparatus for purifying sewage, the
combination of a drain or sewer, a settling tank,
connected there with and adapted to receive the
contents thereof, a septic tank connected with
Said settling tank and provided with an outlet
disposed above the bottom and below the normal
Water-level of the tank and open across the
greater part of the width thereof.”
Claim 6 calls for the combination of a drain or
721
JOHN W. ALWORD.
sewer, a settling tank connected therew1th, and a
septic tank connected with said settling tank with
non-disturbing outlet.
The arrangement of a catch-pit receiving a lique-
fying tank is not new in the art of sewage purifi-
cation. Good illustrations of the use of catch-pits
or settling tanks are afforded in British patent No.
2329 of 1864 to Thomas Walker and another and
U. S. patent 108,664, to Wigner. The Mouras U. S.
patent 268,120, contains a grit or settling chamber
in combination with a septic tank having an Outlet
disposed above the bottom and below the level of
the tank. This outlet, however, is not open across
the greater part of the width of the tank.
Claim 11 of the patent reads as follows:
“In an apparatus for purifying sewage, the
combination of a septic tank, an inlet disposed
above the bottom of the tank and below the nor-
mal water-level thereof and occupying the
greater part of the width of said tank, and an
outlet extending across fºie greater part of the
width of the tank and disposed above the bottom
of the tank and below the normal water-level
thereof.”
Claim 11 is similar to Claim 5, leaving out aera-
tion, but adding the feature of a wide non-disturb-
ing inlet. Such an arrangement is old in the art,
and I may cite the Clifton Union Works, described
by Mr. Henry Austin’s report. British patent,
2329, 1864, to Thomas Walker and another, des-
cribes a tank provided with an inlet disposed above
the bottom of the tank and below the normal
water-level thereof, said inlet consisting of a sew-
er or delivery conduit disposed on the outside of
the tank, and having several openings through the
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
722
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
JOHN W. ALWORD.
wall of said tank, said openings being below the
top and above the bottom thereof.
Also I would cite British patent, 3562 of 1868, to
Thomas Smith and another, also British patent,
No. 364 of 1870, to George W. Wigner; also U. S.
patent, No. 184,009, of 1876, to George R. Moore;
also U.S. patent, 505,166,1893, to Oluf E. Meyer.
Claim 12 reads as follows:
“In an appāratus for purifying sewage, the
combination of a septic tank, an inlet occupying
the greater part of the width of said tank, and
an outlet extending across the greater part of
the width of the tank and disposed above the
bottom of the tank and below the normal water-
level thereof, said outlet comprising a pipe hav-
ing a longitudinal slot therein extending the
greater part of its length.”
Claim 12 is similar to claim 11 except that the
outlet which is disposed above the bottom of the
tank and below the normal water level thereof, con-
sists of a pipe having a longitudinal slot extending
the greater part of its length. If this claim be con-
strued broadly it would appear to be anticipated by
most of the citations I have made on the part of
claim 11, and is not a new or novel contrivance.
If it be confined strictly to the description of a pipe
With a longitudinal slot it may have etements of
novelty, as I do not find anything in the art prior
being specifically of this character.
Claim 20 read as follows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sew-
age, the combination of a septic tank, means for
excluding air and light, a non-disturbing inlet
for said tank disposed below the normal water-
level thereof and provided with a broadened
mouth, a non-disturbing outlet for said tank dis-
posed below the normal water-level thereof and
723
JOHN W. ALWORD.
provided with a broadened mouth. and a Sewage-
conduit connected with said inlet.”
This claim appears to cover a non-disturbing in-
let with branches or broadened mouths, said inlet
and outlet being below the top of the level of the
tank, annd means for excluding light and air.
All of these features of liquefying tank are found
in the art, are found in Colonel Waring’s publica-
tions and the tanks built by his followers, and are
common to the tanks at Clifton Union as described.
by Henry Austin, British patent No. 2329, of 1864,
to Thomas Walker, British patent No. 364 of 1870
to George W. Wigner, U. S. patent 530,622, to Scott
Moncrief (which latter has a non-disturbing sub-
merged inlet with broadened mouth), British pay-
ent No. 7134 to Wilhelm Gurtler, and U. S. patent
No. 505,166 to O. E. Meyer. This form of inlet and
outlet with means for excluding light and air is
found in Prof. Talbot's tank at Champaign, and in
Mr. MacHarg’s tanks at Altenheim and St. Joseph’s
Hospital.
Claim 22 of the patent reads as follows:
“In an apparatus for the purification of sew-
age, the combination of a septic tank, means for
excluding air and light, a non-disturbing inlet
for said tank disposed below the normal water-
level thereof, a non-disturbing outlet for said
tank disposed below the normal water-level
thereof, and a sewage-conduit connected with
said inlet.”
As I understand this claim, it has been antici-
pated by the patent of Mr. Alexander Mueller, by
the automatic scavenger of Louis Mouras as de-
scribed in his French, English and United States
patents, by installations made by Professor Pag-
3610
3611
361.2
3613
3614
724
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
JOHN W. ALWORD.
liani in Italy, by publications of Colonel George
E. Waring, in 1876, 1884 and 1901, by the publica-
tions of Edward Phillbrick, the Engineering NeWS,
and of William Paul Gerhard, in his publication of
1890, by Frank L. Union in his U. S. patent 424,-
838, by Mr. Scott Moncrief, in his U. S. patent 530,-
622, and by the tanks at Altenheim and St. Joseph’s
Hospital in Chicago, in 1884 and 1889, and by the
many installations made by the imitators of Colonel
Waring in this country.
Q. 8. Have you heard or read the depositions of
William S. MacHarg and Henry W. Bill, hereto-
fore taken herein, and do you understand the con-
struction and operation of the sewage tanks at the
Altenheim, so-called, and the St. Joseph’s Orphan
Asylum, both at or near Chicago, described therein?
A. I have and do. &
Q. 9. Please state wherein the construction and
operation of the sewage tanks at the Altenheim and
St. Joseph’s Hospital, as described in said deposi-
tions of William S. MacHarg and Henry W. Hill,
are similar to or different from the construction
and operation of the sewage tank described in the
Cameron patent No. 634,423, sued on in this cause,
limiting your answer to claims 1 to 8 inclusive, 11
and 12 inclusive, and 20 to 22 inclusive? A. I
find in the description of Mr. MacEIarg in his testi
mony in this case and in the exhibits introduced by
him that the tanks and purification plants at St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum and Altenheim consist of
a tank which subjects the sewage under the exclus-
ion of light and air and agitation to the action of
anaerobic bacteria. This is effected in the first,
compartment of the tank and partially in the sec-
725
JOHN W. ALWORD.
ond compartment of said tank as shown in the ex-
hibits of the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum.
The sewage being pumped out from the Second
compartment into a wooden cistern is then sub-
jected to light and air; therefore the first claim of
the patent appears to me to be completely covered
in these two tanks.
I find that the second claim of the patent is fully
covered by these tanks in that the sewage has a
comparatively non-disturbing inflow and outflow,
and is free from agitation. I have before pointed
out that “non-disturbing inflow ’’ is a relative term
—that practically no liquid can be emptied into a
vessel without some disturbance. The inflow into
the tank at St. Joseph Hospital is made through a
pipe at the level of the liquid in the tank, which is
SO Small in proportion that it is practically non-
disturbing. The outflow from the tank is made
over the top of a baffle wall, protected by another
bafflle Wall in such a manner that it also is non-
disturbing. The tank is practically light and air
tight and the inflow serves to sustain the micro-
Organisms.
I find that claim 3, being practically similar to
claim 2, is also fully covered by the tanks in ques-
tion. The added feature in claim 3 that the liquid
Outflow shall be subjected to a aerating operation is
met by the fact that the sewage is lifted from the
receiving chamber below the ground into a wooden
cistern above the ground.
I find that claim 4 of the patent is fully met by
these tanks in that to the process heretofore de-
scribed there is added a filtering operation, which
3620
36.21
3622
3623
3624
726
3625
3626
3627
3628
JOHN W. ALVORD.
in this case was by intermittent filtration upon a
plot of suitably prepared ground.
I find that claim 5 is fully met by this said tank
in that it has the combination of a septic tank With
an outlet disposed above the bottom and below the
normal water-level of the tank and open across the
greater part of the width thereof. This is accomp-
lished by the two baffle walls heretofore referred to
by means of which the sewage flows out from the
septic tank and into the receiving chamber. The
condition imposing aeration in claim 5 is met by the
fact that the sewage in passing over the baffle wall
drops some distance in the air into the receiving
chamber at such times as the sewage level in the
receiving chamber is below the baffle wall. In the
event of the sewage in the receiving chamber being
above the baffle wall aeration is obtained by the
emptying of the liquid into the surface tank here-
tofore described.
I find that claim 6 is not anticipated by the tanks
at St. Joseph Orphan Asylum and Altenheim in
that they do not consist of the combination of a
drain or sewer with a settling tank which is in turn
connected with the septic tank. There is no grit
chamber or preliminary settling tank at St. Joseph
Orphan Asylum or at Altenheim, but the drain or
sewer enters into the septic tank direct.
I do not find any anticipaton of claim 7 in the St.
Joseph Orphan Asylum or Altenheim tanks, as the
Outlets to said tanks do not comprise a conduit hav-
ing a longitudinal slot open across the greater part
of the width of the tank, unless by broad construc-
tion the space between the two baffle walls at the
outlet might be so interpreted.
727
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I do not find any anticipation of claim 8 in these
tanks, there being no outlet consisting of a pipe ex-
tending across the greater part of the width of the
tank and disposed as described in the claim.
I do not find any anticipation of these tanks of
claim 11, except as to the outlet, which is antici-
pated, these tanks having an outlet extending across
the greater part of the width of the tank and below
the normal water-level thereof.
I do not find any anticipation of claim 12 in these
tanks.
In claim 20 I find that there is no inlet in these
tanks as described in the claim, with a broadened
mouth, or disposed below the normal water-level,
but I do find that the other parts of claim 20 are
anticipated in these tanks.
I find claim 21 to be fully anticipated by these
tanks, for reasons that I have already fully ex-
pressed in reference to earlier claims.
I also find claim 22 to be fully anticipated except
as to the inlet of said tanks being disposed below
the normal water-level thereof, all for reasons
Which I have fully explained in connection with
Other earlier claims.
Q. 10. Have you heard or read the depositions
of Arthur N. Talbot and John C. F. Sell, hereto-
fore taken herein, and do you understand the con-
struction and operation of the sewage tanks at Ur-
bana and Champaign, Illinois, described therein?
A. I have and do.
Q. 11. Please state wherein the construction and
Operation of the sewage tanks at Urbana and
Champaign, as described in said depositions of
Arthur N. Talbot and John C. F. Sell, are similar
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
728
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
JOHN W. ALWORD.
to or different from the construction and operation
of the sewage tank described in the Cameron patent
No. 634,423, sued on in this cause, limiting your
answer to claims 1 to 8 inclusive, 11 and 12 inclus-
ive, and 20 to 22 inclusive? A. Taking up the
Urbana tank, as described by Professor Talbot and
shown on the plan which he submitted as an ex-
hibit, I find the first claim of the patent is antici-
pated in this tank. I find that the second claim is
anticipated insofar as the non-disturbing inflow
and outflow are concerned if the baffle boards across
the inlet end of the tank be taken as in place, and
the Weir across the outlet end of the tank be con-
strued as a non-disturbing outlet. This weir passes
completely across the width of the tank, and would,
in my opinion, form a non-disturbing outlet.
I find the third claim fully anticipated by this
tank.
I find the fourth claim fully anticipated by this
tank with the exception that there is no filtering
operation following the aeration of the effluent.
I find that the fifth claim is not fully anticipated
in this tank, the outlet not being disposed above
the bottom and below the normal water-level of the
tank. The outlet, is, however, in my opinion, a non-
disturbing outlet, with an aerator connected, and
is Open across the entire width of the tank.
I find the sixth claim is not anticipated in this
tank, there being no preliminary settling tank or
grit chamber interposed between the sewer and the
septic tank proper.
I find the 7th claim of the patent is not an-
ticipated in this tank, the outlet not being below
the normal water-level thereof.
729
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I find the 8th claim is not anticipated in this
tank, there being no outlet pipe having an open-
ing in its wall throughout its length for admit-
ting the effluent. It should be noted, however,
in this connection, that the weir extending the
full width of the tank at the outlet performs sub-
stantially the same duty as such a slotted pipe
with the exception that it is placed so that the
outlet is at the surface of the liquid instead of
below.
I find that the 11th claim of the patent is an-
ticipated in this tank with the exception that the
outlet is not below the normal water-level of the
tank.
I find the 12th claim is not anticipated in this
tank in that the outlet does not comprise a pipe
having a longitudinal slot therein and disposed
below the normal water-level.
I find the 20th claim is anticipated by this tank
with the exception that the outlet for said tank
is not disposed below the normal water-level
thereof.
I find the 21st claim is anticipated by this tank
in full.
I find the 22nd claim is anticipated by this tank
with the exception that the outlet of same is not
disposed below the normal water-level thereof.
Taking the first Champaign tank and compar-
ing it with the claims in the patent, I find that
claim one is fully anticipated by such tank.
I find that claim 2 is also fully anticipated by
such tank.
I find that claim 3 is also fully anticipated by
such tank, the additional aeration and opera-
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
730
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
JOHN W. ALWORD.
tion being, in my opinion, accomplished by the
flow over the outlet weir into the stream.
I find the 4th claim of the patent to be antici-
pated by this tank with the exception that no
filtering operation followed the aeration of the
effluent.
I find the 5th claim of the patent to be antici-
pated by this tank if it be understood from Pro-
fessor Talbot’s description that the baffle boards
which he described as being spaced regularly across
the tank were so situated that One of them was near
the outlet end of the tank, as it is reasonable to be-
lieve that it was.
I do not find that the 6th claim is anticipated
by this tank.
I do not find that the 7th claim is anticipated
by this tank unless it can be construed very
broadly that the space between the last baffle
board and the outlet weir and extending clear
across the tank would comprise a conduit hav-
ing a longitudinal slot open across the greater
part of the width of the tank.
I do not find that the 8th claim is anticipated
in this tank.
I find that the 11th claim is anticipated in this
tank on the assumption that the baffle boards
were spaced reasonably near the outlet and inlet
of said tank.
I do not find that the 12th claim is anticipated
by this tank.
I find that the 20th claim is fully anticipated
by this tank.
I find that the 21st claim is fully anticipated
by this tank.
731
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I find that the 22nd claim is anticipated by this
tank on the same assumption which I made in
the case of the 12th claim.
Taking the Second Champaign tank as de-
scribed by Professor Talbot and as shown by the
plan submitted by him as one of the exhibits in
this case, I find that the first claim is anticipated
by this tank. *
I find that the second claim is anticipated by
this tank.
I find that the third claim is anticipated by this
tank.
I find that the 4th claim is anticipated by this
tank, with the exception that no filtering opera-
tion follows the aeration of the effluent.
I find that the 5th claim is anticipated by this
tank if by outlet can be construed the space be-
tween the baffle board and the weir over which
the effluent flows. This space is somewhat
greater in this tank than is usually the prac-
tice, both for the inlet and outlet. Nevertheless
the baffle boards at the inlet and outlet end
would operate to produce a non-disturbing inflow
and outflow.
I do not find that the 6th claim is anticipated
by this claim.
I do not find that the 7th claim is anticipated
by this tank.
I do not find that the 8th claim is anticipated
by this tank.
I find that the 11th claim is anticipated in this
tank if the same broad construction is used
which I have indicated in considering claim 5.
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
732
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
JOHN W. ALVORD.
I do not find that the 12th claim is anticipated
in this tank.
I find that the 20th claim is anticipated in this
tank with the same construction as given to
claim 5.
I find that the 21st claim is fully anticipated by
this tank.
I find that the 22nd claim is anticipated by that
tank if the broad construction which I have in-
dicated in claim 5 is taken
Q. 12. Mr. Henry W. Hill informs me that,
having visited Peru since his deposition in this
cause was taken, he finds from personal exami-
nation that he was mistaken in his description of
the sewage tank at St. Bede’s College, and be-
cause of this I have had a draftsman examine
said tank and make a drawing thereof under Mr.
Hill's direction. As explained by Mr. Hill and
as shown in this drawing, that sewage tank is not
constructed of wood but of brick masonry. As-
suming this tank to be cylindrical in form, con-
structed of brick masonry, nine feet and six
inches in diameter, and ten feet deep, the cylin-
der being set on end; and assuming that the top
was covered and the iniel and outlets, water-
level and other details as shown in the drawing
now before you, marked “Defendants' Exhibit
Sewage Tank at St. Bede’s College, Peru, Illi-
nois,” please state wherein its construction and
operation is similar to or different from the con-
struction and operation of the Sewage tank de-
scribed in the Cameron patent, No. 634,423, sued
on in this cause, limiting your answer to claims
1 to 8 inclusive, 11 and 12 inclusive, and 20 to
733
JOHN W. ALWORD.
22 inclusive. A. I find from the drawing that
the tank referred to is nine feet six inches in di-
ameter and that the water level is shown to be
five feet six inches above the bottom, leaving four
feet six inches from the water level from the top
of the tank to the 'surface of the ground. The
tank is circular in plan and the inlet pipe enters
at one side with its invert six inches above the
level of the water as shown. On the opposite side
from the inlet is the outlet box twelve inches
square shown with its bottom at about the level
of the liquid. A masonry baffle wall extending
across the tank in front of the outlet has a depth
of fourteen inches below the liquid contents as
shown, and is enclosed at the top so that the only
entrance to the outlet is beneath the surface of
the liquid.
On comparing this tank with the claims of the
Cameron patent, I would express it as my opin-
ion that claim 1 is anticipated by this tank with
the exception that there is nothing to show
whether the effluent is exposed to the light.
Aeration would, in my opinion, be obtained in the
outlet box.
Claim 2 is anticipated by this tank with the
exception that the inlet to the tank is not fully
non-disturbing, being located some distance
above the liquid. I might observe that the ques-
tion of disturbance in this cause is a question of
the relative volume of inflow to the quantity of
sewage remaining in the tank. In my opinion it
is no detriment to this tank that the inlet is not
completely non-disturbing, it being more im-
portant that the outlet be non-disturbing than
that the inlet should be so.
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
734
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
JoHN W. ALVORD.
I find that claim 3 of the patent is anticipated
by this tank with the exception of the non-dis-
turbing inflow as noted in reference to claim 2,
the aeration being obtained in the outlet box.
I find that claim 4 of the patent is anticipated
by this tank with the same exception as to in-
flow and with the further exception that I under-
Stand no filtering operation completes the pro-
CéSS.
I find that claim 5 of the patent is fully antici-
pated by this tank.
I find that claim 6 of the patent is not antici-
pated by this tank.
I find that claim 7 is anticipated by this tank
if a broad construction should be placed upon
the description of an outlet comprising a conduit
having a longitudinal slot open across the greater
part of the width of the tank. A very strict con-
struction of this language would not, in my opin-
ion, show an anticipation.
I find that claim 8 of the patent is not antici-
pated by this tank.
I find that claim 11 of the patent is anticipated
by this tank with the exception of the inlet,
which is not disposed above the bottom of the
tank and below the normal water-level thereof,
and does not occupy the greater part of the width
of said tank.
I do not find that claim 12 of the patent is an-
ticipated by this tank.
I find that claim 20 is anticipated by this tank
so far as regards the outlet, but not as regards
the inlet.
I find that claim 21 is anticipated by this tank
735
JoEIN W. ALVORD.
with the exception of the inlet being non-disturb-
ing in the Sense that it is located below the liquid
contents. In my opinion the location and ar-
rangement of the outlet is such that a Scum will
form over the surface of the tank which would
of itself serve to exclude light and air if there
were no other cover,
I find that claim 22 is anticipated by this tank
with the exception that the inlet is not disposed
below the normal water-level thereof.
Q. 13. Please take up and consider such of
the prior sewage tanks described in the deposi-
tion of F. Herbert Snow heretofore taken herein,
as you consider material, and state wherein their
construction and operation are similar to or dif-
ferent from the construction and operation of the
Sewage tank described in the Cameron patent No.
634,423, sued on in this cause, limiting your
answer to claims 1 to 8 inclusive, 11 and 12 in-
clusive, and 20 to 22 inclusive. A. I will con-
fine my answer to four or five installations made
prior to the date of this patent mentioned by Mr.
Snow, and located in the eastern States, which
I consider typical of the practice generally pre-
Vailing.
I will first compare the sewage plant at Law-
renceville School for Boys, which is described
in a book entitled “Sewage Disposal in the
United States,” by Rafter & Baker, page 511.
I find that claim 1 of the patent is fully antici-
pated by the Lawrenceville tank, the sewage be-
ing first received into a long compartment from
which it is emptied at its further end into a sec-
ond compartment by means of an elbow pipe
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
736
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
JOHN W. ALWORD.
with the mouth turned down below the level of
the liquid at the outlet, thence into a third com-
partment through a similar elbow pipe similarly
arranged, and at the end of the third compart-
ment over a weir where it receives aeration. The
Sewage is then pumped to the filter field, where
it receives both light, aeration and filtration.
I find that claim 2 of the patent is fully antici-
pated by this tank.
I find that claim 3 is fully anticipated in this
tank.
I find that claim 4 is fully anticipated in this
tank.
I find that claim 5 is anticipated in this plant
with the exception that the outlet is not open
across the greater part of the width of the tank,
but is in this case an elbow pipe with the mouth
turned downward.
I find that claim 6 is fully anticipated in this
plant, there being a preliminary settling tank or
grit chamber connected with the septic tank and
sewer.
I do not find that Claim 7 of the patent is antici-
pated in this plant.
I do not find that Claim 8 is anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 11 is anticipated in this tank
with the exception that the inlet does not occupy
the greater part of the width of said tank, and that
the outlet is not disposed above the bottom of the
tank and below the normal water-level thereof un-
less the final compartment could be considered in
its entirety as an outlet.
737
JOHN W. ALVORD.
I do not find that Claim 12 is anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 20 is anticipated in this tank
with the exception that the inlet and outlet are not
provided with a broadened mouth.
I find that Claim 21 is fully anticipated by this
tank, which is covered and so arranged that a scum
would necessarily form upon its surface.
I find that Claim 22 has been anticipated by this
tank, with the exception that the inlet and outlet
are not disposed below the normal water-level of
the tank.
I will next take up the sewage purification plant
at Worcester, Massachusetts, and compare that
with the patent. *
The sewage at Worcester at first passes into a
small gate chamber from which it is conducted in-
to a liquefying tank, about thirty feet long, sixteen
feet wide, and covered with arches. The sewage en-
ters the tank by a pipe whose mouth is turned down
so as to deliver the liquid below the level of the out-
let. About two-thirds the distance from the inlet
to the outlet a brick partition is built across the
tank in which are placed four plates of brass perfor-
ated with sixty holes, one-quarter of an inch in
diameter. The sewage is received into the larger
end of the tank where the solids are contained, the
fluid part on straining through the brass plates into
the smaller division. The outlet from the smaller
division consists of an elbow pipe so turned down
that it receives the liquid at mid-depth of the tank.
The effluent is then led to a filtration field where it
is aerated, subjected to the action of air and light
and filtered.
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
738
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I find that Claim 1 in the patent is fully antici.
pated by this plant.
I find that Claim 2 is also fully anticipated by
this plant.
I find that Claim 3 is also fully anticipated by
this plant.
I find that Claim 4 is also fully anticipated by
this plant.
I find that Claim 5 is anticipated by this plant
with the exception that the outlet is not open across
the greater part of the width of the tank.
I find that Claim 6 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 7 is not anticipated in this
plant. *
I find that Claim 11 is anticipated in this plant
with the exception that the outlet does not extend
across the greater part of the width of the tank.
I find that Claim 12 is not anticipated in this
tank. $
I find that Claim 20 is anticipated in this plant,
with the exception that the inlet and outlet are not
provided with a broadened mouth.
I find that Claim 21 is fully anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 22 is fully anticipated in this
plant.
I will next take up the sewage purification plant
at Medfield, Massachusetts. The sewage at Med-
field is received into two tanks divided by two cross
walls into three compartments each. The inlet is
so disposed that the sewage is delivered into the
first compartment at the level of the outlet, passes
over the first cross wall into the second compart-
739
JOHN W. ALVORD.
ment and from the second compartment
over a cross wall into the third compartment
where a baffle wall diverts it downward to below an
excelsior strainer through which it passes upward
to the outlet. It is then led into a second tank with
an outlet at mid-depth from which it is led to the
filter field where it is subjected to the action of
light and air and first aerated and then filtered.
I find the first claim of the patent is fully antici-
pated in this plant.
I find the second claim of this patent is fully an-
ticipated in this tank in that the central compart-
ment of each tank between the two cross walls has
a non-disturbing inflow and outflow as also does
that portion of the third compartment below the
excelsior screen.
I find that Claim 3 is anticipated in this plant,
under the same interpretation used for Claim 2.
I find that Claim 4 is anticipated in the same
Way.
I find that Claim 5 is not anticipated in this
plant , unless a broad construction can be placed
upon the arrangement of the final screen and baffle
board.
I find that Claim 6 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 7 is not anticipated in this
plant, unless the broad construction suggested for
Claim 5 could be adopted.
I find that Claim 8 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 11 is not anticipated in this
plant, unless it can be construed that the central
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
740
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
JOHN W. ALWORD.
compartment is the liquefying tank proper, and the
inlet to it is over the cross baffle Wall.
I find that Claim 12 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 20 is not anticipated in this
plant, unless a broad construction could be given
to the baffle wall in the central chamber.
I find that Claim 21 is anticipated in this tank.
I find that Claim 22 is not anticipated in this
tank, except upon broad construction as heretofore
mentioned.
I will next take up the sewage purification plant
at the Massachusetts Reformatory at Concord, as
described in Rafter & Baker's book, page 468.
The sewage in this case passes into two duplicate
liquefying tanks of masonry arched over, and about
12 feet square, from which, when filled to a depth
of five feet, the liquid overflows from its mid-depth
to an unseen siphon into a second receiving cham-
ber. From here it is led to a filtration field where
it is aerated and filtered.
I find that Claim 1 is fully anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 2 is fully anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 3 is also fully anticipated in
this plant.
I find that Claim 4 is also fully anticipated in
this plant.
I find that Claim 5 is anticipated in this plant,
except that the outlet is not open across the greater
part of the width of the tank.
I find that Claim 6 is not anticipated in this
plant.
74i.
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I find that Claim 7 is not anticipated in this
plant. -
I find that Claim 8 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 11 is anticipated in this plant,
with the exception that the outlet does not extend
across the greater part of the width of the tank.
I find that Claim 12 is not anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 20 is anticipated in this plant,
with the exception that the inlet and Outlet are not
provided with a broadened mouth.
I find that Claim 21 is fully anticipated in this
plant.
I find that Claim 22 is also fully anticipated by
this plant.
Q. 14. Please answer the same question with ref-
erence to the testimony of Mr. Benezette Williams
heretofore given in this cause? A. I will take for
an example of the Waring type of liquefying tank
and filter the description in page 24 of the Flush-
Tank Company’s catalogue, which is an exhibit in
this case, together with the accompanying cut. This
cut shows that the inlet to the liquefying tank is an
elbow pipe so turned as to deliver the inflow at a
point below the normal level of the outlet. A cross
Wall is built in the tank between the inflow and the
outflow. The outflow pipe is also an elbow pipe
similarly arranged to that of the inflow pipe and
serves to deliver the contents of the tank at mid-
depth into the flush tank. In this operation it be-
comes aerated by means of the air in the flush tank
from which it is delivered to the irrigation field
where it is further filtered.
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
742
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
JOHN W. ALWORD.
As these tanks are often built it will be found
that in place of the elbow pipe in the liquefying
tank, a cross wall of masonry extending below the
normal surface of the liquid is built so as to trap
both the inlet and outlet pipe. A description of
this Variation is necessary to understand a com-
parison with the claims of the patent, and the two
arrangements will be alluded to as the trap wall
and the elbow pipe arrangement respectively.
Referring now to the claims of the patent, I find
that Claim 1 is anticipated by the Waring plant.
I find that Claim 2 is fully anticipated by the
Waring plant.
I find that Claim 3 is fully anticipated by the
Waring plant.
I find that Claim 4 is fully anticipated by the
Waring plant.
I find that Claim 5 is anticipated by the Waring
plant, when built with the trap wall.
I find that Claim 6 is not anticipated by the
Waring plant.
I find that Claim 7 is anticipated in the Waring
plant, built with a trap wall if the space between
such trap wall and the mainwall can be broadly
designated a conduit, having a longitudinal slot
open across the greater part of the width of the
tank.
I find that Claim 8 is not anticipated in the
Waring plant.
I find that Claim 11 is fully anticipated by the
Waring plant, when built with a trap wall.
I find that Claim 12 is not anticipated in the
Waring plant.
743
JOHN W. ALWORD.
I find that Claim 20 is anticipated by the Waring
plant, when built with a trap wall.
I find that Claim 21 is fully anticipated by th
Waring plant. º
I find that Claim 22 is also fully anticipated by
the Waring plant.
Q. 15. Disregarding details but keeping in mind
the requirements of the Cameron patent No. 634,-
423, sued on in this cause, please enumerate the
prior patents, publications, and sewage disposal
tanks or plants referred to in the testimony in this
cause, which you consider to empoly, apply or carry
out the same process—that is, the process described
in said patent and particularly specified and claim-
ed in its process claims? A. British patent No.
1706, to Beven G. Sloper, 1870; Dr. Alexander
Mueller in a published account in Landwirthschaf-
tliche; the Sanitary Draining of Houses and Towns,
published in 1876 by George E. Waring; the Insane
Asylum at Worcester, Massachusetts, built in 1876,
described by Rafter & Baker, page 456; U. S. patent
184,099, to George R. Moore, 1876; German patent
No. 9792, to Dr. Alexander Mueller, 1878; Wo-
man's Prison, Massachusetts, 1879, installed by
Colonel Waring; Installation at Bryn Mawr Hotel,
Pennsylvania, 1881, by Colonel George E. Waring;
Engineering Record, September 1st, 1881, Descrip-
tion by Unknown Constant Reader of a Proposed
Air-tight Cesspool; French patent 144,904, to Louis
Mouras, 1881; Description of Mouras automatic
scavenger in Cosmos le Mondes December, 1881,
page 622 and in 1882, page 97, and in 1883, page
110; British patent 5391 to William R. Lake, in
1881; this being Mouras’ British patent. Descrip-
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
744
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
JOHN W. ALWORD.
tion of Mouras’ automatic scavenger in the Min-
utes of the Proceedings of Civil Engineers of LOn-
don for 1882, Volume 48, page 350; Description of
Mouras’ automatic scavenger in the Engineering
News of New York City April 15, 1882; ſnstallation
by Benezette Williams of a plant at Blair Lodge,
1882; Installation at Lawrenceville, New Jersey,
School for Boys, 1882; Paper by Robert Warring-
ton, in England, before the Society of Arts, Vol-
ume 30, page 532, entitled “Some practical Aspects
of Recent Investigations on Nitrification,” 1882;
Installation of a plant at Massachusetts Reforma-
tory, Concord, 1883; Sanitary Engineer, of May 10,
1883; Article by Edward S. Phillbrick; Sanitary
Record, Volume 8, page 444, 1883; Letter from
Edward S. Phillbrick, suggesting sewage plant for
hospital; Installation of the Mouras automatic
scavenger at Logelbach at the words of Mr. Her-
Zog, described in the proceedings of the Institute of
Civil Engineers, Volume 78, page 532, for 1883; U.
S. patent 280,545, July 3, 1883 to Silas Wilcox;
Description of Mouras automatic scavenger by E.
Thurry, in the Annaels Industrielles August 24,
1884, page 253; also translation in the miutes of
the proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineers,
Volume 78, page 502; Installation at Altenheim,
Chicago, by W. S. MacHarg, 1884; Installation at
Sagamore FHotel, Green Island, Lake George, by Ru-
dolph Hering, 1885; Installation at Medfield, Mass-
achusetts, in 1887; Publication of book entitled
“Sewage and Land Drainage,” by Colonel George
E. Waring, 1888; Installation at St. Joseph Orphan
Asylum, by W. S. MacHarg, 1889; Publication of
book, entitled “Household Wastes” by William
745
JOHN W. ALWORD.
Paul Gerhard, 1890; British patent 3312 to Adney
& Parry, 1890; U. S. patent 424,838 to Frank L.
Union, 1890; Publication by Professor Pagliani,
International Congress of Hygiene, 1891; Publica-
tion by Flush-Tank Company, Chicago, 1892; Re-
port on Scott Moncrief's Process at Ashted, 1893;
I’ublication by George E. Waring of book entitled
“Modern Methods of Sewage Disposal,” I894; U. S.
patent 530,622, December 11, 1894, to W. D. Scott
Moncrief; Installation of Urbana Tank, at Urbana,
Illinois, 1894; Installation of First Champaign
Tank, Champaign, Illinois, 1895; Installation at St.
Bede's College, Peru, Illinois, 1891.
Q. 16. Please assume that in use the apparatus
and process of the Cameron patent No. 634,423,
sued on in this cause, have two special features or
characteristics, as follows: (1) The sewage is al-
lowed to “remain in the tank for a considerable per-
iod of time in order that the bacteria of putrefac-
tion may manifest their destructive activity, and
so accomplish their work of decomposition and liq-
uefaction;” and (2) “that the contents of the tank
must either be practically shut off from all contact
with the atmosphere, or the surface of the sewage
must remain quiescent for a sufficient length of
time to permit their accumulation of a thick scum
on the top, which operates to €XT
clude the air and light;” and On
this assumption please enumerate the prior
patents, publications, and sewage disposal tanks or
plants referred to in the testimony in this cause
which you consider to possess and employ these
same two special features or characteristics? A.
The tanks and publications and plants referred to
3.720
3721
3722
3723
3724
746
3725
37.26
37.27
3728
3729
JOHN W. ALWORD.
in my previous answer would all come under the
definition which you have given of septic action. So-
called, and in addition to such tanks, publications
and plants which were intentionally designed for
the reduction of solids by liquefying action, the
answer would oblige me to list a large number of
plants provided with tanks which in their time and
day were called plain sedimentation tanks, but
which were provided with non-disturbing inflow and
outflow practically covered from light and air, so
that the solids were retained in the tank a sufficient
length of time for the fiquefying action of anae-
robic bacteria. Among the examples of such tanks
as these are the tanks described by Henry Austin,
in his report in 1852, the tanks I have described át
the plant at Ealing, in England, at Aldershot Camp
Farm; the plant at Wimbleton, England; at Ches-
sick & Murton, in England; at Amherst, in Massa-
chusetts, and other tanks of a similar nature. Ac-
tion. Would also be observable in such tanks as built
by Adney & Parry and such as are shown in U. S.
patent 366,333; British patent 7134 of 1887; and
Others of a like nature.
Among the best examples, both of these and those
mentioned in my previous answer are the tanks at
Ealing, England, the Automatic Scavenger of Louis
Mouras, in France, the installations mentioned by
Professor Pagliani in Italy, the patent to Dr. Alex-
ander Mueller, of Berlin; and in this country the
publications of George E. Waring, Edward Phill-
brick, William Paul Gerhard, and others, and the
installations which I have specifically compared
With the patent in the Eastern States and in Illi-
nois, such as the tanks at Lawrenceville, New Jer-
747
JOHN W. ALVORD.
sey, Worcester, Massachusetts, Medfield, Massachu-
setts, the Reformatory at Concord, and the tanks
at Champaign and Urbana, St. Joseph Orphan Asy-
lum and Altenheim, Chicago, and St. Bede's Col-
lege, at Peru, Illinois.
Adjourned till Friday, Sept. 8, 1905, at 10 o'clock
A. M.
Chicago, September 14, 1905; 10 o’clock A. M.;
met pursuant to adjournment; present as before,
with the addition of Mr. Livingston Gifford as
counsel for complainant.
See entry in reference to meeting
September 8, at beginning of deposition
of Charles B. Burdick, and entry in ref-
erence to adjournment to this date at
end of second deposition of Henry W.
Hill.
Q. 17. Since you were last on the stand the
deposition of Charles B. Burdick, Rev. Vincent
Huber and Henry W. Hill have been taken with
Special reference to the sewage tank at St. Bede’s
College, Peru, Illinois. Have you read such depo-
sitions and do you understand the same? A. I
have and do.
Q. 18. Please state whether there is anything
in the construction or operation of that tank at
St. Bede’s College, as described in the depositions
referred to in my previous question, which re-
Quires any qualification of your views heretofore
expressed in reference thereto, and particularly
give your views in reference to the construction
and operation of that tank as described in said
depositions. A. It does not seem to me that
3730
3731
3733
3734
748
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
JOHN W. ALVORD.
the depositions of Mr. Burdick and Rev. Huber
Would modify in any way the opinion which I
have already expressed as to the liquefying
action which would go on within such tank.
The Scum described by Rev. Huber apparent-
ly covered the entire area of the tank, with the
exception of a small hole near the inlet about 18
inches in diameter. As the area of the tank is
Something over 71 or 72 square feet it is evident
that the proportion of liquid not covered by scum
to that which is so covered would be in the ratio
of about one to seventy, and thus, in my opinion,
no modification or disturbance of the liquefying
action would normally take place,
As I have stated before, it is more important
in tanks of this kind that there should be a non-
disturbing outflow of the character shown in this
tank than that there should be a non-disturbing
inflow, especially in tanks where the inflow is
relatively small to the contents of the tank.
I further observe from the testimony of the
Rev. Vincent Huber that the roof water was con-
nected with this tank, and the testimony of Mr.
Hill shows that the area of the roof so connected
was a little over 18,700 square feet The normal
rainfall of one-quarter inch an hour would,
therefore, cause about 2,500 gallons to flow into
the tank, and as the tank has a liquid capacity of
about 3,000 gallons, such rainfall would theoreti-
cally displace a considerable portion of the liquid
contents. Practically, however, a large portion
of the solid matters would still be retained in the
tank because of the trapped outlet and the lique-
faction would continue.
749
JOHN W. ALWORD.
The normal dry weather flow will probably
closely correspond to the amount of water used
in the institution, which is stated by Rev. Vin-
cent Huber to be from 2,000 to 8,000 gallons per
day, and as the liquid capacity of the tank is
about 3,000 gallons, the sewage would theoreti-
cally have a period within the tank of something
over one day’s rest, the solids, however, being
detained by the trapped outlet would of course
be detained a much longer time than this, that
is to say, until liquefied.
The testimony seems to disclose that the tank
was originally covered with boards which have
since rotted so as to leave a partial opening. It
would appear to me that this would indicate a
tank of sufficient tightness to meet the claims of
the patent. Since the decay of the wooden cover
has left a partial opening, it would appear to
be demonstrated from the evidence that the Sur-
face Scum was sufficient in quantity to produce
liquefying action regardless of the cover.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Gifford.
X. Q. 19. Of the structures that you have re-
ferred to as existing in the art prior to the Cam-
eron patent in suit, which have you personally
seen? A. I have seen the works at Croyden, in
England, in the year 1888, also the Aldershot
Camp Farm in England in the same year. In
this country I saw the tank at Champaign, in
about 1898, I should judge. Of the installations
which I have mentioned as being designed along
the lines suggested by Colonel George E. War-
ing, I can only now recall that at Bair Lodge,
Lake Forest, Illinois, which I saw probably in
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
750
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
JOHN W. ALWORD.
1896, and one at the residence' of Byron L. Smith,
Esq., of Lake Forest. These two are believed
to have been installed by the Flush-Tank Com-
pany. Other tanks which I believe to be cred-
ited to the suggestions of Colonel Waring are one
at the Catholic institution at Dubuque, Iowa,
whose name I have now forgotten, but which I
think was an orphan asylum. This I saw in the
year 1898. Also one for the State Hospital for
the Insane at Independence, Iowa, which I saw
in the year 1901. These are all that I recall at
this time.
In view of the last answer complainant’s
counsel objects to all the testimony of
the witness Alvord touching any
structures or processes that are not
either referred to in the last answer as
having been seen by him, or are rep-
resented by exhibits actually intro-
duced in evidence in this case; the
ground of this objection being that in
the absence of any personal knowledge
by the witness as to the same or any
exhibits properly proven from the
patents or publications in the prior
state of the art, the statements of the
witness touching the same are entirely
incompetent and hearsay. The testi-
mony of the witness as to the works at
Croyden and Aldershot are objected
to as incompetent on the ground that
they represent uses in a foreign coun-
try.
75i.
JOHN W. ALWORD.
XQ. 20. Please refer to the drawing of some
exhibit or exhibits in this case showing the con-
struction of the tank that you saw respectively
at Blair Lodge, Lake Forest, Illinois, also at
Smith’s residence, Lake Forest, also at the Cath-
olic Institution at Dubuque, Iowa A. The in-
stallation at Blair Lodge and the residence of
Byron L. Smith, Esq., both at Lake Forest, are
substantially built as shown in the drawing on
page 24 of the catalogue of the Flush-Tank Com-
pany for 1892, which has been heretofore sub-
mitted as an exhibit in this case.
I am not prepared to say that the installations
mentioned follow the details of the drawing in
every minute particular, but the general arrange-
ment is remarkably like that shown in the cata-
logue which I have mentioned.
With reference to the installation at Dubuque,
I have never seen a drawing.
XQ. 21. Have you in your testimony referred
to two kinds of bacterial action upon the solid or-
ganic matter of sewage; one being a nitrifying
action produced by aerobic bacteria, and the
other being a liquefying action produced by
anaerobic bacteria? A. I have.
XQ. 22. When these two actions are applied
respectively to fresh Sewage, what is the nature
of the effect that they produce upon the solid
organic matter which is referred to respectively
by the terms ‘’nitrifying” and “liquefying.” A.
I think it will be observable that in my testimony
I have nowhere drawn sharp distinction between
the liquefying and the nitrifying action, and I am
of the belief that such sharp distinctions cannot
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
752
8755
3756
3757
3758
37.59
JOHN W. ALWORD.
be warranted in the present state of the art. In
other words, if there is a difference between the
form of chemical action which goes on in the
presence of anaerobic bacteria and that which
goes on in the presence of aerobic bacteria the
line of demarcation is not so marked that we
can say with truth where one begins and where
the other ends. In many instances it is possible
trat both are going on at the same time. There-
fore it is very difficult to say with absolute cer-
tainty that one form of effect is absolutely pro-
duced by liquefying action, so-called, and that
another form of effect is produced by nitrifying
action.
Speaking very generally, it is the belief at the
present time that liquefying action proceeds un-
der conditions which are favorable to the produc-
tion of anaerobic bacteria, while nitrifying action
proceeds best under conditions which are favor-
able to the growth of aerobic bacteria.
XQ. 23. What are those conditions respec-
tively and how do they differ from each other?
A. Speaking generally, it is believed at the pres-
ent time that anaerobic conditions are best pro-
duced by the relative absence of agitation, by
the presence the presence of some degree of heat,
Such as is normally produced by the chemical
action taking place in the sewage itself and to
some limited extent by the exclusion of light and
the absence of dissolved oxygen in the liquid.
With reference to the exclusion of light, how-
ever, and the absence of air( it is felt just at this
time that it has been demonstrated that these con-
ditions are not absolutely essential to the promo-
tion of liquefaction.,
753
JOHN W. ALWORD.
The conditions which are now supposed to be
favorable to nitrification are the presence of a suf-
ficient amount of dissolved oxygen in the liquid,
its passage through a medium which can be aerated
at intervals, and upon which the cultivation of bac-
teria is supposed to take place, such a a sand filter.
It is, however, doubtful if the conditions which I
have outlined for liquefaction are entirely inimi-
cable to the life of aerobic bacteria, or if the con-
ditions which I have Outlined for nitrification
would wholly preclude the existence of anaerobic
bacteria.
XQ. 24. When nitrification by aerobic bacteria
occurrs in the solid organic matter of said sewage,
what change from external appearance seems to
take place in such solid organic matter? In other
words, does the solid organic matter seem to dis-
appear, and if so, what does it seem to turn into? A.
So far as I have pursued the subject, I am not able
to conceive of nitrification alone as taking place
in the solids of sewage, and thus far in my study of
the subject I have come to a condition of mind
Where I am unwilling to accept a too de-
tailed statement as to exactly what takes
place in the resolving of the highly complex
form which the wastes of human life as-
sume to their simpler elements. This is because
I have observed that a good many ingenius
theories which have from time to time been accept-
ed, have been disproved. I am, therefore, of the
opinion that it.is not wise to attempt a too detailed
explanation at the present time as to just what
takes place in dissolving sewage, for the reason
that I believe we are leaving safely proven facts for
376()
3761
3762
3763
3764
754
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
JOHN W. ALWORD.
interesting theory when we attempt to advance too
far. As an illustration of this, I will only mention
the generally accepted theory which was dissemi-
nated when the septic tank of Mr. Cameron was
first described that the entire exclusion of light and
air is necessary to the growth and propagation of
anaerobic bacteria, a theory which I now believe
is not generally thought to be true. As a further
instance, I might mention that at one time it was
thought that ritrification was due to a particular
species of bacteria, and that particular species was
supposed to have been isolated and studied. It it
now, I think, pretty generally accepted that there
are a great variety of bacteria which promote nitri-
fication. Other instances might be mentioned of the
rapidly changing views which have taken place up-
On certain portions of the study of sewage purifica-
tion due, in my opinion, to a somewhat eager ac-
ceptance of a minute explanation of the process.
The answer is objected to as irrespon-
sive. The witness is requested particular-
ly to confine his answer to the question as
nearly as possible.
XQ. 25. I endeavored to frame my question so
as to exclude theoretical considerations as much
as possible by expressly referring in my question
to such changes as seem to take place from external
appearance. In the nitrification of sewage that has
not been preliminarily treated to a liquefying ana-
erobic treatment, what effect does such nitrification
from external appearances appear to produce upon
the solid organic matter of the sewage? A. I am
unable to say. I have never attempted to conceive
of nitrification alone proceeding in the solids of
Sewage,
755
JOHN W. ALWORD.
XQ. 26. Wher sewage that has not been subject-
ed to a preliminary liquefying anaerobic treatment
is subjected to what you have referred to as nitrify-
ing conditions what changes from external appear-
ance seem to occur in the solid organic matter of
the sewage? A. The solids seemed to be resolved
from higher complex chemical forms to simpler
complex chemical forms. In appearance they
seem to dissolve and liquefy. This seems to be es-
pecially true of the solids which are caught on the
surface of a sand filter. All sewage is undergoing
chemical change, decay, dissolution, or decompo-
sitition, from the moment it is created, unless arrest-
ed by the action of excessive heat or antiseptic
chemical.
XQ. 27. You say in your last answer, “In ap-
pearance they seem to dissolve and liquefy.” Is this
accompanied by the giving off of gas? A. Under
Some circumstances it is, as for instance, when an
excessive amount of solids are accumulated in such
a manner that bacterial growth is not promoted.
Under other circumsances, such as the depositing
of sewage upon an intermittent filtration field of
adequate area, a little odor is generally experienced.
XQ. 28. In the printed pamphlet containing
the report of yourself and Julian Griggs, dated
May 1st, 1898, and entitled “A Report to the Di-
rector of Public Improvements of the City of Co-
lumbus, Ohio, on the Proper Disposal of the Sew-
age of the City,” are the following statements
contained:
“Dilution consists in bringing the sewage into
contact with a sufficient quantity of fresh water
so that the dissolved oxygen which such water al-
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
756
3775
3776
37.77
3778
3779
JOHN W. ALWORD.
ways contains can promote the bacterial action and
subsequent nitrification.
IPutrefaction occurs inevitably when there is not
enough dissolved oxygen in the water to promote
the nitrifying process. Up to a certain point with
an admixture of fresh water enough dissolved oxy-
gen is available for the purpose, but when once ex-
hausted the nitrifying process is retarded or alto-
gether ceases and obnoxious gases are generated.
There is, therefore, a definite limit or proportion of
fresh water which must be properly mingled with
the sewage in order to rapidly and efficiently purify
it. Where this amount is available no more eco-
nomical or rapid method of purification can be
found. The amount of fresh water thus required
Cannot be stated in fixed terms with satisfaction.”
A. They are.
XQ. 29. When the nitrifying conditions are
Supplied by the admixture of fresh water contain-
ing dissolved oxygen, have you ever observed
what, from outward appearance, seems to happen
to the Organic solids of the sewage? A. They
Seem to dissolve, to decompose, or decay, or to be
liquefied. And with sufficient proportions of fresh
water this is accomplished without the produc-
tion of offensive gases.
YQ. 30. In view of the fact that the solid or-
ganic matter of sewage seems to dissolve when
subjected to nitrifying conditions without any
preliminary anaerobic or septic treatment, why
is it that such preliminary anaerobic or septic
treatment is employed? In other words, why is
it that the sewage is first subjected to the anaero-
bic or septic conditions and subsequently to the
aerobic or nitrifying conditions? A. In my opin-
ion, the solids of sewage, which is emptied into
757
JoHN W. ALWORD.
a sufficient quantity of fresh water, unuergo
anaerobic dissolution, that is to Say, I do not be-
lieve that nitrifying conditions ever entirely elim-
imate liquefying conditions, and it is my idea that
each solid particle becomes, as it were, a miniature
septic lank of its own in which Septic action, S0-
called, or liquefying action under anaerobic con-
dition, is set up and accomplishes the initial stage
of dissolving the solids.
This initial stage we seek to accelerate where
Sufficient flow of water is not present by retain-
ing these solids in a liquid tank so that this dis-
Solution may be accomplished as rapidly as pos-
sible. º
XQ. 31. Why is it that it is better to provide
for the anaerobic or liquefying action under one
Set of conditions and to provide for the aerobic
or nitrifying action under a separate and Subse-
quent set of conditions, rather than to let both
actions take place conjointly under the same set
of conditions? A. I believe it to be largely a
question of expediency, and to my mind the pres-
ence of a large body of water sufficient for the
purpose determines this expediency. As I have
before said, 'I believe anaerobic bacteria exist
freely winere conditions cause aerobic bacteria to
preponderate; also I believe the converse of this
proposition is true. Therefore, liquefying action
will often proceed in sufficient amount in the Sol-
ids of sewage where the conditions are evidently
favorable to aerobic life. This is the case of the
fresh water, and also the filter beds. I am fur-
ther of the opinion that a sufficient amount of
liquid assists bacterial action by promoting mo-
3780
3781
37.82
3783
37.84
758
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
JOHN W. ALWORD.
tility and dissemination and relieving the micro-
Organisms of their own attendant wastes, and this
I believe to be the reason why liquefaction, decay
and dissolution of solids by anaerobic action takes
place so rapidly and inoffensively in large bodies
of water.
Where we cannot supply large bodies of water,
or where it would be contrary to public policy to
polute large bodies of water, it becomes evidently
necessary, as far as possible, to imitate the con-
ditions by which solids of Sewage dissolve in large
bodies of water, and this we must evidently do
by providing a sufficient quantity of liquid in
which the bacteria may multiply and disseminate,
and in which if possible the wastes of their own
existence may not injure them or decrease their
vitality. This can be done by accumulating the
Sewage in the tanks, or by spreading it out on
the top of filter beds of ample area, or by means
of large bodies of flowing water, and it is always
a matter of expediency which one of these meth-
ods we must necessarily Select.
|XQ. 32. Where enough dissolved oxygen is not
available, in water for nitrifying conditions, have
you known of any attempts to stimulate the same'
nitrifying condition by blowing air into the Sew-
age? A. I have. This seems to have been an idea
which has occurred to a good many minds at va-
rious stages in the history of the art.
|XQ. 33. To what extent have such attempts at
purification survived up to the present time in
practical use? A. There may be possibly one or
two plants in this country operated in that manner,
759.
JoHN W. ALVORD.
but in my opinion there have been no important
survivals of that idea.
YQ. 34. What plants had you in mind in your
last answer, and by whom were they built if you
know? A. One plant I think, at East Cleveland,
or somewhere in the vicinity of Cleveland, occurs
to me as having been built a few years ago on this
principle; also a plant by the late Colonel George
E. Waring was constructed at some street railway
park near Philadelphia, about 1899, I should
think.
XQ. 35. What in your opinion is the objection to
a plant operating on the principle last referred to,
namely, the production of nitrifying conditions by
aerating the sewage or blowing air into it? A. I
have never formulated any objection, save to note
that such plants do not seem to be especially suc-
cessful. I should be inclined to believe that ex-
cessive agitation was detrimental to bacterial life,
both anaerobic and aerobic.
|XQ. 36. Do you understand that Colonel War-
ing, on March 12, 1895, patented a sewage disposal
plant operating on the principle of aerating the
sewage last referred to, being the patent now
shown you, No. 535,515, dated March 12, 1895? A.
I do. I am familiar in a general way with the
patent, in question.
Complainant’s counsel offers in evi-
dence a copy of the specification and
drawing of the patent last referred to,
and the same is marked Complainant’s
Exhibit Waring's Sewage Disposal Patent
of 1895.
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
760
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
JoHN W. ALVORD.
XQ. 37. By question 15 you were asked to
“enumerate the prior patents, publications and
Sewage disposal tanks or plants referred to in
the testimony in this cause which you consider
to apply or carry out the same process, that is,
the process described in Sald patent and partic-
ularly specified and claimed in its process
claims.” Among all the tanks referred to in
your answers to questions 15 and 16 please give
a list of all those that are not substantially rep-
resented for the purposes of this case by some
one of the sketches on “Complainant’s Exhibit
Tracings Prior Art Cesspools?” A. The tank
at the Worcester Hospital, the tank described in
the Mueller patent, the tanks at Ealing, in Eng-
land, at the School for Boys, at Lawrenceville,
New Jersey, the plant at the Massachusetts Re-
formatory at Concord, at Altenheim and St. Jo-
Seph’s Hospital, near Chicago, at Medfield, Mas-
Sachusetts, the patent of Scott Moncrief, the
tanks of Professor Talbot at Urbana and Cham-
paign, the plants in England, at Aldershot, Wim-
bleton and Murton, the tanks described by Henry
Austin in his report in 1862, the plant at Croy-
den, England, and at Gardner and Marlborough,
Massachusetts.
XQ. 38. Please repeat the list of your last
answer and give opposite each reference the
name of the exhibit in this case to which you re-
fer as showing it, or the reference by page to a
book wherein such reference is shown, which
book is competent for reference under the stipu-
lation in this case? A. Repeating the last
answer with references, I would say that the
761
JoHN W. ALVORD,
description of the tank at Worcester, Massachu-
setts, is found in book published in 1894 by
Messrs. Rafter & Baker, entitled “Sewage Dis-
posal in the United States, page 456;” German
patent to Alexander Mueller, No. 9793, in 1878,
which is an exhibit in this case. The tanks at
Ealing, in England, are described in a book pub-
lished in London, in 1890, written by Mr. W.
Santo Crimp, and entitled “Sewage Disposal
Works,” reference is to be found on page 161.
The plant at the Lawrenceville School for Boys
will be found in Messrs. Rafter & Baker’s Book,
on page 511. Description of the plant at the Mas-
sachusetts Reformatory at Concord will be found
in Messrs. Rafter & Baker's Book, page 465.
Description of the plants at Altenheim and St.
Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, near Chicago, are
found in the testimony of Mr. W. S. MacHarg in
this case, and the further description of the plant
at St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum is found on page
386 of the Engineering & Building Record for 1889.
A description of the plant at Medfield is to be
found in the Annual Report of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health at page 100, also in Raf-
ter & Baker’s book, page 490. The Scott Mon-
crief patent No. 530,622, granted December 11,
1804, is one of the exhibits in this case. The
description of the tanks at Champaign and Ur-
bana is to be found in the testimony of Profes-
Sor Talbot, and the drawings of the same are
exhibits in this case The plants at Wimble-
ton, in England, is described in Mr. Santo
Crimp’s book, page 216. The plant at Merton,
England, is described in the same book, page 151
3800
3801
3803
3804
762
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
JoBN W. ALvoRD.
The plant at Croyden, England, is described in
Mr. Santo Crimp’s book, page 151. The plant at
Gardner is described in Rafter & Baker’s book,
page 116, and the plant at Marlborough is de-
scribed in the same book, page 504. The report
of Henry Austin contains a description of a Sug-
gested tank of which a copy is marked “Defend-
ants' Exhibit Proposed Sewage Works,” also a
drawing of tanks at Cheltenham, which is en-
titled “Defendants' Exhibit Cheltenham Sewage
Works.”
XQ. 39. For the convenience of the court, I
make the following list of the references cited in
your last two answers abbreviated and rearranged
So that those occurring in the same book are to-
gether, and will ask you to state if it is Substan-
tially correct?
Worcester, Rafter & Baker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 456
Lawrenceville, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 511
Concord, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 465
Medfield, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 490
Gardner, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 116
Marlborough, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 504
Daling, Santo Crimp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 161
Wimbleton, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 216
Merton, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 151
Croyden, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 151
Mueller, German patent, 9793, of 1878.
Scott Moncrief, U. S. patent, 530,622.
Altenheim, MacHarg testimony.
St. Joseph’s, MacHarg testimony.
Urbana, Talbot testimony.
Champaign, Talbot testimony.
763
JoHN W. ALVORD.
Defendants' Exhibit Proposed Sewage Works.
Defendants' Exhibit Cheltenham Sewage Works.
A. It seems to be correct.
XQ. 40. And as I understand you, the above
list contains all of the references given in your
answers to questions 15 and 16 that are not sub-
stantially represented for the purposes of this
case by some one of the sketches on “Complain-
ants' Exhibit Tracings Prior Art Cesspools.” Is
that so? A. They are so far as I now recall
them. I have, of course, omitted a considerable
number of plants which I consider to be substan-
tially of the type of one or the other of the draw-
ings upon complainant’s exhibit. Among these
are a considerable number of installations of the
type advocated by Colonel Waring, and modifica-
tions of the type patented by Mouras.
XQ. 41. Of all of the references enumerated in
XQ. 39, or represented by the sketches on “Com-
plainant's Exhibit Tracings Prior Art Cesspool,”
which one do you regard as the best and most exact
anticipation of Claim 1 of the Cameron patent in
suit? A. I am unable to select one which I con-
sider more nearly covering Claim 1 than a large
number of the others.
XQ. 42. Do we mean to be understood as saying
that the Court may select at random anyone of the
reference referred to in the last question and as-
Sume that in your opinion it is just as good and ex-
act an anticipation of Claim 1 as any other of said
references? A. I did not so state.
XQ. 43. Then please state which of those refer-
ences you regard as being on an equality, the best
and most exact anticipation of Claim 12 A. I re-
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
764.
8815
3816
3817
3818
3819
JoHN W. ALWORD.
gard the tanks at the Worcester State Hospital for
the Insane, at the Massachusetts Reformatory at
Concord, at the School for Boys at Lawrenceville,
German patent, 9793 to Alexander Mueller, the in-
stallation at Altenheim and St. Joseph’s Orphan
Asylum near Chicago, the plant at Medfield, Massa-
chusetts, the plants at Urbana and Champaign,
Illinois, the plants at Wimbleton and Merton, in
England, the tanks at Cheltenham described by
Henry Austin, and his suggested tank as all being
complete anticipations of Claim 1 of the patent.
The remaining instances cited I regard as anticipa-
tions of Claim 1 of the patent, though perhaps
slightly less clear so far as the records stand, in
their intentional use of liquefaction.
XQ. 44. Would your last answer be any differ-
ent if the question should be repeated as to Claims
2, 3, 4 and 21 respectively, of the Cameron patent in
suit? A. It would not be, with the exception that
at Urbana and Champaign there is no filtering op-
eration to follow the aeration, as specified in Claim
4.
At one or two of the instances cited there is an
inlet into the tank which is non-disturbing in the
strictest sense. These instances are notably at
Gardner, and in the tank suggested by Henry Aus-
tin, “Defendants' Exhibit, Proposed Sewage
WorkS.”
XQ. 45. I will now take up the references that
you mentioned in your last two answers as the best
and most exact anticipations of Claims 1, 2, 3, and
21, so as to have you point out on the drawing of
each what you regard as the tank within which the
processes of those claims were performed. Please
765
JoBN W. ALWORD.
point out on the drawing of the Worcester plant,
(Rafter & Baker, p. 458), the tank in which you
say that the process of said claims were performed?
A. I beg to point out that the above question
draws a wrong inference from my preceding
answer; that the instances which I have given are
not the best illustrations of anticipations of Claim
1, but are the best illustrations of all those I have
mentioned, excluding all instances which are sub-
stantially the same type as shown on “Defendants’
Exhibit, Tracings, Prior Art Cesspools.”
Complainant's cousel states that he
does not understand the testimony of the
Witness to read by any means as last stat-
ed, but that if the witness insists upon SO
construing it, it is necessary for counsel
to begin largely over again, and it is there-
fore futile for the witness to answer the
last question with any such understand-
ing.
XQ. 46. In XQ. 41 I asked you which of all the
references enumerated in XQ. 39, or represented by
the sketches and “Complainant’s Exhibit, Tracings
Prior Art Cesspools,” you regarded as the best and
most exact anticipation of Claim 1 of the Cameron
patent in suit. In XQ. 43 I asked you to state
which of those references you regarded as being on
an equality the best and most exact anticipation of
Claim 1. I therefore repeat XQ. 43 which you now
See includes all of the references enumerated in
XQ. 39, as well as all the references represented
by the sketches on “Complainant's Exhibit, Trac-
ings, Prior Art Cesspools,” and therefore include
all of the references cited by you in answers 15 and
3820
38.21
3822
3823
3824
T66
3825
3826
3828
3829
JoHN W. ALVORD.
16? It will greatly simplify matters for the Court
if, in answering this question, you will refrain from
repeating different references descripitive of sub-
stantially the same thing. A. I now perceive that
I misunderstood your XQ. 41 to exclude anticipa-
tions substantially like those shown by the “Com-
plainant's Exhibit, Tracings, Prior Art Cesspools,”
and to the answer to XQ. 43 which will remain as
I then answered it, I will add the U. S. patent, No.
268,120, to Louis Mouras, in 1882, the installations
of the Flush-Tank Company as instanced at Blair
Lodge, Lake Forest, IIinois, the tank at St. Bede’s
College, near Peru, Illinois, as testified to by Mr.
Hill and Mr. Burdick, and the tanks described by
Professor Pagliani in the International Congress
of Hygiene, 1891.
Adjourned till to-morrow, Friday, September
15, 1905, at ten o’clock A. M.
Friday, Sept. 15, 1905, ten o’clock A. M.; met
pursuant to adjournment; present as before.
XQ. 47. Would your answer to the last question
be any different if it should be asked with reference
to Claims 2, 3 and 21 respectively? A. It would
not with the exceptions that some few of the in-
stances noted, notably at St. Bede’s College, at
Peru, Illinois, in the suggested tank of Henry Aus-
tin, in the tanks at Altenheim, and St. Joseph’s
Hospital, near Chicago , there are not strictly
speaking non-disturbing inflows in the sense that
these inflows are at mid-depth. In the case of most
of these exceptions, however, these inflows are non-
disturbing by reason of the small proportion of the
inflow in relation to the liquid contents of the tank.
767
JOHN W. ALVORD.
In nearly all of the cases cited the outlet is non-
disturbing.
XQ. 48. In respect to which of the Claims 2, 3 or
21, do you wish to make the exceptions, noted in
your last answer? A. Claims 2 and 3.
XQ. 49. To get a complete list, together of all
the references cited by you from the prior art that
you regard as being on an equality the best and
most exact anticipation of Claims 2 and 3, I make
the following, and ask you if it is correct:
Worcester, Rafter & Baker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 456
Lawrenceville, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 511
Concord, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 568
Medfield, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 490
Wimbleton, Santo Crimp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 216
Merton, “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 151
Mueller, German patent, 9793 of 1878.
Urbana, Talbot Testimony.
Champaign, “ & 4
Defendants' Exhibit, Cheltenham Sewage Works.
Mouras U. S. patent, No. 268,120.
Flush-Tank Company Catalogue. . . . . . . . . . p. 24
A. It is, and I should like to add to the list, the
plant at Ealing, in England, (Santo Crimp, p. 158)
as meeting the requirements of my previous ques-
tions and answers.
XQ. 50. Please take up each of the references
mentioned in the last question and answer and des.
ignate what tank shown in the drawing of each, you
regard as containing or producing the process of
Claims 2 and 3. In answering this question, I would
suggest that it would be for the convenience of the
Court if you referred to each reference by a sep-
arate paragraph commenced by the distinctive
383()
3831
3832
3833
3834.
768
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
JOHN W. ALVoRD.
name of the reference, and that you designate the
particular part of the apparatus to which you re-
fer in as few words as possible? A. I will first re-
fer to:
Worcester Hospital for the Insane—(Rafter &
Baker, p. 456).
This plant shows a covered tank by means of
which light and air are practically excluded, hav-
ing a non-disturbing inflow and outflow. The tank
is shown on Fig. 69, page 458, as an oblong tank
with rounded ends, denoted in plan by E, also
in section corresponding to and immediately above
SaM162.
Lawrenceville School for Boys—Rafter &
Baker, p. 511).
A cut of the tank at Lawrenceville is found on
page 512, Fig. 91, which shows the tank in plan,
and immediately above it in longitudinal section
corresponding with the plan, and in addition two
transverse sections on line A, B and C, D of the
plan.
There is also a small plan of the same tank in
Fig. 92, page 513, marked in the cut, “Sewage
Tank,” which shows its general relation to the irri-
gation ground.
A description of the tank is found on page 511
near the bottom of the page, under the heading of
“Sewage Disposal System,” and extending to and
including the top paragraph of page 513.
Concord Massachusetts Reformatory—Rafter
& Baker, p. 468).
The tank in this case in its general relation to
the plant is noted on Fig. 72, page 469, and marked
“Sewage Reservoir Pump House.” A more com-
769
JoBN W. ALWORD.
plete detail of the tank is shown in Fig. 73, page
470, in p'an, and immediately above the plan by a
longitudinal section corresponding therewith and
marked “Section on E, F.” The liquefying tanks
proper are those marked on plan “AA,” the tanks
marked “BB,” being receiving storage chambers
from which the sewage flows after leaving the tanks
A and A.”
A description of the tanks is found on page 471,
beginning at the top of the page in small type, and
extending to and including the upper two para-
graphs on page 472.
Medfield Plant, Massachusetts—Rafter &
Baker, p. 490).
The tank at Medfield will be found in Fig. 79,
showing a section through its center line in either
direction, but no plan. This may be called the
main tank. A second tank is built and connected
in the sewer leading from the main tank which is
shown at Fig 80, page 492, in plan and section.
A description of the main tank begins with the
bottom paragraph on page 490, and extends to and
including the upper paragraphs of page 491. A
description of the second tank is found in the sec-
ond paragraph of page 491.
Wimbleton, England—(Santo Crimp, p. 216.)
The tank here is shown on plate 25, opposite
page 215, and consists of a plan with a section be-
low and correspondent.
A description of the tanks begins near the top of
page 216, and continues to and including the sec-
ond paragraph on page 217.
Merton, England—(Santo Crimp, p. 151.)
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
77()
3S45
3846
3847
3848
3849
JoHN W. ALvoRD.
A section of the straining tank appears on plate
12, Opposite page 149. There is apparently no plan.
A description of the tanks is found in the second
paragraph on page 151. -
Mueller German Patent, 9792, of 1878. (De-
fendants' Exhibit, Translation of Mueller’s Ger-
man Patent).
There is no drawing accompanying this exhibit.
A description of the tank is found beginning
with the bottom paragraph of page 2, extending to
and including the top paragraph of page 3.
Urbana, Illinois—(Talbot’s Testimony in this.
case).
The tank is described in Professor Talbot's tes-
timony, and a drawing of the same is found marked
“Defendants' Exhibit Urbana Tank, November,
1894;” also an exhibit marked “Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Prof. Talbot's Preliminary Sketch, Aug. 2nd,
1905.” In the preliminary sketch the tank is de-
noted in plan near the center of the sheet, and im-
mediately above and in longitudinal section corres-
ponding to the plan. In the exhibit, “Urbana
Tank, November, 1894,” the tank is shown in plan
about the center of the sheet, and immediately
above and corresponding to the plan is shown a
longitudinal section.
Champaign, Illinois—(Talbot’s Testimony in
this case).
This tank is described in Professor Talbot's tes-
timony in this case, and is also shown in a drawing
marked “Defendants' Exhibit, Champaign Tank,
Drawing No. 2, August 2nd, 1905.” In this draw-
ing, the tank is shown in plan near the bottom of
the sheet to the left, marked “Plan with Roof Re-
771
JOHN W. ALVORD.
moved.” Immediately above and correspo,...,ng to
the plan is a longitudinal section marked, “Section
AB,” and in the upper right hand corner of the
drawing is a transverse section, marked, “-Section
CD.” The second Champaign tank is also shown by
a drawing marked, “Defendants' Exhibit, Cham-
paign Tank Drawing, No. 1,” which shows the tank
in the upper central portion of the sheet marked,
“Plan,” and immediately above and correspond-
ing is a longitudinal section marked, “Section
AA.” In the upper right hand corner is a trans-
verse section marked, “Section BB.”
Cheltenham Sewage Works—(Defendants' Ex-
hibit, Cheltenham Sewage Works).
The tank is shown in the lower part of the draw.
ing, immediately over it, but not corresponding,
is a longitudinal section marked, “Longitudinal
Section Through Tank on Line AB.” In the upper
right hand corner is shown a transverse Section
marked “Transverse Section on Line C. D.”
The description of this tank is part of the ex-
hibit.
United States Patent, No. 268,120, to L. Mouras,
November 26, 1882.
There are two drawings connected with the pat-
ent in both of which the tank is shown at the right,
in the first sheet with plan and corresponding sec-
tion immediately above, and in the second sheet by
two Sections.
A description is also found in French patent, No.
144,904, 1881, marked, “Defendants' Exhibit,
Translation of Specification of Mouras French Pat.
ent.”
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
77.2
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
JoBN W. ALVORD.
Flush-Tank Company, Chicago.
This type of tank is shown in the drawing on
page 24 of a pamphlet entitled, “Intermittent
Flush Tanks, Flush-Tank Company, Chicago,” and
marked, “Defendants' Exhibit, Catalogue of Flush-
Tank Company, Chicago.”
The cut referred to, shows the tank in question
as being the left hand tank of the two chambers in
the drawing, and marked, “Intercepting Cham-
ber.”
A description of the tank is given, beginning
With the top paragraph on page 24, and ending
With the top paragraph on page 25.
A second cut, No. 3, page 26, shows a general ar-
rangement of the same with reference to the house
and garden.
Ealing, England—(Santo Crimp, page 158.)
The tanks in question are shown on plate 14, Op-
posite page 158, and are marked on Said plate,
“Subsiding Tanks, No. 1 and No. 2, and Effluent
Water Tank S.”
A description of the tank begins at the bottom
paragraph of page 158, and extends through to the
end of the chapter.
XQ. 51. Turning to Lawrenceville (Rafter &
Baker, p. 512), the description says that each sec-
tion of the tank is divided into three compartments,
each compartment being 60 feet long, about 3 feet
wide, and 4 feet deep. In which of these three
compartments in your opinion would the process of
Claims 2 and 3 occur? A. I am of the opinion
that it would occur in all of them..
XQ. 52. What do you understand the dotted line
marked, “Flow Line,” in the “longitudinal sec.
773
JOHN W. ALVORD.
tion,” and in the “section on line CD '' to indicate?
A. The ordinary level of the liquid retained in the
tank as controlled by the overflow at the outlet end.
XQ. 53. Assuming that each compartment was
about four feet deep, as stated in the description,
and that the surface of the sewage was indicated
by this dotted flow line, about what would be the
depth of the sewage in the compartment? A. I
should judge that it would be four feet in depth,
as from an examination of “Section on Line CD,”
the dotted line appears to be about four feet above
the bottom upon the assumption that the width is
as stated, three feet. I take, it, therefore, that the
description of each compartment giving four feet
depth refers to the depth below the flow line.
XQ. 54. In your opinion, in the operation of this
Lawrenceville tank, if it should operate as a septic
tank, as you suppose, What thickness of scum
would form on the surface, and what depth of
sludge at the bottom of the compartment? A. I
think it would be impossible to say without know.
ing more of the analysis of the raw sewage and the
Quanity flowing through the tank per day.
XQ. 55. Is there anything in the drawing or de-
scription of the Lawrenceville tank to show the
Quantity flowing through the tank per day? A. On
page 514 I find it stated that the amount of sewage
water averages 6,000 gallons a day, and apparently
this refers to some period previous to the publica-
tion of Rafter & Baker's book, for in comments up-
on this description in the bottom paragraph of
page 514, I find it stated that the amount of sew-
age at Lawrenceville “ has gradually increased un-
til in 1893 it averages during the school term about
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
7
7
4.
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
JOHN W. ALvoRD.
20,000 gallons per day.” On the top of page 515
it is stated that on July 24, 1893, the school not
being in Session, the daily amount of sewage aver-
aged only 5,000 or 6,000 galons per day.
XQ. 56. Does the drawing or description of this
Lawrenceville reference give any indication as to
the quality of the sewage? A. I find on page 514
that it is stated: “The regular number of persons
now using the Water and contributing to the sew-
age is one hundred and eighty. The works are de-
signed to accommodate four hundred people. The
Water supply for all purposes, averaged 8,000 gal-
lons a day in 1886, varying from 6,000 gallons
a (lay in April, to 25,000 gallons a day during
one week in October, 1886, when the lawns were
Very dry and a new sprinkling cart was put into
use On the lawns and roads.” This amount of flow
Would denote the sewage fairly well concentrated.
XQ. 57. Can you state from the indications as to
quantity and quality of the sewage referred to in
your last two answers what should be the thick-
ness of the scum on the surface and the depth of
the sludge at the bottom of the compartment, if the
Lawrenceville tank were operating as a successful
Septic tank? A. I do not think I could make any
exact determination of either the thickness of the
top scum or the amount of deposit, other than to
say that in all probability there would be such de-
posit and such scum with the flow of sewage as
given from the number of persons as stated, and in
a tank designed as this one was. The scum will
vary very much as the specific gravity of the solids
of the sewage varies, and this is also the case with
the bottom deposit. I have seen tanks where rapid
775
JOHN W. ALVORD.
liquefaction was taking place which had no sur-
face scum, and I have observed other tanks which
had a very thick surface scum and no apparent
bottom deposits. I should think, therefore, from
my experience, that the present knowledge of the
art is such that no fixed rule could be laid down,
or even a very general rule.
XQ. 58. Can you state what should be the
thickness, taking the thickness of the scum and the
thickness of the deposit together? A. I do not
think that I could. The thickness of the total top
Scum and bottom deposit is dependent upon the
length of time which elapses between the cleaning
which such tank often receives, and is also depen-
dent on the character of the sewage and the amount
of cellulose and fibrous matter which it contains,
the preliminary screening, if any, and other like
Variables.
XQ. 59. As I understand you, the description
that you have referred to of this Lawrenceville
plant is insufficient to enable you to furnish these
determinations? A. Insofar as you refer to the
formation of the exact quantities of surface Scum or
bottom sludge I should answer yes, but insofar as
determining whether liquefaction took place, I
should answer, no.
XQ. 60. What do you understand from the de-
scription of the Lawrenceville tank to have been
the total amount of liquid that passed through the
tank per day? A. From six thousand to twenty-
five thousand gallons; normally, however, from six
to eight thousand gallons.
XQ. 61. In your reference to the Medfield draw-
ing and description (Rafter & Baker, p. 490), you
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
776
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
JOHN W. ALVORD.
refer to the two tanks, one being shown in Fig. 79,
and the other in Fig. 80. In which of these do you
mean to be understood as saying that the process
of Claims 2 and 3 would occur? A. It would ap-
pear tº me that the larger part of the process would
occur in the main tank shown in Fig. 79. I am of
the opinion, however, that additional action might
be obtained from the second tank, shown in Fig.
80, inasmuch as it seems to me from the description
that this second tank may be reasonably consider-
ed as an additional compartment to the main tank
placed at some distance from it, perhaps, but never-
theless so designed that liquefaction from some of
the finer particles of solids might be accomplished
by the retention of the flow in the second tank.
XQ. 62. In classing this Medfield plant as one of
the most exact and best anticipations of Claims 2
and 3, which tank had you reference to whether
that shown in Fig. 79 or Fig. 80? A. I should be
Willing to consider that shown in Fig. 79 alone if
necessary with, of course, the aeration of the ef-
fluent arising from its further treatment.
YQ. 63. I do not exactly understand your last
remark. What has the aeration of the effluent
to do with the question whether the Medfield
tank of Fig. 79 constitutes one of the best and
most exact anticipations of claims 2 and 3? A.
Claim 3 calls for a combination with an aerat-
ing operation. This aerating operation in the
Medfield plant is accomplished in the tank shown
in Fig. 80. Therefore, if you eliminate Fig. 80
from consideration the aerating combination
must be looked for at the outlet that leads from
the tank to the filtration field.
777
JOHN W. ALVORD.
XQ. 64. How would the Medfield tank shown
in Fig. 80 produce an aerating operation? A.
The inlet to the tank shown in Fig. 80, which
is, of course, the outlet from the main tank,
empties the effluent into the tank a little above
the flow line, in the course of which aeration of
necessity occurs.
YQ. 65. Do you understand that the Medfield
tank shown in Fig. 80 is closed by a cover? A.
Yes, sir.
|XQ. 66. What do you understand to be the
width of the tank shown in Fig. 79 of the Med-
field tank? A. It seems to be 13 feet wide out-
side dimensions. The inside appears to be di-
vided into two longitudinal compartments of 5
foot width each. *
YQ. 67. Is there anything in this Medfield de-
scription to show that the two tanks that are side
by side in “Section A B of Fig. 79.’’ were not
used alternately? A. At the bottom of page 490
it is stated: “It is made in two parts, side by
side, exactly alike, in order that one-half may be
in use, if necessary, while the other is being
cleaned out.” The discharge from the vats can
be turned, by a wooden gate in the trough which
brings it from the dye house, into either side of
the settling basin separately. Entering by the
four-inch openings the liquid flows generally in
both sides, with a total width of ten feet and a
depth of four feet, less the thickness of the de-
posit of sediment.”
XQ. 68. And what do you understand would
be the total length of the tank shown in Fig. 79
in which the septic action would take place? A.
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
778
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
JOHN W. ALVORD.
The total length available for liquid contents ap-
pears to be twenty-four feet, being made up of
three compartments of eight feet each, exclusive
of cross walls.
XQ. 69. Then as I understand you, you include
the Space occupied by the “excelsior between
Slats’’ as a portion of what you consider to be
the septic tank on Fig. 79. Is that so? A. Yes,
sir, I should consider that space as available for
liquefaction of the more finely divided solids.
XQ. 70. In the Wimbleton plant (Santo Crimp,
p. 216) do you include the space occupied by the
‘‘filters L’’ as a portion of what you have re-
ferred to in that plant as the septic tank? A.
Yes, sir, I conceive that the finer particles of or-
ganic sediment may pass up into the interstices
of the filtering material and there be mechani-
cally arrested by contact with such filtering ma-
terial and held until the liquefaction is more or
less complete. The actual space occupied by the
Solid substance of which the filtering material
is composed is, of course, not to be included in
the computation for capacity.
XQ. 71. What you have designated as the Sep-
tic tanks of this Wimbleton reference are in the
description of it (Santo Crimp, p. 216) referred
to as “straining tanks’’ or “Screening cham-
bers.” Is that so? A. They are so referred to
by Mr. Santo Crimp, but apparently this desig-
nation is his own, and not the designer of the
tanks. Mr. Santo Crimp is everywhere and al-
ways an ardent believer in chemical precipita-
tion, and in my opinion is not a sympathetic in-
779
JOHN W. ALVORD.
terpreter of those designers who endeavored to
follow the suggestions of Mr. Henry Austin.
XQ. 72. In the description to which you have
referred of the Merton plant (Santo Crimp, p.
151) are the tanks that you have regarded as
septic tanks those designated in that description
as “merely straining tanks, being much too small
to act as settling tanks?” A. Mr. Santo Crimp
does so refer, to these tanks which I take to be
another instance of his inability to perceive the
ideas of the designer of this plant, and what ap-
pears to me to be the designer’s evident inten-
tion to carry out by means of baffle boards and
Submerged outlet, the ideas suggested by Henry
Austin for the preliminary treatment of the sol-
ids of sewage. -->
The last two answers of the witness are
objected to as inadmissible, being in
the nature of a contradiction of the
only evidence that the defendants
have introduced showing the publica-
tion of the plants referred to.
XQ. 73. In the Cheltenham plant are the tanks
that you have referred to as septic tanks those
referred to by the following language in ‘‘De-
fendants' Exhibit Cheltenham Sewage Works’’:
“The sewage passes through vertical filters in
the upper and lower tanks, whereby the great
bulk of the matters in suspension is separated
and retained. These filters are 5 feet deep and
2 feet thick, and consist of coarse gravel enclosed
within 2-inch perforated boards, these being pro-
tected with basket-work to prevent clogging.
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
780
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
JOHN W. ALVORD.
© e e When either reservoir con-
tains a certain amount of solid matter the flow
of Sewage is cut off and turned into the other.
This takes place about every eight weeks and the
filtering medium of gravel is removed at the same
time and washed. The contents of the tank
which are in a state of slush are then hoisted in
buckets through the trap lids onto the floor above
and wheeled out and mixed with the scavenger’s
refuse of the town, the ashes, street sweepings,
etc.?’’ A. The quotations are correct. The ar-
rangement of tanks and filters referred to as
shown in the drawing are such as to retain the
liquid flow of the sewage a sufficient length of
time to accomplish liquefaction. The solids are
further held back in the tank by means of the
Submerged filters which cause the finer organic
matters to be mechanically detained and lique-
fied before passing on into the next compart-
ment. The arrangement is such that the liquid
flows very slowly through the filters from one
compartment to another. That the liquefaction
was proceeding satisfactorily is evidenced from
the following further quotations of the descrip-
tion:
“'The heavier matters of the sewage deposit them-
selves at the bottom of the tank but a large propor-
tion of the solids forms itself into a floating body
and accumulates to about 18 inches thick on the
surface. . . . A weir or rather division in the
third or liming tank causes the water then par-
tially clear to flow through a channel at each end.
tº º The operation did not appear to give
rise to any nuisance and the effluent water and
solid sewage were nearly free from unpleasant
Odor.”
781.
JoHN W. ALVORD.
The answer is objected to as irrespon-
sive and the question repeated.
A. These tanks are the tanks referred to in
the question.
XQ. 74. The question is are the tanks in the
Cheltenham plant that you have referred to as
septic tanks those that are referred to in “De-
fendants' Exhibit Cheltenham Sewage Works’’
by the language quoted in XQ. 73? A. I am not
aware that I used the word septic in describing
the Cheltenham tank, but I have referred to the
Cheltenham tank in my previous answer as be-
ing an anticipation of the patent, and these tanks
from which you have quoted the description and
from which I have made further quotation are
the same tanks.
XQ. 75. As to the Flush-Tank Company refer-
ence shown on page 24 of the catalogue, you have
stated that the tank within which you say the
process of claims 2 and 3 would occur is that
marked ‘‘intercepting chamber.” Do you mean
to Say that this process would occur on both
sides of the partition shown in said chamber? A.
I believe that it will occur on both sides of the
division shown in said intercepting chamber. The
preponderence of liquefaction of solids, however,
taking place in the inlet compartment of such
chamber by reason of the fact that the heavier
Solids are deposited there to a greater extent. As
fast as these break down into the more finely di-
vided particles they pass with the liquid over
the dividing wall and are further liquefied by bac-
terial action in the Second or outlet compartment
of said intercepting chamber.
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
782
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
JOHN W. ALWORD.
XQ. 76. Besides the tanks of this kind that
you mentioned in your answer to XQ. 19, have
you heard of any others in use at the present
time, and if so where? A. I have seen a con-
siderable number of other installations of the
type here described, but I cannot now recall with-
out considerable effort, or reference to note
books, where they are located. I am under the
impression that there are a very large number
of these installations in this country, but as they
are not commonly described in technical litera-
ture, or listed by their designers in such way as
to be available, they cannot be cited except by
Specific instances which come readily to mind.
They have been for the most part constructed by
architects in pursuance of their general duties
in the Supervision of country residences and
large institutions, and only a small portion of
them come directly to the notice of the sanitary
engineer. Nevertheless, as I have said, I am
quite confident that in the last 25 years of my
experience I have seen a considerable number
that I cannot here and now recall.
XQ. 77. Do you know whether either of those
installations mentioned in answer to XQ. 19 is
still in operation? A. I should be unable to Say.
|XQ. 78. Will you please, before the next ses-
Sion, make such an effort as you can with the
aid of your note books to recall and state where
you have seen other installations of this char-
acter? A. Yes, sir, I will do so.
XQ. 79. Please designate all of the references
cited by you from the prior art that you regard
as being on an equality the best and most exact
783
JoBN W. A. WORD.
anticipations of claim 4 of the patent in suit?
You may answer this question, if you wish, by re-
ferring to the list in XQ. 49 and the answer
thereto, and stating which would have to be
omitted from that list in answer to the present
question? A. I should eliminate the tanks at
Urbana and Champaign, and the “Defendants’
Exhibit Cheltenham Sewage Works’’ from the
list, the remainder, in my opinion, being antici-
pations of claim 4.
XQ. 80. Why do you eliminate those desig-
nated in your last answer? A. Because I do not
find evidence that they are combined with the fil-
tering operation.
YQ. 81. In those references that you have
eliminated as not showing filtering operations,
what disposition is made of the effluent from the
tank? A. In the case of Champaign and Urbana
tanks, the effluent flows into a running stream.
In the case of the Cheltenham sewage works I am
unable to determine whether there is or is not
a filtering operation following the works as de-
scribed in “Defendants' Exhibit Cheltenham
Sewage Works.”
XQ. 82. In which of the references cited in
XQ. 49 and the answer thereto is the effluent from
the tank finely disposed of by sub-surface irriga-
tion of vegetation? A. The plant at Lawrence-
ville, New Jersey, and the plants derived from
the suggestions of Colonel George E. Waring, of
which Blair Lodge is here instanced, and repre-
sented in Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue.
XQ. 83. Have you ever seen a tank that had
become nearly filled up with the accumulation
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
784
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
JoEIN W. ALVORD.
of Solids from sewage passing through it? A.
Yes, sir, I have seen tanks nearly full with the
Solids of Sewage, but through which the sewage
flow was still passing. -
XQ. 84. What effect upon the rest period of
the Sewage passing through does the filling up
of the tank till it is nearly full of solid matter
produce? A. It very seriously reduces the rest
period within the tank.
XQ. 85. What effect does that have upon the
function of the tank as a settling or sedimenta-
tion tank for the separation of the solids of the
incoming sewage? A. It undoubtedly reduces
its usefulness materially.
XQ. 86. Suppose the tank should be permitted
to get So full of the solid matter as to leave only
just room enough for the passage of the incom-
ing Sewage from its inlet to its outlet, what ef-
fect would that have upon the effluent from the
tank So far as the retention of the solids as sol-
ids in such effluent was concerned? A. It would
undoubtedly cause most of the solid matter of
the original sewage to reappear in the effluent
without serious change.
XQ. 87. Under such circumstances would you
consider that such tank was operating substan-
tially as a successful septic tank? A. I should
not think it operating as a successful septic tank
ought to operate, but I would be of the opinion,
nevertheless, that even under such extreme cir-
cumstances some small reduction of organic mat-
ters within the tank was coſt stantly going on.
XQ. 88. Is the following an excerpt from a
pamphlet of which you were the author and pub-
785
JoBN W ALVORD.
lished by you about April, 1903, entitled “The
Practical Operation of Sewage Purification
Plants’’:
“Some septic tanks are subject to the fault that
the sewage enters them in such a way that it evi-
dently traces a patch through the center so that the
stay of the liquid and its accompanying particles
of matter is not so well averaged in its relation to
the total capacity. This difficulty can only be obvi-
ated by modifications in design which will more
evenly distribute the incoming sewage on the enter-
ing side. By the experimental use of coloring mat-
ter it has been observed that great improvement
may be made in evening the flow by multiplying
the number of inlets and carefully arranging that
the liquid shall be as evenly divided between them
as possible, thus avoiding the difficulty of having
a certain quantity pass through the tank in a fourth
or a third of the time denoted by the ratio of the
capacity to the entering volume.”
A. It is.
XQ. 88. In what form of tank have you ob-
Served the liquid to trace a path through the
Center as you stated in the excerpt quoted in the
last question? A. In deep circular tanks, that
is to say, tanks having the shape of a cylinder
set up on end in which the flow of incoming sew-
age was quite large relatively to the capacity to
the tank, and in which there was no dividing
baffle wall.
|XQ. 89. What size of tank had you reference
to in the last answer? State the diameter of the
cylinder and the depth of the liquid in it. A. To
the best of my recollection the diameter was
about ten feet and the depth below the surface
of the liquid was about eight feet.
XQ. 90. And how far apart were the inlet and
392()
3921
3922
3923
3924
786
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
JoHN W. ALvoRD.
outlet openings and where located? A. The in-
let and outlet openings were made with elbow
pipes turned down to discharge and empty the
contents from a point below the surface. I am
under the impression that they were about eight
and one-half feet apart from center to center.
YQ. 91. What means did you adopt to de-
termine that the sewage, as you said, “evidently
traces a path through the center’’? A. At a
time when the tank was filled with comparatively
fresh flow of dilute sewage which was not
clously I deposited a small quantity of fluroscene
in the sewer immediately above the tank and
studied it as it colored the water of the tank.
There was flowing into the tank at this time
about 15,000 gallons a day. I also introduced
into the tank a number of baffle walls of light
flooring stuff and studied their effect upon the
passage through the tank by repeating the doses
of coloring matter with each change of baffle
board.
YQ. 92. Before you introduced the baffle
boards what did you observe upon the introduc-
tion of the fluroscene in the sewer above the
tank? A. The coloring matter, while it widened
Out considerably upon escaping from the inlet
pipe, nevertheless traced a fairly direct passage
from the inlet to the outlet and was a little over
an hour and a half, as near as I remember it, in
coloring the entire contents in the tank.
YQ. 93. Did you observe how long the first
trace of color was in passing from the inlet to
the outlet? A. I do not remember the exact
787
JoBN W. ALVORD.
figures, out I am under the impression that it
was less than five minutes.
XQ. 94. What do you understand to be the na-
ture and mode of operation of the “Coke-Breeze
Filters” referred to in the Cameron patent in
suit at page 2, line 32? A. I understand to be
meant, the use of what are now more commonly
called contact beds, that is to say, tanks Con-
structed so as to be water-tight and filled with
a suitable medium, such as gravel, broken stone,
or, as in this case, the waste obtained in the man-
ufacture of coke, such tanks being operated by
filling them with sewage, or the effluent from
Septic tanks, allowing them to stand full for sev-
eral hours, and then emptying them by means of
suitable valves, the filtering material being al-
lowed to aerate a suitable length of time the cy-
cle of operation is again repeated.
XQ. 95. Where are the valves generally lo-
cated by which such coke-breeze filters are
emptied after being allowed to stand full for sev-
eral hours? A. The valves are generally located
in the bottom of the filter tank in one of the walls
of the same. The bottom is generally so arranged
as to drain toward the outlet valve as described.
Adjourned till Saturday, September 16, 1905,
at 10 o’clock A. M.
Saturday, Sept. 16, 1905, 10 o’clock, a. m. Met
pursuant to adjournment. Present, as before.
XQ. 96. Did you state as follows, in a paper
written by you and published in the Journal of the
Western Society of Engineers, April, 1902:
“Effluents from septic tanks that are being prop-
erly worked seem to be very easily oxidized. The
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
788
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
JoHN W. ALVORD.
organic matter contained is largely in solution and
in such a condition of instability that it is ready to
break down into its constitutional gases without
difficulty. Nitrification sets in promptly and the
passage through a single intermittent sand filter
will usually leave but one or two per cent of organ-
ic matter in the final effluent. The economy, there-
fore, of the Septic tank is not alone that no expens-
ive machinery is required, Or a large amount of
labor to perform its function; nor is it due entirely
to the fact that eliminates into harmless gases a
large portion of the sludge left in it, but it is also
essentially in the fact that it enables the effluent to
be filtered at very high rates of flow through small
areas of soil or compactly constructed contact beds
occupying but little space.”
# * # + *
“In order to fully appreciate some of the modi-
fications which have been brought about in the fil-
tering of septic tank effluents, it is necessary to re-
melimber that the Masachusetts State Board of
Health experiments have shown that in order to
filter raw sewage successfully upon fine sand beds,
an acre of bed is necessary for each 16,000 to 20,000
gallons of sewage per day. With somewhat coarser
sand from 30,000 to 40,000 gallons per day of raw
sewage can be filtered, while with very coarse sand
there is a possibility of passing from 100,000 to 150,-
000 gallons per day if the beds are kept well raked.
With septic tank effluents where there is but little
suspended matter to deal with, and the liquid is
ripe for oxidation, even with quite fine sand at
least 200,000 gallons per acre per day can be fil-
to red, with coarser sand, 350,000 gallons would be
a safe allowance; while with the coarsest and most
desirable sand at least 500,000 gallons per acre
per day is possible. The difference between these
figures is this, that if you have a plant that must
purify the sewage of 2,500 people by the older
method of intermittent filtration alone, you would
require (at 100 gallons per capita) not less than
seven acres of sand bed for medium sized sand,
and if the available sand was quite fine this would
789
JoHN W. ALVORD.
become 14 acres. If the sand had to be brought
from any considerable distance the beds would
cost complete not less than $10,000 per acre, or
from $70,000 to $140,000 for the plant. Now, con-
sidering the absubstitution of the septic tank pre-
liminary to the filtration, and you would at once
reduce the cost for filtration area, to about three-
fourths of an acre, and you might easily afford
the coarsest sand brought from a great distance
for the beds, which even then could be worked
at a rate not exceeding 300,000 gallons per acre
per day, and the entire plant would cost not more
than $15,000, including the septic tank. Compare
this with the $70,000 to $140,000 mentioned be-
fore, and some of the enormous advantages of the
latter can be appreciated, especially in unfavor-
able localities. Not only in first cost, but also in
operating expenses, simple intermittent filtration
alone would cost at least twice if not three times
greater than that necessary for the septic tank in-
stallation. Such a comparison as this I have just
described is not at all uncommon, and is simply
revolutionary in its results. It permits cities to
OWn and Operate Sewage purification plants to
whom it has been heretofore impossible. It al-
lows plants to be built in localities where every
advantage is lacking, and it permits the problem
to be brought within workable limits for the
largest cities of this country. In bacterial con-
tact plants the results are still more favorable as
to the rates of flow. With septic tanks effluents
most of these contact bed plants are worked at the
rate of 500,000 to 750,000 gallons per acre per
day, With the same rates of reduced cost for main-
terance, and it is questionable whether a rate of
1,000,000 gallons per acre per day for dilute
American sewage is not fairly practicable.”
A. I did so state, and in this connection I may say
that I have been for some years a believer in lique-
faction as a valuable preliminary stage in sewage
purification.
3940
3941
3942
394.3
3944
790
3945
394.6
3947
3948
3949
JoBN W. ALVORD.
XQ. 97. Please explain your meaning where you
stated in the above quotation that the liquid Of the
septic tank effluent “is ripe for oxidation?” A. I
think the paragraph in question would be best ex-
plained by a quotation from the same paper re-
ferred to in the question on page 115, as follows:
“The second stage of purification consists of
removing the more finely suspended residue and
the impurities in solution. There are many Ways
of accomplishing this, known by different names,
but the general principle underlying them all is
that the liquid to be purified must be brought
into contact by wide diffusion at enumeral points
with certain forms of nitrifying bacteria in the
presence of a sufficient supply of Oxygen and re-
tained under such conditions a proper length of
time for complete chemical change to be ac-
complished; this properly done, the liquid is found
to be purified. Most of the methods by which this
principle is practically applied involve intermit-
tency of application of the liquid to the filter and
its alternating aeration. This second stage in-
Wolves processes commonly known as broad irriga-
tiol, intermittent filtration, bacterial contact-
beds, filters with forced aeration and continuous
filters.”
I might add to this that the liquid is ripe for such
Oxidation when it has been freed from the larger
lumps of Solids in which process it has probably
taken into Solution a proportion of their constitu-
ents which have been chemically broken down from
higher complex forms into those which are com-
paratively more simple, but which are not yet com-
pletely reduced.
XQ. 98. Then, as I understand you, there are
substantially two reasons why the preliminary sep-
tic treatment co-operates beneficially with the sub-
sequent filtration. (1) A physical reason in that
791.
JOHN W. ALWORD.
the lumps of solid matter in the sewage are reduced
and (2) A chemical reason in that the higher com-
plex constitution of the sewage has been transform-
ed into comparatively more simple constitution
which is more readily acted upon by the nitrifying
bacteria of the filter. Is that SO? A. I think the
Question is a fair statement of my views.
XQ. 99. As you understand it, in what part of
the septic tank do these changes go on? Are they
confined to the proximity of the surface of the scum
and sludge, or do they go on also throughout the
body of the liquid, flowing between the sludge and
Scun, through the tank? A. I do not believe that
these changes are confined to the septic tank, but
begin from the moment the organic wastes of life
are created. The action is undoubtedly accelerated
in properly designed tanks because it is or should
be the attempt in designing such tanks to create the
very condition which will accelerate such action.
I believe further that the action which, as I have
stated nearly always in my opinion has already be-
gun before the solids have reached the tank is con-
tinued in every portion of the tank both in the sur-
face scum and the bottom deposit and in the liquid
contents. The surface scum being generally com-
posed of cellulose and fibrous matters, is reduced
somewhat more slowly, in my opinion, than are the
Solid faces. The bottom deposit, which to some
extent has contained mineral matter is also some-
what more slowly broken down. The organic mat-
ters which are rapidly dissolved are distributed
quite uniformly through the liquid contents so far
as my observation has gone, and it is my belief that
this dissolving action is continued after the liquid
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
792
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
JoHN W. ALVORD.
leaves the tank to a certain extent, especially in
cases where the sewage is allowed to flow some dis-
tance before reaching the filtration area. And I am
also convinced from observation that the final
stages of such liquefaction often take place on the
surface of the filter, as is the case when raw sew.
age is filtered through sand filters. In other
words, I believe that we cannot arrest this liquefy.
ing action except by Submitting the sewage to ex:
cessive heat or antiseptic chemicals: but I do be.
lieve that we may accelerate it by providing a suit.
able environment.
XQ. 100. What did you mean in your last answer
by “properly designed tanks,” by which the action
you have referred to is accelerated? A. So far as
present knowledge of the art goes, properly design-
col tanks should be such as will bring the sewage
to a state of comparative rest and keep it at as high
a temperature as it is possible to produce with the
normal chemical action which is going on. Such
tanks should have a sufficient depth to provide for
considerable deposits, and to allow for accumula-
tion of surface scum while not seriously reducing
the liquid contents. In my opinion, means for ex-
cluding light and air are unnecessary, but I have
found it desirable in colder climatcs to provide
some lighter form of covering which, while not pre-
venting ventilation, will nevertheless retain as far
as possible the heat developed by the chemical ac-
tion going on within the sewage itself. I regard
non-disturbing inflow and outflow as relatively un-
important in such tanks as have a large capacity iſ
proportion to the quantity of inflow. In cases
where the inflow is very great, it is desirable to pro-
793
JOHN W. ALWORD.
vide means, Such as I have pointed out as commoon
to the art, to prevent disturbance of the surface
SCULIOl.
These I consider essential and desirable pro-
visions for promoting liquefaction in tanks.
XQ. 101. In the same paper quoted in XQ. 96,
on page 123, I find you use the expression, “the
Septic action, seemed to equal the rate of inflow of
Suspended matter.” Is the approximation to this
condition the object of a properly designed septic
tank? A. The statement quoted is a rather broad
one, but the idea which it is intended to convey was
that the larger lumps of solid matter were readily
retained within the tank until broken down into
finely suspended matter, without accumulating the
bottom deposits or surface scum too rapidly.
With this explanation I would say that it is ille
object of a properly designed septic tank to realize
this condition.
XQ. 102. In order to approximate this condition
wherein, as you expressed it, “the septic action
seemed to equal the rate of inflow of suspended
matter,” is it essential that regard be had to such
features of the tank as control the time during
which the sewage is maintained in a state of com-
parative rest, at the temperature produced by the
normal chemical action in the sewage itself” A.
I have believed for some years that this was an im-
portant element to be considered.
XQ. 103. In answer to Question 12, you stated,
“I might observe that the question of disturbance
in this case is a question of the relative volume of
inflow to the quantity of sewage remaining in the
tank.” Will you please explain how this relation-
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
794.
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
JoHN W ALVORD.
ship between the volume of inflow and the quantity
of sewage in the tank can, in any case, effect the
question of disturbance? A. It is impossible for
any liquid flowing into a tank through any of the
devices which have here been considered in this
case to theoretically prevent disturbance, and it is,
therefore, only a question of the relative amount of
disturbance which such inflow will create. In
cases where the capacity of the tank is very great in
proportion to the incoming sewage, it may readily
happen that the disturbance created by the dis-
placement of the inflowing sewage is so insignifi-
cant that it does not perceptibly retard the decom-
position or liquefaction of the solids within the
tank. On the other hand, taking the other extreme,
it may be possible that the incoming sewage is so
large in volume, and the means for preventing dis-
turbance so inadequate that the entire contends in
the tank are violently agitated and the solids car-
ried through the tank without perceptible diminu-
tion. Between these two extremes are consequent-
ly all manner of degrees of disturbance, so that it
might frequently happen that one tank without
any special devices for preventing disturbance
would, in reality, less injuriously affect the decom.
position of the solids than would another tank
which might be provided with special appliances.
XQ. 104. When and under what circumstances
did you first hear of the Cameron septic tank at
Exeter, England to which you referred in your di-
rect examination? A. My attention was called to
an article in the Engineering News, published
about January, 1898.
XQ. 105. When did it first come to your knowl-
795
JoBN W. ALVORD.
edge that the Cameron process was patented in the
United States? A. I think not until about the
year 1900.
XQ. 106. Can you state how the fact of its being
patented in the United States came to your at-
tention at that time? A. I do not think I could. I
have no definite recollection of what brought the
matter to my attention.
XQ. 107. What did you do upon learning that
the Cameron process was patented in the United
. States? A. From that time I advised clients con-
templating the construction of such plants to take
legal advice upon the merits of such patent, notably
at Lake Forset, Illinois, and other places.
XQ. 108. When did you first obtain a copy of
the specification of the Cameron patent in suit? A.
I am not certain, but my impression is that it was
at or about the time when the City of Lake Forest
contemplated building their plant. Probably in
1901.
XQ. 109. Did you obtain this copy at the sug-
gestion of any one else, or merely of your own mo-
tion? A. I do not now recall. It is my impres-
sion that my former partner, Mr. W. S. Shields,
looked into the matter at that time and obtained a
copy of the specification which I came to see in our
office.
XQ. 110. What was the first mention made by
you of the Cameron septic tank process in your
writings or discussions public? A. To the best of
my recollection the first notice which I gave to
the matter was that containing a report made to the
director of public improvements at Columbus,
Ohio, dated May 1st, 1898, and found on page 41
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
796
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
JoBN W. ALVORD.
of that report. This was about three months after
the publication of the Engineering News article I
have previously referred to.
XQ. 111. Please read as your next answer all
that you stated about the Cameron septic tank pro-
cess in this Columbus, Ohio, report, of May 1st,
1898? A. I read as follows from pages 41, 42 and
43:
Project No. 55.
The Septic Tank System, With Coke Filtration
for the Effluent.
The Septic System of sewage purification is of re-
cent development, and has its origin in Exeter, Eng-
land, where it has been in use for nearly two years.
The first installation covered only one district of
the city, but works are now in progress for extend-
ing it over the entire city. The system has aroused
a very wide interest among sanitary engineers, by
reason of the development of radically different
methods of propagating the nitrifying organism
from those heretofore in use. The Septic system
brings into action what are known as anaerobic
bacteria, so called because they thrive without light
or oxygen, in contradistinction to aerobic bacteria
whose cultivation is now comparatively well un-
derstood. In intermittent filtration, aerobic
bacteria are cultivated in sand beds,
whose stored oxygen is frequently renewed.
Anaerobic bacteria, on the other hand,
requires the sewage to remain for some time
in closed air tight tanks, in order to afford the most
suitable environment for the propagation and ac-
tive work of this form of organism. Covered tanks
are provided, capable of holding the sewage at least
18 hours, during which time active nitrification
takes place, and at Exeter the amount of oxidizable
organic matter in solution is reduced by 38 per
cent., the free ammonia by 26.9 per cent., the albu-
minoid ammonia by 17.5 per cent., and the suspend-
ed solids by 55 per cent., the condition of the re-
797
JoEIN W. ALVORD.
maining organic matter rendering it more easily
broken up and further purified. The effluent from
the septic tank is then passed into a biological coke
filter, similar to those described in Project No. 2,
for chemical precipitation.
The wide interest which has been taken in this
system in England, and the high standing of the
chemists who have examined its working and pro-
nounced favorably upon its capabilities, warrants
us in considering it in connection with the Colum-
bus problem.
Enough data has been published to enable us to
understand in a general way the principles which
must govern its use, and general plans have been
drawn, estimated and compared with other pro-
jects. It will be readily understood, however, that
it is impossible to give a new and unfamiliar pro-
cess the same relative Standing as should be accord-
ed to older and well understood methods of sewage
purification. In laving out, this system for Colum-
bus, we have provided 24 hours' rest for the aver-
age flow, and 18 hours’ rest for the maximum flow.
At Exeter the effluent has been passed through
Coke breeze filters five feet in depth for the remain-
der of the purification, at the rate of flow of about
660,000 gallons per acre per day. The purification
obtained in the coke filters, at the rate of flow based
On OxVgen absorbed, is given by Mr. T)ibdin in his
report at 72.4 per cent. Of organic impurity remov-
ed. As the Sewage of Exeter is shown by the analy-
Ses to be about three times as concentrated as the
sewage of Columbus, it is thought that this will
fully correspond to a purification of 95 per cent.
upon the whole plant for this locality.
In the plan for Columbus, as contemplated, the
sewage first passes into an onen masonry channel
between the tiers of tanks, 32 in number, and cap-
able of holding each 500,000 gallons. Suitable ap-
pliances are provided for annually removing the
mineral matter which will accumulate at the bot-
tom of the tank, and the gas which may be burned.
The overflow from the tanks is then led to artifical
coke filter beds similar in all respects to those de-
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
798
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
JoHN W. ALvoRD.
scribed in Project No. 2 (Chemical Precipitation),
comprising 16 acres of effective area five feet in
depth.
One of the most interesting features of the Septic
System is the positive determination of the disap-
pearance of the oxidisable organic matter, the sew-
age in the tanks at Exeter being cleaned of relative-
ly Small amounts of mineral residue only about
Once a year. The minimum time required to fill a
tank with this residue has been estimated at three
years. It is needless to say that the sludge in so
concentrated a sewage as that of Exeter, would
create under ordinary circumstances, several times
the quantity each year that these figures represent,
thus showing the complete disappearance in gase-
ous forms of the larger portion of the sludge.
From the subjoined estimates it will be found
that the first cost of the system is large; and while
the running expense is comparatively light, the
capitalized cost does not compare very favorably
with other methods. It may be remarked that as at
Exeter, automatic valves may control the filling
and emptying of the filter beds, and thus reduce
the running expense. This automatic device is a
proprietary article.
The expensive character of the tanks required for
this system would seem to argue against its gen-
eral introduction in the larger cities like Colum-
bus, and especially where the separate system of
sewers does not exist. There must be many places,
however, where it can be successfully and economi-
cally used when conditions are favorable. Cer-
tainly it is an addition to the resources of the san-
itarian, and will in time no doubt take its place
among the accepted and well tried methods of
sewage disposal. (See Plate J for Plan of Pro-
ject No. 5).
* * * * *
The Septic System, as we have before indicated,
is of great interest and unquestioned merit, but we
would not at this time feel warranted in recom-
mending its use on so large a scale without great
799
JoBN W. ALVORD.
caution, and as it does not appear to be of such low
cost as to warrant further consideration, we would
set it aside for the purposes of this report.
XQ. 112. Does the article in the Engineering
News of January 13, 1898, by which you have stat-
ed that the Cameron septic tank process was first
brought to your attention contain the following:
“The septic tank system differs from the other
new English process in that it attempts to bring
an entirely new and different class of bacteria, into
operation, the anaerobic. These bacteria thrive in
the absence of Oxygen and are the Organisms that
give rise to putrefaction. The bacteria, whose aid
is sought in the other processes including the land
treatment of sewage, are aerobic. That is, oxygen,
and plenty of it, is essential to their life processes.
They affect, under proper conditions, the decompo-
sition of organic matter and its change to stable
forms without any offensive odors?” A. No, sir.
I did not recall that that was in the article men-
tioned. The article I referred to is, however, in the
same number of the Engineering News, and is en-
titled, “The Septic Tank System of Sewage Treat-
ment at Exeter, England,” on page 18. The quota-
tion which you have made appears to be from the
editorial which I did not recall having seen, al-
though I may have done so.
XQ. 113. Does the article to which you refer in
the Engineering News, of January 13, 1898, contain
the following: “In conclusion, it may be said that
the septic tanks as tried at Exeter, are arousing
great interest in England, and that some of the
leading scientists of that country seem to be greatly
impressed with the work done by the tanks, al-
though no one, so far as we have seen, has yet made
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
800
399.5
3996
3997
3998
3999
JoHN W. ALWORD.
a careful study of the cost of this system as com-
pared with intermittent filtration?” A. It does.
XQ. 114. In the Columbus, Ohio, report, of
May 1st, 1898, to which you have referred, did you
submit estimates on seven alternative projects for
disposing of the sewage of the City of Columbus,
as follows:
Project No. 1–Broad Irrigation Combined with
Intermittent Filtration.
,Project No. 2–Chemical Precipitation Combined
with Coke Filtration.
Project No. 3–Chemical Precipitation Combin-
ed with Intermittent Land Filtration.
Project No. 4—The Ferozone Polarite Process.
Project No. 5–Septic Tank System with Coke
Filtration.
Project No. 6—Coke Filtration, Followed by
Land Filtration.
Project No. 7—Double Coke Filtration. A. I did.
XQ. 115. Which of these projects did you in that
report recommended the adoption of by the City of
Columbus? A. I recommended the preliminary
trial in a limited way, and as an experiment of the
double coke intermittent filtration, project, No. 7.
XQ. 116. Does not that Columbus report of yours
contain the following: “By a process of exclusion
we narrow down to choice to the following propo-
sition's stated in economic order:
Chemical Precipitation with Coke Filtration.
Double Coke Filtration.
Broad Irrigation.
A. It does.
XQ. 117. Since you made that Columbus report
down to the present time, how many sewage plants
801
JoHN W. ALVORD.
have been built by you or under your supervision
or according to your designs of each of the seven
classes proposed for Columbus, and enumerated in
XQ. 114. A. I have not since that time built or
designed a plant similar to any one of the classes
outlined in that report.
XQ. 118. How many plants have been built by
you since that time, or under your supervision or
designs containing a septic tank system combined
with filtration? A. As the septic system was un-
derstood by me at that time from the publication
in the Engineering News, and from the plan and es-
timate which I submitted at Columbus, I may say
that I have not built any septic tanks in combina-
tion with filtration.
But I have undertaken to design and install
tanks for the liquefaction of sewage based upon
my own views and a study of the history of the
art in a considerable number of cases. Including
those which have been designed and not built with
those which have been built, probably twenty-five
to thirty cases.
XQ. 119. Were each of these twenty-five or thirty
plants designed by you in such manner as to con-
tain the combination with a filter a preliminary
treatment in a tank designed to create the con-
ditions that would accelerate liquefying OI* 8,118.61°O-
bic action? A. A very considerable number of
them are so designed. A smaller number, however,
do not have the combination with a filter, and at
least are for intermittent filtration alone.
XQ. 120. What feature. Other than the material
of the filter have they lacked to correspond with
the septic system as described in that portion of
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
802
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
JoBN W. ALVORD.
your Columbus report of May 1st, 1898, quoted in
answer to XQ. 111? A. They have all lacked the
total exclusion of light and air shown by me in
plans for Columbus, which is accomplished there
by means of a masonry roof. All of the tanks which
I have built or designed since, have been, so far as
I now remember, provided freely with ventilators
when covered, windows and doors, and the entire
absence of any attempt to exclude the air from out-
side. At the time of the Columbus design I sup-
posed that the exclusion of light and air was an
absolute essential for producing the remarkable re-
sults claimed in the Engineering News article, and
accordingly there was very particular to imitate
the covering provided for at Exeter as I under-
stood it. The Columbus plan has as especially de-
signed inflow and outflow which I do not recall
ever since having imitated, it being believed by me
at that time that the anaerobic action was possibly
promoted by the peculiarities of inflow and out-
flow. All of the later tanks which I have designed
or built have used non-disturbing inflows and out-
flows which were common to the art as I have
pointed out in my testimony, and consisted usually
of a number of baffle boards disposed throughout
the length of the tank. In a number of tanks even
these precautions have been omitted.
In the Columbus plan I showed the sewage
emptying into one large tank, whereas in all my
later plants I used a combination of tanks, the sew-
age passing from one into the other by means of
gates as might be desired. It has been my custom
Since making the design at Columbus not to cover
a number of the tanks, except where being desirous
8U3
JoEIN W. ALVORD.
of keeping them from interference I have provided
a light wooden building over them for the purpose
of preventing malicious mischief and also equaliz-
ing the temperature. In this respect my installa-
tions very closely resemble the plant at Cheltenham
described by Mr. Henry Austin, and the suggested
tank described in his report.
It has further been my custom to provide means
by which the period of rest within the tank of the
sewage might be varied so as to suit the variable
conditions. This is accomplished by the combina-
tion of compartments to which I have before allud-
ed.
I have never provided means for burning or
otherwise utilizing the gases developed in such
tank, nor has it been my endeavor to confine them
in any way to the tank as is the case in the Colum-
bus plans.
I have not found my ideas which I had at the
time of designing the Columbus plant with refer-
ence to the total disappearance of the solids to have
been substantiated and have made my design so as
to provide for the frequent removal of sludge when
necessary. In this, my designs correspond very
close to the tanks described at Cheltenham in Eng-
land.
In other words, I have found, and that, too, very
early, that what I supposed to be an entirely new
process when making my Columbus designs and
writing my Columbus report to be as a matter of
fact a very old process of decomposition as develop-
ed by Henry Austin, Dr. Alexander Mueller, Mour-
as and Professor Pagliani, abroad, and in this coun-
try by Colonel Waring, Phillbrick, Professor Tal-
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
804
4015
4016
4.017
4.018
4019
JOHN W. ALWORD.
bot, Benezette Williams, Mr. MacHarg, and others,
in their installations.
I take occasion here to point out my indebtedness
to Mr. Cameron for calling my attention to the
fact that decomposition and liquefaction as a pre-
liminary stage in sewage purification are as appli-
cable on an enlarged scale as they are upon a small
Scale, which fact, I frankly admit I did not per-
ceive prior to the publication of his work at Exeter.
Answer objected to as totally irre-
sponsive, and the attention of the Court
is particularly called to it as best evidence
of the intense bias of this witness and his
disposition to introduce argument for the
purpose of subserving his interests.
XQ. 121. In order to avoid such long discussion
as to differences which we probably could not agree
as to the materiality of, and at the same time to get
in a concise form before the Court the actual con-
struction and operation of the tanks that you have
been building or designing since your Columbus
report of May 1st, 1898, I will ask you whether the
construction and operation of your said tanks is
shown in your patent, No. 770,490, of September
20, 1904, applied for July 13, 1901, and if so, which *
of the figures of said patent show substantially
tanks actually installed by you, or under your su-
pervision? A. The figures of the patent do not
show even substantially a resemblance to the
plants I have constructed with the exception that
Figure 1 gives a fair idea of the division of a tank,
Such as I have constructed, into compartments. I
have, however, never carried out the system of di-
version shown in that figure, but have accom-
805
JOHN W. ALVORD.
plished substantially the same result by means of
Weirs and baffle boards.
I have designed no tank corresponding to figures
5, 6, 7 and 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12.
XQ. 122. Does that patent, No. 770,490, cor-
rectly describe the operation of the tanks installed
by you since the Columbus report of 1898, as fol-
lows: “This invention relates to a novel process of
purifying sewage by septic action, wherein the raw
sewage with or without previous treatment, is
Slowly passed through a tank or tanks Gf relatively
large area in which such conditions or environ-
ments are established and maintained as to de-
Velope enormous numbers of bacteria, known as
‘anaerobic' bacteria, or bacteria which thrive with-
out free oxygen, said bacteria, in a manner not at
present well understood, acting upon the solid mat-
ter held in suspension in the sewage and reducing
the same to a gaseous or liquid form, whereby the
effluent discharged from the tank consists of a rela-
tively clear and inoffensive liquid. This effluent
may be diverted at once to natural waterways or
may be further purified by being subjected to a sec-
ondary treatment which consists in passing the ef-
fluent over or through contact beds consisting of
coke breeze or similar substances? A. The figures
of the patent do not show even substantially a re-
semblance to the plants I have constructed with
the exception that Figue 1 gives a fair idea of the
division of a tank, such as I have constructed, into
compartments. I have, however, never carried out
the system of diversion shown in that figure, but
have accomplished substantially the same result by
means of Weirs and baffle boards.
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
806
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
JoBN W ALVORD.
I have designed no tank corresponding to Fig-
ures 5, 6, 7 and 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12.
XQ. 122. Does that patent, No. 770,490, correct-
ly describe the operation of the tanks installed by
you since the Columbus report of 1898, as follows:
“This invention relates to a novel process of puri-
fying sewage by septic action, wherein the raw sew-
age with or without previous treatment, is slowly
passed through a tank or tanks of relatively large
area in which such conditions Or environments are
established and maintained as to develope enorm-
ous numbers of bacteria known as ‘anaerobic ' bac-
teria, or bacteria which thrive without free oxygen,
said bacteria, in a manner not at present well un-
derstood, acting upon the solid matter held in sus-
pension in the sewage and reducing the same to a
gaseous or liquid form, whereby the effluent dis-
charged from the tank consists of a relatively clear
and inoffensive liquid. This effluent may be divert-
ed at once to natural waterways or may be further
purified by being subjected to a secondary treat-
ment which consists in passing the effluent over or
through contact-beds consisting of coke-breeze or
similar substances?” A. I should say ſt does.
XQ. 123. Can you refer me to any publication,
showing the construction and operation of any of
the plants which you have installed since the
Columbus report of 1898? A. You will find in a
paper read by me before the Western Society of
Engineers, February 5, 1902, and published in their
Journal, April, 1902, a paper entitled, “Sewage
Purification Plants,” in which there is a description
of a number of plants which I have either designed
or built. The paper is accompanied by illustrations
and cuts.
807
JoHN W. ALVORD.
It is stipulated and agreed by and be-
tween counsel that the issue of the Jour-
nal of the Western Society of Engineers
of April, 1902, Vol. 7, No. 2, pages 113 to
144 may be referred to in the evidence
and arguments of this case with the same
force and effect as though introduced in
evidence as an exhibit.
XQ. 124. On page 141 of the article referred to in
your last answer is shown the distribution of Sep-
tic tank effluent upon intermittent filtration beds at
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. In how many of the plants
installed by you since the Columbus report of 1898
was the septic tank effluent distributed upon filtra-
tion beds and in how many was it not? A. About
one-third of the plants which I have installed are
arranged so as to distribute the effluent upon filter
beds.
XQ. 125. And how is the effluent disposed of in
the other two-thirds? A. In the majority of them
it empties into a flowing stream.
XQ. 126. How many of them have you installed
altogether inclusive of the two-thirds and the one-
third? A. I should say probably sixteen or eigh-
teen plants have been actually built from my de-
Signs.
XQ. 127. Can you give an idea as to the number
of population that those plants dispose of the sew-
age from altogether? A. Not accurateſy without
a careful detailed review, but speaking generally,
I should say the plants in operation serve perhaps
twelve to eighteen thousand people.
Complainant's counsel offers in evi-
dence a printed Patent Office copy of U.
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
808
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
JoBN W. ALVORD.
S. patent, No. 770,490, to the witness, J.
W. Alvord, dated September 20, 1904, for
Process of Purifying Sewage, and the
same is marked Complainant’s Exhibit,
Alvord Patent.
XQ. 128. In the specification of your patent, No.
770,490, you state as follows:
“It is requisite, therefore, to the proper treat-
ment of sewage by bacterial action that environ-
ments be established and maintained in the Sep-
tic tank which are favorable to the active and
continued propagation of the bacteria, and to the
prolongation of life of existing organism for the
reason that if conditions be set up which retard
propagation and shorten the life of the bacteria.
(which occurs when the rest period is unduly pro-
longed) a state of decomposition in the sewage
is set up which results in a deteriorated effluent.
On the other hand, an insufficient rest period pro-
duces little or no change in the effluent, with the
exception that said effluent is subject to rapid de-
composition when exposed to the air. Moreover,
variations in the volume of the sewage vary the
flow through the receptacles in which the septic
action takes place, and it is essential that these
Variations be counteracted by varying the capacity
Of the tank or tanks so as to produce a uniform
rest period for varying volumes of sewage. My
improved process consists, therefore, of passing
the sewage to be treated through a receptacle or
receptacles and varying the rate of flow through
the tank with respect to the characteristics or vol-
ume of the sewage and to thereby vary the period
of time during which the sewage is subject to the
Septic action to correspond with the known or de-
termined rest period required for the proper puri-
fication of different kinds of classes of sewage.”
As I understand it, in carrying out the process
of your patent above referred to, the size of the
tank will depend upon the quantity and character
809
JoBIN W. ALVORD.
of the sewage to be treated. Is this correct? A.
That was essentially the idea I had in mind.
XQ. 129. Was that essentially the idea you
had in mind in designing the septic tanks that
you have built since 1898, as well as in designing
the tanks shown in your patent referred to ? A.
No, not altogether. The idea contained in the
patent which you have quoted grew upon me from
study of tanks which I built prior to 1902, and the
idea attained its maximum prominence in my
mind in the year 1902. I am not sure now that I
know so much about the regulation of sewage in
tanks as I thought I did in 1902.
XQ. 130. And the idea embodied in the
operation described in your patent and ex-
isting in the various septic tank plants
built by you since the Columbus re-
port of 1898 has been that the decom-
position of the sewage should be accelarated by
the use of the septic tank properly designed be-
fore subjecting the sewage to the nitrifying bac-
teria in contradistinction to the idea of bringing
the Sewage in its fresh stage and before decompo-
sition sets in into contact with such nitrifying
bacteria. Is that so? A. That does not describe
the idea which I have had, and I may explain
that it has been my idea to dissolve the solids of
Sewage by decomposition as far as possible, and
yet not retain the liquids of the sewage so long
within the liquefying tank that they are not read-
ily filtered. I am not now clear at all as to where
the process of nitrification begins and where the
process of liquefaction ends, or whether they do
not proceed conjointly under certain conditions.
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
816
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
JoBN W. ALWORD.
I think in some of my earlier writings I have
used the word “nitrification” rather loosely, and
this is due to the fact that the Massachusetts
State Board of Health had so fully investigated
this part of the subject that they gave the impres-
Sion that the whole process of sewage purification
was largely due to nitrification, whereas it has
been clearly pointed out by earlier authorities
that the dissolving of solids is largely due to
anaerobic action.
XQ. 131. As I understand you, the idea em-
bodied in the operation described in your patent
and existing in the various septic tank plants in
which the septic effluent was distributed upon
nitrifying filter beds built by you since the Co-
lumbus report of 1898 has been to dissolve the
Solids of sewage by decomposition as far as pos-
sible, and yet not retain the liquid of the sewage
So long within the liquefying tank that they are
not readily filtered. Is that so? A. That is a
fair statement of my idea except that I would not
be willing to accurately define the final stage as
nitrifying. It is my belief that liquefaction is
accomplished, to Some extent, upon the filters in
ordinary practice.
XQ. 132. What then would you designate the
final stage in the filters to be if not nitrifying?
A. I might be willing to say that it is mainly
nitrifying, but in most filters which I have ob-
served, especially those receiving the effluent
from Septic tanks there is a large amount of lique-
fying action which is being completed in the
finer particles of suspended matter that come over
with the effluent. I have never been able to elim-
811
JOHN W. ALVORD.
inate this action entirely, although it has been
my aim to do so in the regulation which you have
quoted from my patent, and while I find such regu-
lation very beneficial I have not succeeded in
making it absolute to the exclusion of all lique-
faction among the filters so far as I have gone.
YQ. 133. Before your mention of the Cameron
Septic tank process in your Columbus report, can
you point out a single passage in the publications
of any of your discussions or writings wherein
you stated that decomposition of the sewage was
desirable as a preliminary to the action upon it
of nitrifying or aerobic bacteria, whether such
aerobic bacteria were supplied in a filter or in
diluting water? A. I do not recall that prior to
the publication of the 1898 report at Columbus
that I ever discussed the theory of sewage puri-
fication in any publication at all.
XQ. 134. Did you not in January, 1898, deliver
a paper on the purification of sewage which is pub-
lished in the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Il-
linois Society of Engineers and Surveyors and
which paper commenced as follows:
“In the growing interest and attention which
the subject of sewage disposal is now receiving in
this country a large share of attention is being
given to land methods. It may be said that inter-
mittent filtration is the sanitary fad of the hour.
Perhaps it deserves the attention it receives, but
it must not be overlooked that for localities where
land is not available at reasonable cost, where the
Quantity of sewage is large and where dilution is
partially available for clarified effluents, the chem-
ical method of sewage purification may become a
sturdy rival for favor, and will probably outstrip
in economy and efficiency from a practical point
of view a more popular rival.
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
812
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
JoHN W. ALVORD.
If then the sanitary expert comes to a problem
Where conditions exist favorable to chemical dis-
posal it behooves him to confront the problem
Without prejudice and with a clear comprehension
of the possibilities and advantages of that method
of purification.”
A. The paper from which you have quoted was
read by me in January, 1898, and is essentially a
description of certain works at Acton, England,
which I had visited.
The immediate cause of its publication was the
fact that the City of Madison, Wisconsin, had just
contracted for a plant upon that process, and as
I had visited Acton and observed its workings
ten years before I thought an account of them
would be interesting.
The introductory remarks from which you have
just quoted are intended to lead up to a description
of a chemical precipitation plant and could hardly
be designated as a serious discussion of the theory
of sewage purification. g
XQ. 135. Do you also find that in the Eleventh
Annual Report of the Illinois Society of Engineers
and Surveyors, 1896, you are reported as having
participated in the discussion of sewage irrigation,
and as having stated, among other things: “In
England, where they have carried this thing much
farther than we have, there have been notable at-
tempts to utilize the sewage of towns upon farms
by broad irrigation or use of sub-irrigation and by
the application of chemicals, but so far as he knew,
with possibly one or two exceptions they had not
succeeded?” A. The discussion in question, you
have quoted, followed a paper read before the so-
ciety by Mr. Walter C. Parmley, entitled “Sewage
813
JoHN W. ALVORD.
Irrigation for Profit,” and the paper was entirely
devoted to the elements which might make for the
financial success of sewage farming.
In refering, therefore, to the quotation you have
made, it will be seen that the term, “they had not
succeeded,” refers to the financial side of the prob-
lem.
I do not find in the discussion anything which
would appear to me to be a discussion of the theory
of sewage purification.
XQ. 136. I now ask you to answer yes or no
YQ. 133 which is as follows: “Before your men-
tion of the Cameron septic tank process in your
Columbus report of May, 1898, can you point out
a single passage in the publications of any of
your discussions or writings wherein you stated
that decomposition of Sewage was desirable as
a preliminary to the action upon it of nitrifying
or aerobic bacteria whether such bacteria were
Supplied in a filter or in diluting water?” A. I
cannot point out any such statements in any of
my writings prior to May 1st, 1898, for the sim-
ple reason that I never discussed the subject in
any publication.
XQ. 137. In your Columbus report of May,
1898, before your mention of the Cameron Septic
tank process did you, under the heading “The
Purification of Sewage” state on pages 10 and 11
as follows:
“The best known names in the field of sewage
disposal methods are ‘Broad Irrigation,’ ‘Inter-
mittent Filtration,’ ‘Chemical Precipitation,’ and
‘Dilution,” but the distinction between them in
principle is not so great as the mere name would
indicate.
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
814
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
JoHN W. ALVORD.
In making an application of these methods to
the local conditions of the City of Columbus, it
will be observed that in nearly every case combi-
nations are preferred, rather than the simple form
above defined; but this is only another illustra-
tion of the indefiniteness of any single name to
convey an idea of the principles to be applied.
Those principles may be briefly stated as follows:
The sewage in its fresh state before decomposition
has set in must be brought into contact with wide
diffusion at innumerable points, with certain
forms of nitrifying bacteria in the presence of a
sufficient supply of oxygen, and retained under the
conditions a proper length of time for complete
chemical change to be accomplished. This prop-
crly done, the sewage is found to be purified with-
out offense or odor, and without danger to hu-
man health in any way.
A. I did, and the definition seems to me to be
complete and clear as I understood the principles
at that time.
YQ. 138. And immediately following the quo-
tation of my last question under “The Experi-
ence of Other Cities” did you in the same report,
on pages 12, 13 and 14, enumerate twenty-One
cities in this country and in Europe and give the
method of sewage disposal in use by each? A. I
did.
Adjourned till Monday, September 18, 1905, at
10 o’clock A. M.
Monday, September 18, 1905; met pursuant to
adjournment; present as before except Mr. Gif-
ford.
Cross-Examination of Mr. Alvord Continued by
Mr. Fisher.
|XQ. 139. Referring to the statement made in
your Columbus report of May, 1898 (p. 11) and
815
JOHN W. ALWORD.
quoted in XQ. 137 that “The sewage in its fresh
state before decomposition has set in must be
brought into contact at innumerable points, with
certain form of nitrifying bacteria in the pres-
ence of a sufficient supply of oxygen, and re-
tained under the conditions a proper length of
...time for complete chemical change to be ac-
complished,” will you please state from what
Sources prior to the Cameron invention you de-
rived the information upon which this quoted
Statement was based? A. L see traces in this
Statement of my prior studies of the Massachu-
setts State Board of Health perhaps more than
any other one source of information. As I have
stated before, the Massachusetts State Board of
Health devoted their attention very largely to
Studies of intermittent filtration upon sandy soil
as a method of Sewage purification. These studies
led them to adopt the method of delivering the
Sewage, both liquid and Solids, upon a bed of pre-
pared sand well underdrained, and by means of
which the solids were retained upon the surface
of the filter until dissolved while the liquids per-
colated through the sand and were purified. The
reports of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health devoted a great deal of attention to the
Subject of nitrification, and as I have before men-
tioned it was even at one time supposed that a
specific form of nitrifying bacteria had been iso-
lated and studied.
I see evidences all through my Columbus re-
port of the influence of these studies in a some-
what too broad use of the term nitrification by
which it appears to me now I must have more ex-
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
816
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
JoHN W. ALVORD.
actly meant dissolution by micro-organism. For in-
stance, on page 41, in the quotation which I have
before made with reference to the septic tank
system, I say:
“The system has aroused a very wide interest
among sanitary engineers by reason of the devel-
opment of radically different methods of propa-
gating the nitrifying organisms from those here-
tofore in use.”
This appears to me to have been an improper
use of the word nitrifying as is shown by my
more exact description of the anaerobic bacteria
later. Immediately below this first quotation I
Say:
“Covered tanks are provided capable of hold-
ing the sewage at least 18 hours during which
time active nitrification takes place.”
It is evident from this quotation also that I
was accustomed at that time to use the word
‘‘nitrification’’ where the word dissolution or re-
duction would have been a more proper term.
A further instance of the unfortunate use of
the word ‘’nitrification’’ occurs on page 36 where
I say, in speaking of coke breeze filters:
“Sufficient to say that a filter constructed and
operated as above described is a true biological
filter favorable to the growth and propagation of
that form of nitrifying organisms the presence of
which is essential to the oxidation of the organic
matter.”
This again seems to be an unjustified use of
the word “nitrifying” where its absence left the
language more exact.
I, therefore, trace through the somewhat too
frequent and careless use of this word “nitrify-
ing” the influence of the Massachusetts State
817
John W. ALVORD.
Board of Health reports upon my mind, and as
I have before stated it is my belief that the
studies of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, devoting as they largely did their atten-
tion to one phase of the subject and coming at
a time when there was a revival of interest in
the whole problem largely influenced many Sani-
tarians to neglect the earlier works of Colonel
Waring, and his imitators in their studies of the
preliminary stages of Sewage disposal.
In making the statement that “the sewage in
its fresh stage before decomposition has set in,
must be brought,” etc., I see clearly traces of
my careful reading of the works of Colonel War-
ing who always and everywhere carefully enun-
ciated the principle that sewage must be puri-
fied by means which are put into operation be-
fore decomposition had set in, that is to say, that
the sewage must be brought to the plant in a com-
paratively fresh state. This was urged by
him in support of his separate system of
Sewers which he introduced into this coun-
try, and which were designed by him for this pur-
pose. In other words it was his idea that lique-
faction, decomposition or dissolution of the sol-
ids of sewage ought not to take place immedi-
ately in and about the premises where they were
created, but should be conveyed as rapidly as
possible to Some point as remote as might be,
where the dissolution and purification could be
accomplished in safety and without offense.
That I was not limited in my conception by
what I now consider to be a careless use of the
word “nitrify” is shown by the further quota-
408()
4081
4082
4083
4084
818
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
JoBN W. ALVORD.
tion from the same report on page 9, under the
heading “The Purification of Sewage,” I quote
as follows:
“Sewage may be defined as water contaminated
with the wastes of life. These wastes are com-
posed of complex and unstable chemical com-
pounds which are resolved by the process of na-
ture into more simple and harmless forms, mineral
and gaseous. The operation as now understood is
accomplished by innumerable swarms of bacteria
operating generally in the presence of a sufficient
Supply of Oxygen.”
I call particular attention to the significant use
of the word “generally” at this point:
“And is everywhere taking place under our eyes
in nature. The operation becomes obnoxious and
dangerous only when unduly concentrated as is the
case in malarious swamps, decomposing bodies of
animals, or the results of thickly inhabited popu-
lated centers. Under such circumstances the Want
of oxygen in sufficient quantities, and other proper
and suitable conditions for the growth of certain
necessary forms of bacteria not only allows offens-
ive and unbealthy gases to be created but danger-
ous forms of bacteria are propagated which, if al-
lowed to seize upon living tissue, become fatal to
human life.
There is theoretically but one system of purify-
ing the sewage which a large community will
create, and that is to so arrange disposition of those
Waters that the process which nature intends for
this purpose, and provides when permitted, with
boundless prodigality, shall have the fullest pos-
sible scope of action unhampered and unhindered.
To this end all sanitary science is directed and
along these lines all sanitary sticcess has been won.
The various methods by which nature is thus
allowed, and in some cases assited to do her work,
are very large in number and shade into each other
in great variety. Their differences as to principle
when properly conceived are generally slight, while
819
JOHN W. ALVORD.
in detail they may vary greatly. There is no gen-
eral form which can be said to be the best method
of purifying sewage, but each locality presents its
local problem which cannot be met by a sovereign
specific.”
The above description of the theory of sew-
age purification seems to me to be a fair state-
ment of what was in my mind at that time, but
there is no doubt whatever, in my mind, as I
have elsewhere stated, that at that time I was
more largely dominated by the ideas advanced
fly the Massachusetts State Board of Health in
their researches than I was by the macerating
tank of Colonel Waring, and it was not until the
public experiments of Mr. Cameron’s work at
Exeter had been studied by me for some months
that I began to perceive the importance of Col-
onel Waring’s work in that it could be applied
on a larger scale than had previously been
thought possible, or that even he himself had
fully conceived.
YQ. 140. Did you, in the Engineering Record
of March 16, 1901, make the following published
statement:
“There is a general rush just at the present time
to introduce the septic tank into sewage purifica-
tion works, new and old. It seems to be the gen-
eral impression that anything that will hold water
no matter what its form or whether the flow re-
Quired a rest period of 20 minutes or 36 hours,
closed or open, shallow or deep, new or old, will
answer for a septic tank and will in some miracu-
lous way purify all kinds of sewage of any
strength, temperature or variation of quantity,
with facility, neatness and despatch. ſº tº e
Then, too, it is found from experience, that the
form of tank has a great deal to do with its effici-
ency. It is only too evident that in some forms of
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
S2U
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
JoBN W. ALVORD.
tanks inadequate filling apparatus allows the sew-
age to seek a direct path from inflow to outflow,
thus converting a tank of great theoretical capac-
ity into one of very short rest period, practically.
Again, the bacteria being found most abundantly
upon the scum of the surface and the sludge at the
bottom, it is evident that the aera provided for
them has a relation to the capacity or effectiveness
Of the tank.”
A. The quotations are correct and the article
in question was caused very largely by what I
consider the very broad claims of Mr. Cameron
in his experimental work and the disposition of
the public, which I regarded at the time unfor-
tunate, to accept without question these claims.
XQ. 141. Have you not in your various publi-
cations and elsewhere emphasized the fact that
a septic tank to be practical and successful as
Such must be carefully designed with regard to
the character and volume of the sewage for the
disposal of which such tank was to be used? A.
I think this would be a fair statement of my po-
sition if the word “proportion’’ instead of “de-
sign” should be used. I think I may say that
I have rather persistently advocated care in the
proportioning of such tanks to the conditions
which they were expected to meet.
XQ. 142. And have you not also, in your vari-
ous publications, repeatedly called attention to
the fact that in order to be successful, Septic
tanks should not be left alone but should receive
attention? A. I have.
XQ. 143. State why it is that you regard the
careful proportioning of a septic tank and atten-
tion to its action essential to its successful opera-
tion? A. I have observed that effluents from
821
JoHN W. ALVORD.
such tanks that are not, in my opinion, properly
proportioned, either are very difficult to prop-
erly filter, as is the case when the liquid is re-
tained too long in the tank or contains too large
an amount of suspended matter, as is the case
when the tank is small in proportion to the flow;
and it has seemed to me from such study that
there was a desirable mean between these two
extremes which could be obtained by proper ad-
Justment and intelligent control.
XQ. 144. What do you consider as the essen-
tial points for successful operation to be borne
in mind in determining the proportion and de-
sign of a septic tank? A. The amount and char-
acter of the solids in sewage, the volume of flow,
the temperature at which the sewage may be
maintained would seem to me all to have bear-
ing on the question.
So far as my studies have gone the retention
of the sewage in the state of relative rest, and
the attention, so far as possible, of the chemical
heat evolved from dissolution which is going on,
are the most important requisites. To bring the
Sewage into a state of comparative rest, it is de-
sirable that it should be diffused throughout the
tank by means of baffles or other adjuncts which
will keep it in a state of rest.
|XQ. 145. Is the following a correct quotation
from a pamphlet published by you in April, 1903:
“It is coming to be seen that in large plants
skilled operation is vitally necessary, fully as
necessary as intelligent design and construction,
and must be counted On in advance.
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
822
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
JoHN W. ALVORD.
SEPTIC TANK.
As an illustration of this, take for instance the
care of the septic tank. It is assumed for the most
part, that the septic tank once installed needs no
particular supervision; that it operates wholly
without attention, save perhaps a yearly cleaning.
Now, it has been well demonstrated that this is not
true; that the septic process is like all sewage pro-
cesses a sensitive and delicate process, ameanable
to control and subject to natural fluctuation, which
must be watched and governed if the best results
are to be expected. The particular function of a
septic tank is to break down the suspended matter
to a manageable state, either by resolving it par-
tially into gases and finely divided sediment, or, if
possible, wholly into impurities in solution. That
this latter result can more or less be attained by
properly designed tanks carefully operated has
already been fully demonstrated. . . . . . .
A septic tank whose effluent shows advanced de-
composition is plainly too large for the quantity
then happening to flow through it, and the best
results cannot be expected or obtained in the fur-
ther or secondary treatment of the impurities. On
the other hand an effluent from the septic tank con-
taining large quanities of Suspended matter Sug-
gests that there is not a proper length of fermen-
tation period to break down the suspended parti-
cles, and that additional fermentation period is
necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The proper regulation of the septic tank is of
great importance, not only because it produces high
efficiency for the tank itself, but because it also
enables the secondary stages to be operated with
equally high efficiency.”
A. The paper in question was read by me be-
fore the American Society of Municipal Improve-
ments, at Rochester, New York, April 23rd, 1903,
and was entitled “The Practical Operation of
Sewage Purification Plants,” and the quotations
are correct.
823
JoBN W. ALvoRD.
|XQ. 146. What particular forms of tanks did
you have in mind when you stated in the Engi-
neering Record of March 16, 1901, that “It is
only too evident that in some forms of tank in-
adequate filling apparatus allows the Sewage to
seek a direct path from inflow to outflow, thus
converting a tank of great theoretical capacity
into one of very short rest period practically?”
A. I think I had in mind tanks of the type de-
scribed by me in relating the experiments with
fluroscene, that is to say, deep circular tanks with
inlet and outlet relatively close together and with-
out the baffle wall, such as is shown in the cut
of Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue, page 24, for
instance. Also rectangular tanks which might
be excessively broad in proportion to their length
and unprovided with baffle walls or plates.
|XQ. 147. What do you mean by the expres-
sion “Thus converting a tank of great theoreti-
cal capacity into one of very short rest period,
practically,” occurring in the above quotation?
A. A tank which would have a large cubic con-
tent in proportion to the inflow, perhaps, but
through defective shape or absence of baffle walls,
one which might permit the solids to escape be-
fore being dissolved by reason of the directness
from the inflow to the outflow. Such a tank might
not have diffusion of the Sewage throughout its
total content in such a manner as would make it
most effective.
XQ. 148. In contradictinction to the forms of
tanks referred to in your answer to X. Q. 146,
what do you understand to be the general char-
acteristics of a properly proportioned tank, or a
4110
4111
4112
41.13
4114
824
4115
4116
4117
4.1.18
4119
JOHN W. ALVORD.
tank of proper form for successful septic opera-
tion? A. So far as my studies have gone, I have
become favorably disposed to tanks of great
length with relatively small cross section, but in-
asmuch as it is not often convenient or economi-
cal to construct such a tank in one straight Sec-
tion I have often arranged to obtain practically
the same result by dividing an ordinary rectangu-
lar tank whose length was perhaps two or three
times its width into compartments through,
which the sewage might traverse a path with
practically the same results as in the ideal tank
I have mentioned.
A large number of the tanks I have thus de-
signed rather closely resemble the tanks in the
Ealing Sewage works in England, shown in Santo
Crimp’s book, page 14, opposite page 158, and
marked “Subsiding Tank No. 1” and “Subsid-
ing Tank No. 2.”
XQ. 149. And in designing what you have des-
ignated as a properly proportioned tank you
would have the distance from the inflow to the
Outflow at least greater than the width of the
tank, would you not? A I would if possible, al-
though I do not believe that this is always an ab-
Solutely necessary requirement.
XQ. Tà0. In designing a septic tank which
you would regard as properly proportioned for
Successful septic operation, would you not have
in mind and determine the form and proportions
of such tank by the following, viz: (1) Absence
of Agitation; (2) Bodily Slowly Flowing Cur-
rent; (3) Exclusion of Light and Air Either by
the Scum or by a Cover; (4) The Relation of the
825
JOHN W. ALVORD.
Size to the Quality of Sewage; (5) The Relation
of the Size to the Quality of inflow, and (6) Such
Disposition of Inlet and Outlet as Would Enable
the Bacteria to Effectively Liquefy the Solid Or-
ganic Matter of the Sewage? A. I do not think
I would take the same order that you have ob-
served or include as essentials some of those you
Tave mentioned. If asked specifically as to what
order and essentials I would mention the follow-
ing: (1) Absence of Agitalion, by which I would
mean not that the sewage was brought to com-
plete rest, but that it was caused to flow in a
Quiet manner, such as would be produced by entry
into a tank or might even be caused by its flow
through a sewer somewhat larger than would be
necessary to convey it.
Second, I would place as most important Means
for the Retention of the Chemical Heat, so that
it would not be lost or dissipated, and that the
Sewage would be kept at as relatively high a tem-
perature as possible, not, however, much exceed-
ing 80 or 85 degrees Fahrenheit. This require.
ment I regard as especially important for the ac-
tive propagation and activity of the bacteria.
Third, I would place Desirability of Constant
Addition of Liquid and Constant Abstraction of
Liquid from the Body of the Sewage in which the
bacteria are being generated. I am at the present
time of the opinion that this is desirable so that
the wastes of bacterial energy may be removed
and the activity of the bacteria themselves be not
vitiated by their own poisons. I would observe,
however, that the absence of this provision would
not necessarily destroy bacterial activity, but
only retard it.
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
826
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
JoBN W. ALVORD.
Fourth, I would place Regulation of the Reten-
tion of the Liquid Portion in the Sewage Within
the Tank. I am of the opinion that it is desir-
able to abstract the liquid of the tank as rapidly
as it can be freed from the solids or suspended
matter of the sewage, as I have observed that
such liquid is the most readily filtered when it
has been comparatively a short time within the
tank.
I do not attach at the present time any value
to the absence of light or air, although I am ac-
customed to believe that the presence of scum is
a good indication of proper operation. Still I
have observed tanks in which liquefaction was
rapidly proceeding which were unprovided with
a cover and not covered with scum.
I do not set store about the adjuncts which
may be provided for the inlet and outlet unless
it is observable that without such adjuncts agita-
tion of the sewage within the tank results. In
the tanks of great length, such as I have sug-
gested I prefer, the kind or variety of inlet and
outlet are relatively unimportant, as agitation is
prevented from seriously interfering with bacteri-
al action by the great length of the tank.
In rectangular tanks where inflow and outflow
create commotion within the tank I should be-
lieve that baffle boards such as I have shown are
commonly in the history of the art would be desir-
able.
I do not believe that disposition of inlet and
outlet are governing factors in enabling the bac-
teria to effectively liquefy the solid organic mat-
ter of the sewage. I hold the view that the sol-
827
JOHN W. ALVORD.
ids of Sewage are liquefying and decaying from
the time of their production and continue to so
Tiquefy and decay until they disappear, conse-
quently I do not regard tanks, baffle boards, es-
pecially devised inflows or outflows, of vital sig-
nificance in the process of organic dissolution. I
only feel that with their proper arrangement and
correct proportioning the processes of nature are
accelerated rather than retarded. I have rarely,
if ever, seen a plant for the dissolution of the sol-
ids in sewage in which I did not think there was
Some slight reduction going on, and as I have said
before, nothing in my opinion can stop this action
except the addition of antiseptic chemicals or the
sterilization of the sewage by a high degree of
heat. Therefore, in a tank which I would regard
as properly proportioned for successful septic op-
eration I would regard the first two essentials
which I have mentioned as of very great import-
ance, and the second to the sixth essentials men-
tioned by you in your question as of relatively
Small importance, and while I might adopt them
and probably would adopt them in the present
state of my knowledge I should regard it possible
to dispense with either or perhaps all of them
under certain conditions.
XQ. 151. In the paper which you read before
the Western Society of Engineers, in April, 1902,
did you not state the following:
“The septic tank in good working condition, and
which is not being overcrowded, should have from
four to eight inches of thick scum over its entire
surface.”
A. I did and as I have said in my last answer,
“I am accustomed to believe that the presence
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
828
4135
4136
41.37
4138
4139
JOHN W. ALVORD.
of Scum is a good indication of the proper opera-
tion. Still I have observed tanks in which lique-
Taction was rapidly proceeding which were un-
provided with a cover and not covered with
scum.”
It is usually found, however, that the septic
tanks caring for a normal sewage and properly
proportioned will show a scum about as described
in the quotation you have made from my article.
|XQ. 152. To what did you attribute the ab-
sence of Scum in the tanks in which you have
Said such absence was observable? A. It seemed
to me that the sewage was not normal in that
there was an absence of solid matter of a lighter
Specific gravity than the water.
XQ. 153. But your observation has been that
with the sewage of normal character a scum of
from four to eight inches would cover the surface.
Is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
YQ. 154. If you were called upon to determine
whether or not a sewage disposal tank were op-
erating properly or successfully as a septic tank
what steps in the examination of such tank would
you take, or what data with respect to its opera-
tion would you require? A. If by “examina-
tion” you mean a physical examination only, I
would desire to draw a sample of the effluent from
the tank in a bottle and closely observe the
amount of finely suspended matter which it con-
tained. Also I should observe whether large
lumps of solids were coming out with the effluent
which I should take to be an indication of defec-
tive arrangement of the plant.
If the effluent were very clear in the bottle I
829
JOHN W. ALVORD.
have mentioned, I should seal it and leave it sealed
for several days and observe whether black
flakes formed in it which would be an indication
to me that there was considerable reduction of
impurities still going on.
I should closely observe the inflow to the tank
if possible to see whether the raw sewage was
concentrated, dilute or normal. If access could
be had to the tank I should take occasion to stir
the scum with a stick and observe if gas bubbles
were produced copiously, and if I found such, gas
bubbles produced copiously I should take it as
an indication that bacterial action was active.
If possible I should measure the thickness of
the scum on the top of the liquid and the depth
of the sludge at the bottom. If there were no
Scum and nevertheless the liquid gave evidences
of numerous gas bubbles I should still take it
that bacterial action was going on with fair ra-
pidity. The thickness of the top scum and the
bottom deposit would only have a meaning in
connection with the production of gas, for if no
gas is being produced and the top Scum were very
thick and the bottom sludge very heavy, and the
effluent filled with floating solids I should judge
that the activity of the tank was low. If, on the
other hand, the inflowing sewage was normal or
concentrated the production of gas on stirring
the scum abundant, and if the effluent from the
tank was quite clear and produced no black
flecks on standing sealed for several days I should
regard the tank as doing excellent work, espec-
ially if it had been in service any great length of
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
time.
830
4145
4.146
4147
4148
4149
JoBIN W. ALWORD.
I have seen an effluent from the Champaign
tank which, when kept in closely stoppered bot-
tle for several days, gave no odor on opening it,
as well as produced no black fleck. This I re-
garded as the best result which ever came under
my observation, a result which I am free to say
I never succeeded in equalling in any of my own
tanks.
|XQ. 155. Did you observe a tank intended for
Septic operation and seemingly properly propor-
tioned in which the septic action was not proceed-
ing successfully? A. I don’t recall that I ever
have.
|XQ. 156. Do you mean to be understood by
your last answer as indicating that all Septic
tanks that have come under your observation
have been practically successful? A. No, sir, but
where there have been conspicuous failures it has
always seemed to me that I could see some reason
for it. T may have been wrong in finding that
reason at times, but I have always been able to
assign to the satisfaction of my own mind, at
least, some intelligible belief for the failure. Some
cases of failure which have come under my ob-
servation seem to me to have occurred through
the growth of the amount of sewage that the
plant was receiving beyond the capacity for which
it was apparently designed. This growth has
generally been the natural growth of the city, the
addition of new sewer connections, the spread of
population and the increase of the water supply.
Tn some cases I have observed tanks which fail
to give a good effluent because they were designed
to care for the future population of the city while
831
JoBIN W. ALVORD.
the present needs and requilements did not be-
gin to utilize their capabilities.
|XQ. 157. Do you recall any other reason for
failure of septic tanks that have come under your
observation besides the reasons given in your last
answer? A. No, sir, most of the failures which
I have observed seem to me to have come from a
disproportion between the capacity of the tank
and the quantity of incoming sewage, and it seems
to me that it must be said that these are propor-
tional failures only because, as I have before ob-
served, I do not think that the dissolving action
ever entirely ceases, but that it is relatively
greater under some conditions than others.
Of course when a tank is receiving solids faster
than it can digest them, and as the solids begin
to accumulate this very accumulation further re-
duces the liquid contents of the tank and its ca-
pacity for receiving further solids, so that the
deterioration in capacity once commenced will go
on with increasing rapidity until at times the en-
tire tank may become nearly filled with solids
which are dissolving so slowly as to not keep pace
with the accretions from the inflow.
I recall one instance of a failure of the tank
from extraneous conditions which resulted from
the emptying into the tank of a large quantity of
calcium hydrate, or the residue from acetylene
gas tanks. This, however, was accidental and un-
usual, and aside from this instance I recall no
other which did not seem to me to proceed from
a disproportion of the incoming solids to the
liquid contents of the tank.
|XQ. 158. Have you not observed defects in the
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
832
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
JoHN W. ALWORD.
operation of septic tanks, which defects you at-
tributed to improper size of the tanks, with re-
spect to the volume of sewage delivered thereto?
A. Yes, sir, I have observed what I consider to
be defects in the design and construction of tanks
which have resulted in not the most effective op-
eration, and which were attributable to other
causes than those mentioned.
I am of the opinion that deep circular tanks
without dividing baffle wall are not such effective
tanks for relatively large flows as very long tanks
of comparatively small transverse area. I would
not, for instance, consider the tank at St. Bede’s
College as effective a design as though it had
been a long tank with a cross section of not more
than 15 Square feet. I think it would have been
desirable, for instance, in that tank if there had
been a baffle wall across the inlet pipe as well as
the outlet pipe and a central baffle wall across the
tank such as are designated in the cut on page 24
of Flush Tank Company's catalogue.
Still I would not say that these are more than
minor defects. Certainly their absence does not
retard the liquefying action to any serious ex-
tent unless the inflow becomes so great as to
churn up the entire solid contents of the tank and
cause it to escape from the outlet in spite of the
baffle wall.
XQ. 159. In the course of your cross-examina-
tion a day or two ago you were requested to give
a list of all the installations of tanks of the type
shown in the Flush-Tank Company catalogue.
Will you now give that list? A. I have a clerk
in my office at work going through my memo-
833
JOHN W. ALWORD.
randa with a view to giving a list of this kind,
and he has already brought to my attention
three plants which I could not recall the other
day. One of these was situated at the northwest
corner of Belmont Avenue and Lake Shore Drive
in Lake View, and was in use and observed by me
about the year 1886 or 1887, at the residence of
Mr. Chase. This plant consisted of a tank only
without the subsequent filtration and was discon-
tinued about the year 1886 or 1887 at the time I
was constructing a sewer system in that vicinity.
The matter was brought to my recollection because
Mr. Chase showed me his tank at the time and ex-
plained to me its working.
Other installations I recall seeing at the resi-
dence of Mr. Cyrus H. McCormick, at Lake For-
est, on or about the year 1898 or 1899; also at the
residence of Mr. Swift west of the track in Lake
Forest, although I think this is a comparatively
recent installation. I also recall C. B. Farwell
having an installation of this kind at Lake For-
est before I installed the sewer system there in
1888 or 1889. Although T do not now recall very
fully this latter installation except to remember
that it was discontinued upon the completion of
the sewer.
I was also asked in prior questions if the in-
stallation at Blair Lodge and the residence of Mr.
Byron L. Smith was still in operation, to which
I replied that I was not able to say I have since
been able to recall from the investigation now
going on in my office that both of these installa-
tions were discontinued at the time of the com-
pletion of the north end sewer system about 1902,
4160
4161
4.162
4163
4164
834.
41.65
4166
4167
416S
4169
JOHN W. ALVORD.
that at Blair Lodge having been connected by us
into the main sewer at the time of the building
of the sewage purification plant about 1902.
Adjourned till tomorrow, Tuesday, September
18, 1905, at 10 o’clock A. M.
Tuesday, Sept. 19, 1905, ten o’clock A. M.; met
pursuant to adjournment; present as before.
XQ. 160. Are you able to state the constructions
of the several flush tanks referred to in your last
answer and to state wherein they differed one from
the other, if they differed at all? A. I am not able
to give a description of these plants in detail as my
Observation of them was limited to a surface in-
spection, and general information that they were
plants intended for the putrification of sewage, and
I was able to recognize from that description their
identity with the Waring system.
In the case of Mr. Chase's plant before alluded
to, I recall, however, seeing the interior of the tank
which had baffle inlet, and outlet and which was
the macerating tank proper.
My attention was called especially to this tank
because I think it is one of the first instances of a
Waring macerating tank which was ever shown and
described to me. The chamber which I saw was
the initial chamber similar to that in the cut on
page 24 of the Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue,
and marked “intercepting chamber.” I do not now
recall whether or not there Was a baffle wall in this
chamber or not, but I remember that the inlet and
the outlet were trapped by baffle walls. I could noi
say after this lapse of time as to the size of the tank,
or as to whether it took the roof water from the
835
JOHN W. ALVORD.
house or not. In the other instances cited I merely
saw the covers of the two tanks and did not open
the covers or look inside. Their arrangement was
described to me at the time, however. In the Chase
tank, as nearly as I remember, the effluent from the
tank emptied upon the beach and soaked away
into the sand. I do not recall specifically seeing
this outlet, but I have a strong impression that it
was there. Upon second thought it seems to me
now that there was an old sewer in Belmont Ave-
nue laid there by private parties prior to the con-
struction of the sewer which I built there in or
about 1886, into which this tank emptied.
XQ. 161. Have you ever seen any other tanks of
the Waring type or tank similar to that illustrated
upon page 24 of Flush-Tank Company catalogue be-
sides the tanks you have enumerated in your last
two preceding answers? A. I undoubtedly have,
but I am unable at this time to locate them without
a good deal of research and the effort of memory.
In a general way I cover a great deal of territory
in the course of my practice, and examine a good
many cases where the problem of sewage purifica-
tion comes up, and in these cases I have undoubted-
ly seen a considerable number of such installations,
but as I have said in a prior answer, there are no
records of these installations as they have usually
been installed by architects rather than by sanitary
engineers.
XQ. 162. In the course of your direct examina-
tion you have referred to a book entitled, “The
Disposal of Household Wastes,” by William Paul
Gerhard, a civil engineer of New York City, and
have specifically referred to the tank described on
4170
4171
4172
417.3
4174.
836
4175
4.176
4.177
4178
4179
JoHN W. ALWORD.
pages 75 to 79 in such book; and in the course of
your description you say that the tank therein des-
cribed is one “consisting of a closed tank practical-
ly light and air proof with submerged non-disturb-
ing inflow and outflow, baffle walls for retaining
the scum, and aeration by means of a weir Over
which the effluent from the tank flows. Descriptive
cuts of these appliances will be found on page 180
and page 184.” Will you please again examine Mr.
Gerhard’s book and state wherein you find any de-
cription of “-submerged non-disturbing inflow,” or
where you find baffle walls for retaining the scum?
A. In examining Mr. Gerhard’s book again I find
that I have confused the cut on page 184 of his book
with a cut of the Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue,
page 24. The cut in Mr. Gerhard’s book does not
show a submerged inlet or a central baffle wall as in
the case of Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue and
also Colonel Waring's book, page 291. The inlet,
therefore cannot be said to be non-disturbing ex-
cept in the sense that its proportion of flow may be
small in proportion to the liquid contents in the
tank.
Baffle wall for the retention of scum is, however,
provided in Mr. Gerhard’s proposed plant in the
sense that the wall of the overflow pipe extends be-
low the surface of the liquid and prevents the sur-
face scum from overflowing.
XQ. 163. Please state if the following are quo-
tations from Mr. Gerhard’s book entitled, “Dispos-
al of Household Wastes,” to which you have re-
ferred, viz.:
(p. 24). “The principle points of importance
are that the sewage be applied to the soil while
fresh, and before it begins to decompose.
837
JOHN W. ALVORD.
(p. 36). Generally speaking a detached country
house, not in reach of sewers, can dispose of its
sewage by one or the other of the following meth-
ods . . . . . . 3. The drain may deliver
the sewage from the house into a tightly built cess-
pool provided with an overflow pipe carried into
some ditch Or Water course. This is a makeshift
arrangement, which cannot ordinarily be endorsed.
(p. 44). Tight Cesspools—Passing over now to
the consideration of tight cesspools, we find that
they are built both with and without overflows.
The former arrangement may be considered a
direct outcome of the leaching cesspool. While
such a tight cesspool, with overflow located far
away from the house, and with its overflow car-
ried, perhaps to some rapid stream, may be unob-
jectionable where but little water is used in the
house, it constitutes in the case of larger houses a
fearful nuisance, as the sewage, when removed, is
already putrid. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The object of all good drainage being to get rid of
filth from the premises at once or else to dispose of
it on the premises while fresh, so as to be com-
pletely taken up by vegetation and purified by the
soil, it is evident that a vast receptacle of accumu-
lated filth cannot be considered a good device, from
a sanitary point of view.
(p. 46). There are some cases where no good
feasible way of dealing with sewage may be found,
other than to run it into a tight cesspool. In that
case the following precautions are to be observed.
tº e º sº e The cesspoool should at all times
be well ventilated and must be emptied, cleaned
and disinfected at frequent intervals.”
(p. 58). “Subsidence—All attempts at sewage
purification by simple subsidence have proved a
failure. By collecting house sewage in subsidence
tanks, which are usually nothing but cesspools, we
effect merely a partial and very imperfect clarifi-
cation, consisting in the settlement to the bottom
of the heavier particles of sewage. The resulting
effluent is of a very foul character, and the diffi-
culty of disposing of the same remains.
4180
4181
4.182
41.83
4.184
838
4.185
4.186
4187
4.188
4189
JoHN W. ALVORD.
(p. 74). Flush tanks for sewage disposal are
best built of brick, laid in hydraulic cement mortar
and made perfectly water tight. . . . . . .
Such a chamber is, in a certain sense a cesspool, or
although differing from the ordinary objectionable
device of this kind in having its liquid contents
frequently changed, and in being built of small
size. The emptying and cleaning of this chamber,
must, of course, not be neglected.
(p. 83). Owners of country residences find an
objection to the system in the necessity of empty-
ing the intercepting chamber, claiming that this
causes a nuisance.
(p. 120). A cardinal rule is that the sewage be
delivered at its ultimate point of discharge before
it can begin to putrify.
(p. 131). Cesspools and vaults are retained in
communities only through ignorance or indiffer-
ence. It is a fundamental principle that all filth
incident to human life should be removed and im-
mediately, or at least before putrefactive decompo-
sition begins.
(p. 167). But whatever system may be adopted
in cities and towns, it is established beyond a ques-
tion that all kinds of cesspools must be prohibited;
that in particular the use of abandoned wells, as
Cesspools, must be regarded as a relic of barbarism,
and that privy vaults with or without sewer con-
nections, Ought to be done away with. In other
words, all stagmation of sewage matters, with its
wnavoidable putrefaction, must be avoided.”
A. Yes, these quotations are correct and it is a
curious and instructive thought to notice that an
author who can make the quotation last above un-
derscored, should also say, as he does on page 79;
“It is often objected that the intercepting chamber
is in reality a cesspool. This is to a slight extent
true, but nevertheless I always advise building it,
using due precaution in its construction to make it
perfectly tight.” Also on page 75:
839
JOHN W. ALVORD.
“Much of the Solid matter and paper, etc., is
reduced by maceration and decomposition and flows
dissolved by Water into the liquid sewage cham-
ber.”
There is certainly a singular contradiction here
in the ideas of the author which is to me both sig-
nificant and instructive.
An earlier generation ignorant of the laws of
communicable disease by bacteria imbibed a great
dread of foul odors to which they largely attributed
disease. This dread is inherent in the human race
to-day, notwithstanding the newer light which bac-
teriology has brought to it. It is now not thought
that foul air gives rise to disease. In fact it has
been shown that workmen engaged during all their
lives in the repair of sewers are found to be gener-
ally possessed of unusual health. This dread of
foul odors derived from the ignorance of precise
laws which govern the communication of disease
to my mind, explains the crusade which was in-
augurated by the earlier sanitarians against the
putrefaction of sewage in the vicinity of domestic
habitations. Insofar as their reasons were based
on proper consideration they stand good to-day and
are urged properly against the location of any sew-
age purification plants in the immediate vicinity of
domestic dwellings, but insofar as their reasons
were based on ignorance we must ignore the argu-
ments which they used or assign them to sentiment-
al consideration. *
We find them, as I have before said, an earlier
generation of sanitarians preaching the removal of
sewage in its fresh state to the place in which it
must be properly disposed for the reason that they
conceived that the odors of putrefaction gave rise to
4190
4.191
4.192
4193
4.194
840
4195
4196
4.197
41.98
4.199
JoBN W. ALWORD.
disease. That this state of mind lasted well into
the period when bacteriology became better under-
stood and the causes of disease better defined can be
readily seen. We find, therefore, in Mr. Gerhard’s
book, as we find in Colonel Waring's book, and in
the writings of most everyone who came under his
influence, two sets of ideas which are antagonistic
to each other. The first set being a survival of the
earlier and more ignorant ideas concerning the
propagation of disease by foul odors, and the Sec-
ond set of ideas being the earlier discovery found-
ed on the science of bacteriology.
It is to my mind, of great significance that these
sanitarians and scientists who thus wrote were
nevertheless honest enough to admit that macera-
tion and dissolution of organic matter as a valuable
preliminary in sewage purification were at the same
time filled with the earlier idea that all putrefac-
tion, especially in the vicinity of domestic dwel-
lings must, if possible, be avoided.
Mr. Gerhard was, of course, a follower of Colonel
Waring, and his book is a very close copy of Colonel
Waring’s ideas.
XQ. 164. Do you think that the periodical flush-
ing out by rain water, for example, of a tank of the
Waring type, such for example as shown upon page
24 of Flush-Tank Company’s catalogue would have
the effect of removing or carrying away the solid
matter, and thus avoid the necessity of cleaning out
the tank at frequent intervals? A. There was a
period in my earlier study of this subject when
I was inclined to believe that this might be so. A
careful study of a large septic tank at Lake Forest,
in 1902, which periodically received a considerable
841
JOHN W. ALWORD.
rush of comparatively fresh rainwater led me to
modify this view as I observed increased efficiency
from this tank for several weeks following each
flushing.
I am of the opinion from this and other similar
studies that the composition of Organic Solids by
bacteria or by micro-organisms is accompanied by
the accumulation of the wastes of bacterial life
which are inimical to their activity and vitality.
These wastes need to be removed by constant in-
flow and outflow, or by the introduction of a con-
siderable body of water at stated times, and I have
observed that the latter invariably results in in-
creased bacterial activity in spite of a common the-
Oretical opinion to the contrary.
I should not, therefore, consider the flushing of
the preliminary or intercepting chamber of a
Waring type of house sewage purification plant as
being detrimental but rather beneficial.
XQ. 165. In the course of your deposition, in
what way, if at all, have you differentiated a sep-
tic process of sewage disposal from a sedimentation,
subsidence, or settling process? A. I have never
succeeded in drawing any distinction between the
two in my own mind which was satisfactory to me.
I am aware that the claims of the Cameron paſt-
ent make this attempt, but so far as my practical
observation has gone that which is conducive to a
good sedimentation tank produces a good septic
or liquefying action and that which does not pro-
mote good sedimentation conditions does not pro-
mote good decomposition conditions.
XQ. 166. In pronouncing certain tanks of the
prior art as anticipations of the claims of the Cam-
4200
420.1
4202
4203
4204
842
4205
4206
42O7
4208
4209
JoHN W. ALVORD.
eron patent, have you disregarded the extent to
which liquefaction of solids may have been carried
in such prior tanks? A. In selecting types of Sedi-
mentation tanks which I consider to be anticipa-
tions of the septic tank, I have endeavored to con-
fine myself to those which were apparently operat-
ed so as to produce decomposition, that is
to say, taking those sedimentation tanks which are
cleaned infrequently, I have conceived them to
necessarily have a considerable amount of decompo-
sition and liquefaction. In some cases, notably at
Ealing, this is shown by analysis.
In sedimentation tanks which are cleaned daily
or even once in a few days it is apparent that the
decomposition of solids must be inferred with by
agitation to a considerable extent, and that the best
results are not being obtained from the septic tank
point of view. On the other hand, where tanks
are cleaned infrequently, say once in eight weeks,
as is decribed in the case of the Cheltenham tank
by Henry Austin, I conceive that such a cleaning
is desirable and necessary from the point of view
of a successful decomposition tank, as in my opin-
ion the ash or wastes of decomposition should be
removed from the tank from time to time in Order
to keep the liquid contents of the tank at its great-
est capacity.
XQ. 167. Can you not state a frequency of clean-
ing that would prevent the successful operation, in
your opinion, of a tank as a septic tank, with more
exactness than you have done? A. I think it is
not a question which can be answered exactly. The
constant removal of the sludge daily from a sedi-
mentation tank, in my opinion, interferes with de-
843
JOHN W. ALWORD.
composition but does not stop it—it only retards it.
Consequently the less frequent removal of the
sludge retards the decomposition less and less until
a point is reached where some removal of accumu-
lated mineral deposits is not particularly injurious
except for the time being, and is perhaps helpful in
increasing the liquid contents of the tank. Just
where this interval of time should be placed in
which beneficial removal can be made will vary in
each locality with the variation in the constitutents
of the sewage itself.
XQ. 168. In your opinion, would a sedimenta-
tion tank that was cleaned, say as often as once a
week or once in two weeks, or was neglected al-
together, operate as a successful septic tank? A.
The whole question as to whether a septic tank is
successful or not successful as a septic tank is an
indeterminate one as it is a matter of opinion
merely. To my mind a successful septic tank is one
which has produced the maximum of decomposition
with a minimum of outlay. In the case you men-
tion, that of a tank cleaned once in two weeks, I
should say that if the tank were properly propor-
tioned with relation to the incoming sewage its
Quantity and quality, that such frequent cleaning
as you mention would be a waste of investment in
that the full benefit of the tank Would not be deriv-
ed. In the case of a tank which is wholly neglected
there would also be a waste of investment, as the
full liquid contents of the tank would not be avail-
able. But in either of these two cases I could not
see that decomposition or septic action was by any
means stopped completely.
XQ. 169. I assume therefore, that in view of the .
4210
4211
4212
4214
84.4
4215
4216
4217
4218
42.19
JoHN W. ALVORD.
Opinions you have just expressed, that you have
felt at liberty when considering tanks of the prior
art to disregard the extent or degree to which these
tanks effected the liquefaction of the solids and to
pronounce such tanks as anticipating the process of
the Cameron patent. Is that corect? A. No, sir,
on the contrary. In selecting tanks which have
Seemed to me to be anticipations of the Cameron
process, I have been particular to take only those
in which it seemed to me clear that the ideas of th:
designer were to produce liquefaction and which
Were essentially operated so that a reasonable de-
gree of decomposition or liquefaction without too
frequent disturbance would necessarily result.
XQ. 170. In your answers to Q. 15 and Q. 16,
and to XQ. 37 to 41 you have enumerated the vari-
ous tanks which you regard as anticipating the
process claims of the Cameron patent in suit.
Please state by what names these various tanks are
designated in the publications or patents wherein
they are described? A. They are variously describ-
ed as settling tanks, separating tanks, sedimenta-
tion tanks, subsidence tanks, straining tanks,
screening chambers, filter tanks, grease traps, catch
basins, cesspools, macerating tanks, and intercept-
ing chambers.
XQ. 171. Do you consider that with respect to
all the tanks and systems which you have declared
to be anticipations of the septic process of the Cam-
eron patent, the publications from which you have
derived your knowledge as to such tanks and their
operation has given such full information with re-
gard thereto as to leave no doubt in your mind that
such prior tanks were in all cases so properly pro-
845
JOHN W. ALVORD.
portioned and were in all cases operated under such
conditions and with such degree of attention as you
have stated in your various writing to be essential
to the successful Operation of a septic tank? A. I
consider the information at hand fairly complete
enough to base an intelligent opinion. In some
cases this opinion must be based upon the state-
ment that no complaints have ever been made of
the operation of the plant, as for instance is the
case of the Worcester tank which I have cited, in
Other cases the opinion must be based on the ideas
of the designer as disclosed by the plans and not in
the language of those who have described the plant
which I have pointed out is in certain instances un-
sympathetic. Taken as a whole, however, I believe
the instances I have cited are fairly well substan-
tiated as being efficient plants for the decomposi-
tion of the solids in sewage.
XQ. 172. Do you not think that some of these
tanks of the prior art might have operated success-
fully as sedimentation or settling tanks and yet the
character or volume of the sewage may have been
such that they did not operate successfully or neces.
sarily as septic tanks? A. It seems to me from
such a study as I have made of them that they must
have operated successfully as septic tanks.
XQ. 173. Is it your belief that the revelation in
the art of sewage disposal that has been generally
attributed to Mr. Cameron’s work is in fact due to
the settling tanks, the sedimentation tanks, the
flush tanks and the cesspools of the prior art which
you have enumerated in the course of your depo-
sition? A. I should be disinclined to admit that
Mr. Cameron had worked a revolution in the art
4220
4221
4.222
422.3
4224
846
4225
4227
4328
4229
JOHN W. ALVORD.
of sewage purification. What has worked a revolu-
tion in the art of sewage purification has been our
advance in knowledge of bacteriology, an advance
which has been contributed to by a large number
of scientists, sanitarians, engineers and others
Working contemporaneously during the past twenty
or twenty-five years. Mr. Cameron’s contribution
to this advance, in my mind, consists in pointing
out that the dissolution of solids, such as had been
discovered by Alexander Mueller, patented by Lou-
is Mouras, exploited by Professor Pagliani, and in-
dicated in the suggestions of Henry Austin and
which had been independently discovered in this
country by Colonel Waring and elaborated by his
followers, such as William Paul Gerhard, Benezet-
te Williams, Professor Talbot, Mr. MacHarg and
many others, was equally applicable on a large
scale to the disposition of sewage of towns and
cities as it had already proven to have been in the
disposition of the wastes of large residences and
public institutions. º:
XQ. 174. Are the following excerpts from
writings and discussions by you published on the
dates in the publications stated, or in the conven-
tions stated?
“MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,
TRAVERSE CITY CONVENTION,
August, 1899.
“While Our own conclusions in the matter had
been as a result of the labors of the Massachusetts
State Board of Health that large areas of sand
beds would effectually filter the sewage of cities,
it has been found in these Western States that such
areas do not always exist in sufficient quantities
and it has been necessary to seek other methods,
chemical and otherwise, and these newer processes
847
JoEIN W. ALVORD.
latey developed in England promise the purifica-
tion of sewage Without such lands, and it is with
these that I have been more especially interested
during the last year. Early a year ago my atten-
tion was called to these processes and I made a
special study of them.”
ENGINEERING NEWS.
September 7, 1899.
“In March, 1898, after careful studies into the
more recent English methods of bacterial purifica-
tion of sewage had been made for the City of Co-
lumbus, O., and their trial then recomended, be-
ginning on a small scale, an Opportunity was
afforded us to install a plant of this character for
a large golf and polo club house near Chicago.
3& * 3% 3% * * * * * * * * $$. * *
The results of the season’s experience having
met our most sanguine expectations it was deter-
mined to increase the capacity of the plant.
* * * * * *
Chemical and bacteriological records cannot be
given at this time. No full record of this kind
was made of the first season’s work. But the
physical conditions were closely observed and re-
corded. The true test of the plant was in the
fact that during 1898 it abated a nuisance with but
two brief exceptions throughout the season under
the most exacting conditions, and when the plant
itself was theoretically insufficient in capacity for
the work it had to do.”
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH REPORT
FROM PROCEEDINGS OF FOURTEI GEN-
ERAI, CONIFERENCE OF HEALTEI OFFI-
CERS IN MICHIGAN, 1899.
“It is for this reason that those of us who have
been obliged to encounter this difficulty have taken
such interest in recent English Rapid bacterial
methods, and we note that over there these meth-
ods promise so well that over 200 projects for
plants of this character are now before the pub-
lic, all of which are depending very largely upon
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
848
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
JoBN W. ALVORD.
the experience which has been gained for several
years past in works which have been in operation
at Barking, Sutton and Exeter. The difference
between rates of filtration of 40,000 to 100,000 gal-
lons per acre per day as now successfully practiced
in bacteria oxidation beds installed in English
places above mentioned is a very great one in point
of first course; and the septic tank pointing as it
does to the successful removal by the action of
anaerobic bacteria of the sludge problem in sew-
age disposal, is indeed a most remarkable step in
advance. From a practical experience of two
years with these methods in the actual operation of
a small installation I feel confident in saying that
they will undoubtedly eliminate chemical precipi-
tation as one of the reasonable methods of sewage
purification, owing to the fact that the same results
are obtained at far less cost and much greater
efficiency by these new methods.”
ENGINEERING RECORD, Mch. 16, 1901, p. 247.
“There is a general rush just at the present time
to introduce a septic tank into sewage purification
Works new and old. * * * * The Writers
have operated several septic tanks during the past
three years, one of which has had close attention
during the whole of that time.
The first season it was thought a simple affair to
manage it; the second season it was concluded
nothing was definitely known about its operation
at all; the third season, in humbleness of spirit, it
was realized that something was being learned
about it, and in the course of another season it is
hoped to learn even more.
This much, it is thought, has already been well
learned, viz: That every sewage has its own most
effective rest period, due to its strength, its tem-
perature, its condition when received, and its va-
riation in quantity. If any sewage is kept in a sep-
tic tank much longer than its proper rest period,
it modifies the vitality and activity of the anaero-
bic bacteria by producing toxins, which, if al-
lowed to accumulate, are detrimental to their vi-
tality. If the rest period is unduly prolonged, the
849
JOHN W. ALWORD.
bacteria are entirely destroyed and the tank at
once fills up with organic matter, which runs
over on to the contact bed, and the process of
purification is stopped. A lovers’ rest located
over a tank at such a time as this would at least
be unfrequented enough for anyone seeking quiet
and seclusion.
On the other hand, an insufficient rest period
produces little or no change in the effluent, ex-
cept to subject it to rapid decomposition when
again exposed to the air.
The strength of most sewage varies from time
to time, and it is upon the strength as well as
upon the total quantity that the rest period
should depend. The temperature has much to do
in determining the rest period.” *
JOURNAL OF THE WESTERN SOCIETY O
ENGINEERS.
Vol. 7, No. 2. April, 1902.
SEWAGE PURIFICATION PLANTS.
(Page 115.)
“The newer and more recent biological proces-
ses, connected with automatic operating devices,
it is hoped, will somewhat escape this difficulty.”
(Page 118.)
“Chemical precipitation, with all its expensive
machinery, was invented for this purpose, but it
does not accomplish what the septic tank ac-
complishes in that it leaves the sludge problem
unsolved, and provides an effluent so loaded with
disinfectant that is not easily oxidized.”
(Page 115.)
“Sewage purification has had its origin and
greatest development in England, where crowded
populations located on insufficient water sheds
gave rise to an incredible nuisance which would
seem intolerable in our own country. England has
for forty years past wrestled with the sewage
problem, and it is safe to say that over one-half
of the sewage of the United Kingdom today
passes through some form of attempted purifica-
tion. It is but natural that England should have
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
850
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
JoHN W. ALVORD.
kept in the lead in this problem, and its most in-
teresting recent developments have found their
greatest appreciation in that country.”
(Page 119.)
“The septic tank has passed through a period
of doubt and distrust and is now being carried
along on the popular wave of enthusiasm. It has
come to pass that almost anyone thinks he can
design such tanks, although he may only have
read of them.”
(Page 126.)
“The enormous expense of operating chemical
purification renders it quite certain that at no
distant day the largest portion of the plants of
this character will be replaced by the septic tank,
where the same work is accomplished with practi-
cally no operating expense. It is because of this
fact that we see the present enthusiasm for the
septic process.”
THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF SEWAGE
PURIFICATION PLANTS, APRIL, 1903.
(Page 3.)
“The revolution in sewage purification proces-
ses which has taken place in the last six or eight
years has brought to the front a good deal of in-
telligent discussion on the proper design of sew-
age purification plants based on the new biolitic
methods. * * * *
NEW PEOCESSES.
(Page 6.)
“The consideration which we have given to the
general disadvantages which sewage purification
plants labor under have operated in a marked
manner in the older chemical and intermittent
filtration and land methods. Newer processes, es-
pecially those utilizing automatic appliances for
regulating and distributing the flow, would seem
on the face of it to have greatly lessened the dif-
ficulty of supervision. This, however, is not
wholly the case. Automatic appliances to a cer-
tain extent do away with an interior class of la-
bor, but do not at all dispense with that thought-
851
JOHN W. ALVORD.
ful care and study which is more than ever nec-
essary in the biolitic processes.”
A. The excerpts are correct and represent the
opinions which I have expressed from time to
time favorable to the dissolving of the solids in
the Sewage as a preliminary step by the septic
tank so called.
My attitude of mind upon first learning of Mr.
Cameron’s work by the publications in the Engi-
neering News, of January, 1898, was that some new
bacteriological process had been discovered by him.
This arose from the broad claims which he made
for the disappearance of solids, the exact descrip-
tion which he gave of the precise way in which the
bacteria act, and certain minor details of the tank
upon which he seemed to set great store.
In the course of the next ensuing six months I
became convinced from my own studies of the his-
tory of the art and from experiments which I made,
that certain details which he insisted as vitally
necessary, were not necessary, and that liquefaction
or decomposition was not a new discovery. Subse-
Quent studies and experiments convinced me that
his results were no better or more successful than
the result of prior uses in the art. I, therefore,
became convinced long before the issuance of the
patent in this suit that I was entitled to design
and operate tanks for the decomposition of the
solids in sewage as a continuation of the labors of
those sanitarians who had given the matter earlier
attention.
I have, therefore, been everywhere, and always a
consistent advocate of the liquefaction or decompo-
sition of the solids of Sewage as a preliminary step
in sewage purification and I have not hesitated to
4250
4251
4252
4.253
4254
852
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
JoHN W. ALVORD.
adopt the word “septic,” originated by Mr. Camer-
on, because the wide publicity which was given his
experiment, made it rapidly become a word which
the public better understood than the word “lique-
faction,” “maceration,” “subsidence,” or “decom-
position.”
In such articles as I have written on the subject
since the granting of Mr. Cameron’s patent, I have
not attempted to withhold from him due credit for
what I consider his contribution to the advance-
ment of sewage purification as indicated in my
prior answer; nor have I attempted to withhold
from him credit for such claims in his patent as
seem to me to be new or novel. I have Only at-
tempted to show what has seemed to me to be clear-
ly proven not new or novel in the art—should not
be properly credited to him or patented by him.
XQ. 176. Is the following a correct quotation
from the discussion in the Seventeenth Annual Re-
port of the Illinois Society of Engineers and Sur-
veyors, January, 1902, (p. 222):
“Mr. J. W. Alvord: 'There are a number of
patents on the septic tank. An English firm
claims to have patents on the whole principle.
They have threatened the speaker’s firm with
suits for using such tanks. . . . The speak-
er’s firm has found it necessary to patent their
designs, to keep some of these people from taking
the ideas and patenting them and Selling them
back. The speaker’s firm is putting in Septic
tanks in defiance to the broad patents, and, al-
though they have put in 16 tanks, they have had
no trouble.
The septic tanks have been in use in this coun-
try so short a time that not much can be said
about results. One of the tanks put in by the
speaker’s firm has been in use about three years,
others for about a year.” #
853
JOHN W. ALWORD.
And is the following a correct quotation from
your pamphlet entitled, “The Practical Operation
of Sewage Purification Tanks,” published April,
1903, (p. 6):
PROPRIETARY OLAIMS.
“The endeavor to obtain a monopoly of the
field of sewage purification by the owners of pro-
prietary processes and patented claims has for
Some time past made it difficult for the Sanitary
engineer to hold his field of activity in this line
of work without some embarrassment. It is not
easy to convince city officials that sewage puri-
fication is a matter where thoughtful study and
constant care in operation will tell in the long
run better than the acceptance of a proposition
from a strongly financed company guaranteeing
operation to certain standards for a given length
of time. It is not that the art can be patented;
it cannot be and there is not a patent now in the
field that is particularly useful or valuable.
2 3
And did you, in a letter addressed under date of
August 15, 1904, to the Honorable Watts A. John-
son, Mayor of Princeton, Illinois, and published in
the Bureau County Republican, September 1, 1904,
use the following expression:
“I am in receipt of your letter of August 13th,
with inclosed copy of notice to you by the Cam-
eron Septic Tank Company as to the question of
infringement of their patent, and beg to advise
you that I consider their claims of no value what-
ever. . . . . . The use of tanks for the re-
duction of sewage dates from early in this cen-
tury, and has been in general use in the city of
Paris for a great many years, and there have been
constructed in this country a great many tanks
for this purpose prior to the granting of patent
No. 634,423.
I am paying no attention to the claims in the
Cameron Company. . . . .”
4260
4.261
4262
4263
4264
854
4265
4266
4.267
4268
4269
JOHN W. ALVORD.
A. The first quotation made is from a discussion
in the Illinois Society of Engineers, and the discus-
sions of this society are neither reported in full, nor
revised by their authors and are notoriously inace-
rate. For instance, the statement that the writer’s
firm had been threatened by suit is not true, and
Other statements made in the same discussion do
not seem to me to be accurate. I, therefore, object
to the introduction of this quotation, as not proper-
ly representing what I may have said on that Occa-
Sion.
The second quotation headed “Proprietary
Claims,” is correct and was written by me as quot-
ed.
The quotation from letter from myself to the
Honorable Watts A. Johnson is probably correct,
although I have no means at this time of ascertain-
ing the fact. I would like to state that prior to
writing this letter, the firm with which I was con-
nected, submitted the claims of the Cameron pat-
ent to an attorney and received from him an opin-
ion which led us to believe that portions of the pat-
ent were anticipated in the prior art,
I also advised the committee of the citizens of
Lake Forest that such a patent had been issued,
whereupon said committee investigated the subject
fully and obtained expert Opinion on the same, lead-
ing them also to believe that the patent was invalid
for the reasons I have mentioned.
I, therefore, further, in the letter quoted to Mr.
Johnson, say: *
‘‘We have long wished that these people would
be honest enough to come into court and have
their preposterous claims adjudicated, but they
have so far perceptibly kept away from any legal
855
JOHN W. ALVORD.
decision and confined themselves to intimidating
our client in the hope that their unfamiliarity
with the facts will lead to some form of settle-
ment.
After four years of this policy it appears that
they have finally succeeded in effecting a finan-
cial settlement with the city of Plainfield, New
Jersey, for a sum obviously less than the cost of
litigation which was started, and upon the
strength of this they are now notifying every one
who has adopted Septic tanks with a view to es-
tablishing themselves in business. e tº º
There are other patents for minor devices
by this company which are doubtless novel and
proper and which are not in use by you or any
other of our clients. The patent, however, grant-
ing to the Cameron Septic Tank Company the
right to reduce Sewage in air and light tight tanks
is, in our opinion, fatally defective in that it is
neither new or novel, and I might also say that
the form of tank in use at Princeton is neither
light nor air tight as specified in the claims of
the Cameron Company.
This whole subject was carefully investigated
by Leonard Metcalf, a civil engineer of Boston,
in a paper prepared by him for the American So-
ciety of Civil Engineers, and published in Wol-
ume 46, December, 1901.”
XQ. 177. Will you state where published des-
criptions or references are to be found to the vari-
Ous septic tanks or plants that have been built by
you or your firm 2 A. In report of the Traverse
City Convention of the Michigan State Board of
Health, for August, 1899, will be found a descrip-
tion of the plant which was installed at the Glen
View Golf and Polo Club, in Chicago, in 1898.
Also a further description of the same plant is
found in Engineering News, September 7, 1899.
A description of septic tank, built at Holland,
Michigan, is found in Engineering Record, of
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
856
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
JOHN W. ALWORD.
March 16, 1901. Also another account of the same
plant is found in the Public Health Engineer, an
English periodical, published April 13, 1901.
An account of septic tank built at Bedford, Indi-
ana, is found in the Engineering Record, Novem-
ber 15, 1902.
In a paper read before the Western Society of
Engineers, published April, 1902, entitled “Sewage
Purification Plant,” are cuts and illustrations of
plants built by myself at Lake Forest, Illinois; at
Holland, Michigan; Danville, Kentucky; Wauwa-
tosa, Wisconsin, and proposed plants at Scycamore,
Illinois and Columbus, Ohio.
In a paper read before the American Society of
Municipal Improvements at the Rochester Conven-
tion, April 23rd, 1903, entitled “The Practical Op-
eration of Sewage purification Plant,” is found
some description of the plants at Lake Forest,
Illinois; Wauwatosa, Wisconsin; Holland, Michi-
gan; Danville, Kentucky; DeKalb, Illinois; High-
land Park, Illinois, and Glen View, Illinois.
In the Engineering News for July 2nd, 1903, ap-
pears a description of septic tank plants for coun
try residences, which I have designed and installed.
These are all of the published descriptions which
I now recall.
XQ. 178. Did you state in your paper delivered
at Rochester, in April 1903, the following with re-
spect to your Lake Forest Plant:
“The tank has not been cleaned during the year,
and no perceptible deposit has occured.”
And did you state with respect to the DeKalb,
Illinois plant,
“A septic tank of 60,000 gallons capacity has
been in operating since the middle of the summer.
857
JOHN W. ALVORD.
It is yet too soon to speak of its effectiveness. It
is not as yet followed by any secondary stage. It
has not yet required cleaning.” And did you
state with respect to other plants mentioned in
said paper as follows:
“PRINCETON, ILLINOIS.
A 60,000 gallon septic tank has been in operation
about one year. It is built on the five compartment
system and housed over. It does not receive spe-
cial attention, but good results are reported. If so
they are probably accidental. It has never been
cleaned, but some deposit on the bottom is report-
ed. The rest period is not known. The plant was
designed with intermittent filtration as a secondary
stage, but the city is now hoping that the first
stage will be sufficient to avoid nuisance. It re-
mains to be seen if this hope will be realized.
DANVILLE, KENTUCKY.
Three septic tanks have been in operation here
over one year. The largest is 40,000 gallons ca-
pacity, and is followed by intermittent sub-soil
filtration. It is recorded to be working well, but
receives no special attention. It is perhaps too
early to draw conclusions concerning it. It has
not required cleaning as yet.
HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS.
A small septic tank has been in operation on the
west district for two years. It has received no at-
tention whatever, and has caused no complaint as
yet, it has never been cleaned. It is said not to
be unduly filled with deposit. The effluent is re-
ported as good, but the sewage it receives is not
strong. It is noticed, as a matter of experience,
that weak or thin sewage is not generally exacting
in its treatment.
CONCLUSION.
The above data of some of the larger plants re-
cently put into operation shows how little the ma-
jority of such plants are cared for after installa-
tion. If they avoid being obnoxious, it is often
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
858
4285
4287
4288
4289
JoHN W. ALWORD.
through their good fortune, and if they do become
nuisances, it is often no argument that they may
not be properly designed.
That this state of affairs is discouraging must
be admitted, but with the over confidence that has
come in the sewer biolytic process, it would seem
to be inevitable.
The sanitary engineer, working in the line of
sewage purification must for some years to come
in the future as he has in the past, educate his
public up to a just appreciation of the state of his
art. It is a tedious and thankless process in many
respects, but the revolution in the art in the past
few years, and the great possibilities of sewage
purification for the future entails this responsibil-
ity upon him and he cannot avoid it.”
A. The quotations are correct.
XQ. 179. Will you please state how many cities
having plants of your installation have been sued
by the complainants in this cause; also state what
you have done towards defending or guaranteeing
the defense of such cities; also state what you have
done towards affecting the combination of other's
towards the defense of the present litigation; also
state by whom you are paid for your testimony in
this cause; also state, if you know, the names of
all the parties who are contributing to the de-
fense of this cause? A. So far as I can remember,
the only cities having plants installed under my de
signs which have been sued by the complainant in
this cause are the City of Lake Forest, Illinois,
and the City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
I have done nothing whatever toward guaranty-
ing the defense of any such city as might be sued.
I have done nothing toward affecting the combi-
nation of others towards the defense of the pres-
ent litigation, except to suggest the same.
859
JOHN W. ALVORD.
I am paid for my testimony in this cause by the
City of Saratoga Springs, New York; Madison,
Wisconsin; Lake Forest, Illinois; Monmouth, Illi-
nois, and the Allis-Chalmers Company of Milwau-
kee, and these, so far as I know are the names of ail
the parties who are contributing toward the de.
fense of this cause.
I have never guaranteed to defend or save harin-
less, any client for whom I have designed or con-
structed such plants.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Banning:
R-d-Q. 180. What proportion of your business or
income is involved in the work of designing or in-
stalling sewage disposal plants? A. Probably not
more than ten per cent.
R-d-Q. 181. Please state how many of the sewage
disposal plants installed by you since the issuance
of the Cameron patent sued on, have tight tanks in
the sense of excluding air and light, and how many
have tanks not tight in this sense? A. So far as
I now recall, none of the plants installed by me
have air or light tight tanks. The usual method
which I have adopted is to provide a light building
over the tank with ventilators, windows and doors.
In some of the smaller installations the tanks are
covered with a new flooring of sufficient strength
to prevent any person from falling into the tank.
The only design I recall making for a tight tank in
the sense of the Cameron patent strictly construed,
was the proposed tank for Columbus, Ohio.
R-d-Q. 182. Please state how the tanks of the
plants at Lake Forest, Illinois, and Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin, referred to in XQ. 179 are constructed
in this respect? A. In both of these cases the tank
4290
4291
4292
4.293
4294
860
4295
4296
4.297
4.298
4.299
JoHN W. ALVORD.
is covered with a building with masonry walls,
Wooden roof provided, I think, with ventilators.
Each of these buildings has two doors. The Lake
Forest building has six windows and as near as I
can remember, the Wauwatosa building has four
windows. These windows are provided with solid
Wooden shutters so as to prevent malicious injury
to the sash.
The Lake Forest tank has one of its initial cont-
partments covered with a Wooden floor and the
building does not extend over this compartment
which is relatively small, compared with the tank.
The building, however, extends over what is called
the dosing chamber, which is not a part of the tank
proper.
The initial compartment which is covered by a
floor and which receives the inlet sewer is called the
grit chamber, while the septic tank proper is en-
tirely covered by the building. The walls of the
building rest upon the walls of the tank as a foun.
dation, with the exceptions noted of the grit cham-
ber and the dosing chamber, the former being out-
side the building, and the latter inside the build-
ing. The building proper extends about four feet
above the tank to the eaves, and the gable is about
eight feet above the eaves.
The Wauwatosa building is similar to the Lake
Forest building in height. Its wall also rest on the
walls of the tank as a foundation and the dimen-
sions of the buildings are the same as those of the
tank which it precisely covers.
R-d-Q. 183. Please state how these Lake Forest
and Wauwatosa tanks compare with tanks of the
prior art referred to in your testimony with ref.
861.
JoHN W. ALVORD.
erence to excluding light and air? A. These tanks
resemble very much in a general way the tanks des-
cribed by Henry Austin at Cheltenham in England,
which are also covered by a building. (See De-
fendant’s Exhibit, Cheltenham Sewage Works,
longitudinal section). They also closely resemble
the building placed by Professor Talbot over the
second Champaign tank. Considerable light and
air enters such buildings under the eaves which
in the Lake Forest and Wauwatosa plants were
purposely left loosely open for ventilation.
R-d-Q. 184. Referring to cross question 59—
which I take for the purpose of illustration—is the
description of the Lawrenceville plant contained in
Rafter & Baker's book, as introduced in this cause,
sufficient to enable sanitary engineers or others
skilled in the art to construct the apparatus and
apply the process described in the Cameron patent
sued on in this cause, and particularly specified and
claimed in the claims against which you have cited
such description or plant as a reference; and
please answer the same question with reference to
each of the prior patents and publications which
you have referred to as anticipations of the Camer-
on patent? A. The diagrams and descriptive mat-
ter relating to the sewage purification plant at the
Lawrenceville School for boys, page 511 and follow-
ing of Rafter & Baker, is in my opinion sufficient-
ly clear to enable anyone skilled in the art to con-
struct a plant substantially like that specified in
the claims which I have cited in the Cameron pat-
ent, as being anticipated in this plant; and the same
is true of the Worcester plant, the plant at the
Massachusetts Reformatory at Concord, plants at
4300
4301
4302
4’303
4304
862
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
JOHN W. ALVORD.
St. Joseph Orphan Asylum and Altenheim, near
Chicago, the plant at Medfield, Massachusetts, and
all of the other instances cited by me, with the
possible exception of the plant at Ealing, in Eng-
land. A description of the plant at Ealing, Sante
Crimp, page 159, and following, is not clear as to
some of the details of the inlet and outlet, but in
my opinion provides for non-disturbing inflow and
outflow because we have there an arrangement of
compartment tanks of very great length in which
case the distuſrbance of inflow and outflow is re-
latively unimportant.
R-d-Q. 185. In applying and using the sewage
disposal tanks or plants of the prior art referred
to in your testimony as anticipations of the Cam-
eron patent, is the “septic” process so-called—by
which I mean the process of said patent—neces-
sarily and naturally involved and carried into ef-
fect? In other words, can any of such tanks or
plants be used in the ordinary course for which
they were constructed without applying and car-
rying out such process? A. In all of the cita-
tions which I have made it is inevitable that with
any ordinary or normal use of these tanks the
Septic process as described in the Cameron patent
must necessarily ensue. It is impossible in my
opinion that it should not occur.
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Fisher.
R-XQ. 186. If the process described and
claimed in the Cameron patent in suit is, as you
say, the inevitable result of the operation of the
various plants which you have referred to as an-
ticipating such, patent, why is it that you have
stated that you accord Mr. Cameron credit for
863
JoHN W. ALVORD.
the advance that he has contributed to the art?
A. Because the advance in the art of bacteriology
made it evident that these processes were the nat-
ural and proper ones and were not necessarily
confined to a small scale. The plants at Ealing,
Wimbleton and other places were fairly large
plants, but they were installed at a time when
the knowledge of bacteriology was not complete
enough to enable their designers to fully under-
stand why the reductions were going on. Mr.
Cameron made his experiments at a time when
the knowledge of bacteriology was pretty com-
plete and when people were rather credulous of
the wonderful things that bacteriology might ac-
complish. His experiments immediately called at-
tention to the fact that this reduction which Dr.
Mueller had studied, which Mouras had patented
and which Henry Austin had described, was an
inevitable and natural result, and could be ap-
plied on a mugh larger scale than has been
thought possible by Colonel Waring in this coun-
try or some of the workers abroad. That Dr.
Mueller perceived that this process might be con-
ducted on a large scale is evidenced from the
fact that he speaks of it as being possible to
adapt it to the use of towns. That Henry Austin
fully perceived that it was a desirable process
is evident, but he was not able to explain in his
day what was happening so clearly as could
Mueller, Mouras, Pagliani, Waring, Phillbrick
and others. Mr. Cameron’s experiments came at a
time when attention had been diverted from the
natural processes of decomposition and liquefac-
tion to the somewhat unnatural processes of pre-
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
864.
4315
4316
4.317
4°318
4319
JOHN W. ALVORD.
cipitation and in this diversion of attention the
Work of the minority had been lost sight of to
Some extent. Mr. Cameron repeating the experi-
ments of Dr. Mueller, Paglani, Mouras, Waring
and others, and clothing his work with a name
new to the history of the art—that of “septic”—
attracted popular attention on the part of the
public and turned the attention of scientists to
the ideas of the minority who had heretofore de-
veloped the line and perfected the knowledge
which Mr. Cameron availed himself of.
R-XQ. 187. In all the plants installed by you
has not the surface of the sewage during the nor-
mal operation of the tank been covered with
Scum? A. No, sir. The Lake Forest plant was
not covered with scum for some years, but lique-
faction was very rapid and complete during all of
that time.
R-XQ. 188. To what did you attribute the ab-
Sence of Scum in the Lake Forest plant and was
the absence of scum noticeable in any other plant
installed by you during its normal operation? A.
I had various theories to account for it, no one
of which I felt was quite certain to be the true
One. I have also recently observed a tank which
was constructed under my advice in which there
was very little scum on must of the compart-
ments and yet active liquefaction was evidently
proceeding. In this case I thought the cause was
due to some agitation caused by the rapid in-
flow of the sewage in the tank. This agitation,
however, did not seem to injuriously affect the
working of the tank. I do not recall any other
plant at this time in which this absence of scum
was so noticeable.
865
JOHN W. ALVORD.
R-XQ. 189. Will you please state, first, whether
there is a Scum at present in the Lake Forest
tank; second, how often you observed the ab-
sence of Scum from the Lake Forest tank as com-
pared with the length of time the surface of the
tank has been covered with scum; third, what
were the character and volume of sewage of the
Lake Forest tank at the time you observed the ab-
Sence of scum—I mean the character and volume
as respects the normal; fourth, in what other
tanks installed by you you have observed the ab-
sence of scum, and what was the condition of the
Sewage of such tank at such time, and how long
had the tanks been in operation? A. The last
time I observed the Lake Forest tank was some
time in the fall of 1904, at which time there was
considerable accumulation of solids in the first
compartment. The final compartments did not
seem to be covered with scum, although liquefac-
tion was proceeding with rapidity in those com-
partments as was evidenced by bubbles of gas
constantly coming to the surface.
The effluent was good and the sewage entering
the tank was normal in character and quantity.
I recommended that the initial compartment be
cleaned out, as the surface scum extended about
two-thirds the depth of the compartment and Se-
riously reduced its liquid contents.
This was the first time this tank was cleaned
since it was put into operation. I have not seen
it since it was cleaned.
Answering the second portion of your question
I would say that I observed the absence of scum
on the Lake Forest tank practically one-half of
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
866
4.325
4326
4327
4328
JoHN W. ALVORD.
the time since it has been in operation. This ap-
plies to the whole tank. During this time the
character and volume of the sewage was normal
in quantity and quality- except that after rain-
Storm a considerable flush would take place
through the tank. There would be times when
the Scum would form to a thickness of six or
eight inches and remain for Some months. Then
a flush from a rainstorm would apparently break
this up and for some time no further scum would
form.
Answering the fourth part of your question I
recall that the tanks at Holland, Michigan,
showed very little scum for nearly a year after
they were put in operation. Liquefaction was
active and the effluent was good. There was no
rainwater admitted to the sewer, but a very con-
siderable quantity of ground water perforated
into the sewers and the sewage was very dilute.
1 have not seen these tanks for some time and
do not know what their present condition is.
This is the only other tank which I recall where
the absence of scum was marked.
JOHN W. ALVORD.
Adjourned till Wednesday, September 20, 1905,
at 11 o’clock A. M.
4329
867
C. B. BURDICR.
September 8, 1905, 10 o'clock A. M.; met pur-
suant to adjournment; present as before.
Thé further taking of Mr. Alvord’s testimony
is suspended to enable the examination of Mr.
Charles B. Burdick, Rev. Vincent Huber, and Mr.
Henry W. Hill, whose depositions are to be in-
serted in the record immediately following Mr. Al-
word’s completed testimony.
Charles B. Burdick, a witness produced, sworn
and examined on the part of defendants, deposes
and testifies as follows in answer to questions by
Mr. Banning.
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. Charles B. Burdick, age 31 years,
residence, Chicago, occupation sanitary and hy-
draulic engineer. I am associated with Mr. John
W. Alvord in the practice of sanitary and hydrau-
lic engineering.
Q. 2. Are you a practical draftsman? A. I
a Līl.
Q. 3. Please look at this drawing I now hand
you, entitled “Defendant's Exhibit Sewage Tank
at St. Bede's College, Peru, Ill.” and state who
made it and what you know about it? A. This
drawing was made by me upon Sept. 6, 1905, and
represents a sewage tank examined by me on that
date at St. Bede's College, Peru, Illinois.
Q. 4. Please state how you came to make such
drawing, what examination you made of the sewage
tank which it represents, and whether or not it
correctly represents said sewage tank as examined
by you Sept. 6, 1905? A. I was instructed by Mr.
John W. Alvord and Mr. Ephraim Banning, to
4330
4331
4332
4.333
4334
868
4335
4336
4337
4.338
4339
C. B. BURDICK.
go to St. Bede's College, Peru, Illinois, and examine
the Sewage tank in operation at that place, and to
take such measurements as are necessary to cor-
rectly represent same upon a drawing, which I did.
I made a careful examination of the tank and the
drawing correctly represents the tank as I saw it
upon that day.
Q. 5. Please describe that tank as you saw it
day before yesterday, stating how it was construct-
ed, whether it was in use, etc.? A. The tank is
constructed of brick masonry. It is circular in
horizontal plan, nine feet and six inches in diame-
ter, and ten feet in depth. The inlet consists of a
15-inch sewer pipe, the bottom of which is located
four feet below the top of the tank. The outlet
upon the opposite side of the tank from the inlet
consists of a wooden box twelve inches by twelve
inches in cross section. The entrance to the outlet
box is covered or masked by a brick partition wall
under which the sewage must pass in entering the
Outlet box, thus preserving a scum upon the top of
the Sewage. The outlet box is so located as to main-
tain a depth of sewage in the tank of five feet and
six inches, and the tank is covered over by a two-
inch plank top which was in bad condition at the
time of my examination. The tank is constructed
in excavation entirely, the surface of the ground
being level with the top of the tank.
For added clearness I would say that the tank
may be described as a cylinder set on end, nine feet
and six inches in diameter, and ten feet in height,
with a masonry bottom and a wooden plank cover.
At the time of my visit sewage was entering and
leaving the tank. A scum was formed over the top
869
C. B. BURDICK.
of the sewage, and more or less sediment had col-
lected at the bottom.
Q. 6. Please describe the effluent from that tank
and the conditions below the tank as ex nmined by
you day before yesterday? A. The effluent from
the tank was slightly clouded, but contained no
solid particles of sewage. The ditch through which
the sewage flows away gave a slight evidence of
decomposition having taken place in the sewage
discharged. There was a slight odor perceptible.
This odor may perhaps have arisen largely from
the stirring up with a pole of the contents of the
tank in making measurements of depth and ex-
aminations below the sewage line.
Counsel for defendants offers in evi-
dence the drawing identified by the wit-
ness and the same is marked Defendants
Exhibit Sewage Tank at St. Bede’s Col-
lege, Peru, Ill.
Counsel for complainant admits that
the drawing referred to is the same draw-
ing referred to by the witness Alvord in
his deposition in his answer to question
12; but counsel objects to the introduction
of the exhibit and to the testimony in re-
spect thereto as immaterial, there being
no proof as to the date of installation of
the tank illustrated by the exhibit, and
for the further reason that the introduc-
tion of the exhibit is unwarranted by the
answer in this cause; and subject to such
objections counsel cross examines the wit-
neSS as follows:
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
870
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
C. B. BURDICK.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher.
XQ. 7. Did you ever see the sewage tank at St.
Bede's College prior to Sept. 6, 1905? A. No,
sir.
XQ. 8. Did you remove the contents of the tank
before you examined it? A. I did not.
XQ. 9. I assume, therefore, that you were un-
able to inspect any part of the tank below the top
line of the sewage. Is that correct? A. No, sir,
that is not correct. I, by means of a pole, prodded
around in the sewage sufficiently to satisfy me that
the conditions represented below the sewage line
are as shown upon the drawing. I could very
easily demonstrate the depth of the tank, the fact
that the bottom was constructed of masonry, the
depth of the baffle wall and by showing a pole into
the outlet as it appeared on the bank from ten to
twelve feet below the tank. I demonstrated that
the brick partition masked the outlet. The eleva-
tion of the outlet box is determined by the level
of the sewage in the tank, or rather the elevation
of the sewage in the tank is determined by the out-
let box.
XQ. 10. In what way did you determine the
thickness of the bottom of the tank? A. I did
not determine the thickness of the bottom, as same
could not be done without great difficulty, and I
did not regard it as material to my examination
Of the tank. -
XQ. 11. So that so far as the thickness of the
bottom of the box is concerned the drawing made
by you does not give any definite information. Is
that correct? A. That is correct.
871
C. B. BURDICK.
XQ. 12. And I assume you are unable to say of
what material the bottom of the tank is formed?
A. I am unable to say further than that I am
satisfied it was masonry of some kind, which was
demonstrated by the sound produced by Striking
the bottom with the end of the pole..
XQ. 13. In what way, if at all, did you deter-
mine wether the wall of the tank below the sewage
line and the bottom of the tank were in sound COn-
dition or not? A. I examined the same by feeling
with a long pole and the wall was not broken or
injured in sufficient amount to be detected by that
means of investigation.
XQ. 14. In what way did you determine the
depth below the sewage line of the masonry par-
tition that is shown upon the drawing as in front
of the outlet box? A. By standing on the oppo-
site side of the tank from the outlet I prodded the
Wall near the outlet until I demonstrated that the
Wall ended a short distance below the sewage line.
I then drove a nail in the side of my pole near the
lower end and standing over the outlet of the tank
I hooked the nail under the bottom of the partition
and marked the pole at the lower edge of the cover,
which distance represents the distance from the
top of the tank to the bottom of the partition. The
difference between this distance and the distance
from the top of the tank to the sewage 11ne repre-
sents the distance which the partition is submerg-
ed.
XQ. 15. Did you observe the character of the soil
in which this St. Bede's tank was located? A. Im-
mediately at the tank vegetation is quite thick,
Twelve or fifteen feet to the southward the box
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
872
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
C. B. BURDICK.
Outlet ends in a ditch. The bottom and sides of the
ditch were covered with soil with some evidence of
gravel. Further than that I did not investigate
the character of the soil in the field.
XQ. 16. Please describe the condition of the cov-
er of the tank at St. Bede’s College, when you in-
spected the tank on Sept. 6, 1905? A. The boards
composing the cover were apparently considerably
decayed. Two or three of the planks in the center
of the tank had apparently been broken from some
cause and had fallen into the tank, leaving an open-
ing in the top of the tank and extending across
same, the width of the opening being from two to
three feet.
XQ. 17. Were the planks forming the cover of
the tank tongued and grooved? A. Not to my
knowledge.
XQ. 18. Was there any ventilator on the top of
the tank? A. None was in evidence.
XQ. 19. In what condition did you find the out-
let box that led from the tank? A. The Outlet box
where I examined it at the lower end was consider.
ably decayed, but not sufficiently so that it had lost
its form entirely. The planks were somewhat
sprung from the top.
XQ. 20. In what way did you take your measure-
ments of the outlet box leading from the tank? A.
I measured it at the point where it emerges from
the ground at the ditch. I shoved the pole into the
outlet box until it intercepted the brick wall, and
from this fact I approximated the length of the
box, which I stated above.
XQ. 21. How long was the pole that you employ-
ed in your examination of this tank? A. I did not
873
C. B. BURDICK.
measure the pole, but I should judge it was six-
teen or eighteen feet long.
XQ. 22. In what way did you determine the
thickness of the partition wall in front of the outlet
of the tank? A. This thickness was not measured
closely. It may have varied somewhat from the
thickness as indicated on the drawing. I made an
effort to approximate it by showing the pole into the
outlet box until it struck the wall, and then laying
it on the ground, with its end even with the inside
of the partition wall. It was impossible, however,
to obtain a close measurement in this way, and the
thickness of the wall may vary slightly from the
thickness shown upon the drawing.
YQ. 23. Do you know whether the brickwork
forming the wall of the tank was laid in cement or
ordinary mortar? A. I have no means of knowing
definitely. I should judge, however, from the good
condition of the masonry that the brick was laid
in cement. There was no lining of cement visible.
XQ. 24. Did you make any test or examination
to determine the amount or character of the sewage
entering the tank or the effluent passing therefrom?
A. No further than to look at it closely. The sew-
age coming in, carried some considerable floating
organic matters and the sewage flowing from the
tank apparently contained very little, if any, float-
ing organic matter. The volume of the sewage
flowing to and from the tank at the time of my ex-
amination was a small stream in the bottom of the
15-inch inlet pipe, about four or five inches wide.
I did not measure the depth, but I should judge the
flow was in the neighborhood of five or six thous-
and gallons per twenty-four hours.
4360
4.361
4362
4363
4364
874 |
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
C. B. BURDICK.
XQ. 25. About what period of time did your ob-
servation of the operation of the tank cover? A.
About forty-five minutes, from five fifteen to six P.
M.
XQ. 26. Did you observe the extent and char-
acter of the scum on the surface of the sewage in
the tank? A. I observed that there was a scum
over the surface of the tank covering practically
the entire aera. It was broken at a few points near
the center immediately beneath the inlet. The scum
was gray in color, but was not as hard or thick as
I have seen it in septic tanks. The scum was not
of such character as to be easily measured. Judg-
ing from its appearance as stirred up by the pole
which I used in investigating the tank, I should
say it was from three to four inches thick.
XQ. 26. Was this scum in patches or was it con-
tinuous over the surface of the tank, or were there
open spaces in the scum when you first observed the
tank? A. As I stated before, practically the en-
tire aera of the tank was covered by scum. There
was a patch under the inlet, perhaps 18 inches or
two feet square not covered by scum. There were
perhaps two or three patches near the center of the
tank, about the size of a man’s hand not covered
by the scum.
XQ. 27. Did you observe the surface of the
ground at or some distance below the outlet, and if
So what was the extent and nature of the deposit
that you found? A. The surface of the ground
was covered with vegetation around the tank. In
the ditch immediately below the outlet I saw some
deposit of black substance which had apparently
come from the tank. The bottom of the ditch was
875
C. B. BURDICR.
simply dirty from the effluent which had passed
through it.
XQ. 28. Was there a stream of water flowing
through the ditch? A. I examined the ditch only
about thirty or forty feet from the tank. I should
judge that there was no water flowing in the ditch
other than that coming from the sewage tank.
XQ. 29. In what way, if at all, did you measure
the depth of the deposit or sludge in the bottom of
the tank? A. I used a long pole which was thrust
into the sewage and for a few inches before reach-
ing the bottom of the tank in thrusting the pole
downward, the pole pushed hard or not so easy as
When being pushed through the sewage alone, show-
ing that some substance more dense than the sew-
age in the tank had collected on the bottom. As
the pole was drawn up, there was evidence of it
having passed through some black muddy Sub-
stance for several inches, at its lower end.
XQ. 30. Did this black muddy substance that ad-
hered to the pole when you withdrew it from the
tank correspond in apearance to the deposit that
you say you found in the bottom of the ditch below
the outlet? A. I did not critically examine either
the deposit in the bottom of the tank nor the de-
posit in the ditch. They were similar in that they
appeared to be about the same color. So far as
could be judged by the rather imperfect evidence of
the marks upon the pole when it was withdrawn
from the bottom of the sewage tank.
XQ. 31. Did the deposit which you say you saw
in the ditch below the outlet of the tank extend up
along the sides of the ditch above the level of the
water flowing therein? A. The ditch was bare
4370
4°371
4372
437.3
4374
876
4375
4376
4377
4378
C. B. BURDICK.
for a distance of perhaps twelve inches upon either
side of the flowing stream. The color of this bare
ground, as near as I can state without having made
a critical examination of it, was the same as the
bottom of the ditch.
XQ. 32. Did you observe any odor in the ditch
as far down as you went? A. I observed some odor
all about the place. It is impossible for me to state
whether this Odor came from the ditch or from
the tank. The odor was strongest at the tank, but
the condition I observed was probably somewhat
artificial from the fact that the contents of the tank
had ben considerably stirred up through my inves-
tigation. There was some odor about the place be-
fore the contents of the tank was disturbed.
CELARLES B. BURDICEQ.
4379
877
REV. V. HUBER.
Reverend Vincent Huber, a witness produced,
sworn and examined on the part of defendants,
deposes and testifies as follows, in answer to ques-
tions by Mr. Banning:
Q. 1. Please state your name, age, residence and
occupation? A. Reverend Vincent Huber, 50 years
of age, St. Bede College, Peru, Illinois. I am the
Rector of the College and one of the professors.
Q. 2. How long have you been Rector of St.
Bede’s College, Peru, Illinois? A. I was appoint-
ed Rector in the beginning of September, 1897,
and continued to hold that office till April, 1902;
continued as professor at the college till June,
1903; then I went to Colorado, where I remained
for One year, after which I was again appointed
Rector and Professor at St. Bede College, which po-
sition I continue to hold. I have been there con-
tinuously with the exception of that one year which
I spent in Colorado.
Q. 3. As Rector of St. Bede Colloge, what are
your particular duties, especially with reference
to oversight of the property? A. I have the com-
plete management of the college and buildings and
farm attached.
Q. 4. Has that been the case during all the time
you have been there? A. It has with the exception
of the one year when I was not the Rector.
Q. 5. Do you know anything about any sewage
tank connected with the buildings of St. Bede Col-
lege, at Peru, Illinois? If so, how long have you
known about that tank personally? A. I do. The
sewage tank is located about 150 yards south of the
college. All sewage of the buildings is led into this
4380
4381
4.382
4383
4384
878
4385
4386
4:387
4388
4389
REV. V. HUBER.
tank. I have known of this tank since September,
1897.
Q. 6. Please describe that tank, and state wheth-
er it has been in use all the time you have been
there, how it operates, etc. A. The tank is circular,
constructed of brick. The diameter of the tank is
about nine feet. Its depth about ten. The inlet
from the north side is by tile, about fifteen inches
in diameter. On the inner side of the south side,
there is a projection into the tank extending to
within about four feet from the bottom. This con-
stitutes a trap through which the contents of the
tank find their outlet. This tank has been in use
ever since I came to the college, in fact since the
construction of the college in 1891. I know this to
be a fact from information given me by professors
who had been at the college from its first opening.
A. The tank was constructed for the purpose of
gathering into one place through channels from
various parts of the building all the sewage, rain-
water, laundry water, and everything of the build-
ings. It serves that purpose very well, has requir-
ed no attention since I have been at the college, and
as I know from others, received none before my
time.
Counsel for complainant objects to such
parts of the foregoing answer as relates
to matters not within the personal knowl-
edge of the witness as being hearsay and
not the best evidence.
Q. 7. So far as your knowledge goes, what is the
operation or effect of collecting all the sewage to-
gether in that tank, particularly with regard to the
solids in the sewage? A. Evidently a great quan-
879
REV. V. EIUBER.
tity of solids enter the tank through the inlet. As
these have never been removed, the solution of the
solids must take place, and being liquefied find their
exit through the outlet.
Q. 8. Has that tank ever been cleaned out since
you came there or during the time you have been
there? A. The tank has not been cleaned out dur-
ing the time that I have been there.
Q. 9. Is your position such that you would have
known it, if it had been cleaned out? A. It is, as
no such work would be done without my direction.
Q. 10. As I understand you, that tank was there
at the time you first came to St. Bede College, in
September, 1897, is this correct? A. It is.
Q. 11. Has any change ever been made in it, or
any work of any kind done upon it or in reference
to it since you first came there? or rather during
the time you have been there? A. None whatever,
except that a new cover of planks, which had rot-
ted, may have been put there.
Q. 12. Please describe more fully than you have
done, how that tank was covered or is covered? A.
It was completely covered with plank, laid side by
side. They were not dowetailed. It was covered by
2-inch plank laid side by side, but not fastened to-
gether. The planks were loose.
Q. 13. But was the tank so covered Over as to
make it practically a tight and dark chamber? A.
At the time when I last saw the tank two of the
planks had rotted through, and had fallen into the
tank. These planks had not been replaced, and
therefore left openings in the cover. The planks
that were still in place were so laid that the wood
formed a practically tight and dark chamber.
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
880
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
REV. V. HUBER.
Hence, before these two planks rotted away, the
Space under the cover was practically tight and
dark.
Q. 14. How is the sewage discharged from that
tank? A. The sewage must pass under a wall
Which projects down and over the outlet, and
then is discharged through a wooden box lead-
ing from the tank into a ravine.
Q. 15. Have you ever had occasion to notice
the ditch or ravine through or over which the
Sewage flows after leaving the wooden outlet con-
nected with the tank? If so what did you see?
A. I have frequently observed the ravine. From
the end of the box to the spot at which the sew-
age flows into the ravine is a distance of from
ten to fifteen feet. For that distance the sewage
has made its own path. The ravine extends four
to six hundred feet above this inlet. It has no
flowing water except in very wet weather, when
the surface water from the fields is carried off by
it. There are two tile drains above the inlet,
none below. The ravine at the place where this
sewage flows into it is not more than 12 feet
deep. Farther away its depth increases until it
reaches forty or fifty feet. The flow of the sew-
age is rapid, owing to the steepness of the ravine.
The bottom of the ravine is very rocky. The Sew-
age meanders through these rocks, leaving a de-
posit very dark in color and somewhat slimy.
The offensive odor is not so very noticeable ex-
cept just in the ravine. This water is taken up
by the ground, so that at a distance of 500 yards
from the tank it disappears entirely, except in
very wet weather.
881
REV. V. EIUBER.
Q. 16. Are any solids carried out from that
tank and deposited at any point below the wooden
outlet So far as you have ever observed? A. So
far as I have observed, no solids are carried from
the tank.
Q. 17. How many people does that tank serve?
A. The number has varied during my sojourn at
the college from 100 to 175 or 180 approximately.
Today it is about 150, next week it will likely be
180, as the scholars are not yet all in.
Q. 18. Are you able to state how long sewage
is held in that tank, or have you any way of es-
timating it? A. The only way in which I could
answer this question would be by considering the
capacity of the tank and the amount of sewage
that flows into it. The tank is large enough to
hold the sewage of approximately two days.
Q. 19. Have you ever observed whether any t
Scum is formed on the top of the sewage in that
tank? If so, with what result? A. I have ob-
served that to a depth of about five to six inches
the surface of the contents in the tank are more
or less solid. The solids swim upon the top, as
oil would float on the water Beneath the inlet
there is a space which is entirely free of this scum,
this space being about a foot and a half in diam-
eter.
Q. 20. Please look at this drawing, which I
now hand you, marked “Defendants' Exhibit
Sewage Tank at St. Bede College, Peru, Ill.,” and
state whether it represents the tank which you
have been testifying about? A. It does.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Fisher.
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
882
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
REV. V. HUIRER.
XQ. 21. Did you ever give any directions in
regard to repairs or changes on the tank at St.
Bede College? A. I did not.
XQ. 22. So far as you know, was there ever
a new cover placed upon that tank? A. No new
cover was placed over the tank since I came to
St. Bedes.
XQ. 23. When did you last examine the tank
at St. Bede’s College? A. I last examined the
tank on Wednesday, the 6th instant.
XQ. 24. Was that the first time that you
noticed that the cover of the tank had rotted
away in part? A. It was
XQ. 25. I assume, therefore, that a long time
must have elapsed between the time when you
last examined the tank and the time of your
next preceding examination. Is that correct? A.
I never had made a thorough inspection of the
tank before, but I frequently passed it and saw
that the cover was partly rotten and needed re-
pair.
XQ. 26. When did you first have occasion to
remove the cover and examine the interior of the
tank? A. I did not examine the interior of the
tank at any time previous to the date mentioned.
XQ. 27. Is it not a fact that you gave no
thought or attention to the tank prior to Wednes-
day last? A. I knew the tank was there, the pur-
pose for which it was there, and that it had to
serve that purpose, and did serve that purpose.
Hence I frequently thought of the tank, realized
its importance, but never made it an object of
worry. I really did not inspect the tank because
88.3
REV. V. HUBER.
I took it for granted that it was serving its pur-
pose, and no defect was reported to me.
Q. 28. How many times prior to Wednesday
last have you examined the effluent issuing from
the discharge Spout of the tank? A. I have
noticed it hundreds of times in passing by, but
have never made any other physical or chemical
examination.
Q. 29. What was the occasion of your examin-
ing the tank on Wednesday last? A. Mr. C. B.
Burdick presented a letter of introduction from
Mr. Hill, requesting me to show him the location
of the tank, and to offer him every facility of
making an examination of the same. I accom-
panied Mr. Burdick to the tank and gave him
what assistance I could in making his investiga-
tion.
XQ. 30. Did you notice the effluent from the
tank prior to beginning the examination of the tank
on Wednesday last? A. I saw it at a distance of
about thirty feet from where I stood.
XQ. 31. You have stated that you have noticed
the effluent of the tank hundreds of times. Was
your observation from the distance of thirty feet
or nearer, or farther from the tank? A. I fre-
quently observed it from within a few feet from the
tank, and also at all distances from the tank down
to 300 yards from the tank.
XQ. 32. When you last noticed the effluent, what
appeared to be its color and condition? A. The
color was a very deep blue or dark, and there was
a greater flow than usual due, presumably to the
fact that much water from the laundry passed
through the sewer on that occasion. I could fre-
4410
4411
4412
4413
44I4.
884
44.15
4416
44.17
4418
4419
REV. V. HUBER.
quently see the effect upon the effluent of the tank
due to the water coming from the laundry in
which bluing had been used.
|XQ. 33. If I understand you correctly, you at-
tribute the increase in the flow and the color of the
effluent to the fact that the laundry was in use on
Wednesday last when you made the examination?
A. I said that it was probably due to that.
XQ. 34. How far from the ravine is the tank lo-
cated? A. The tank is located about twenty to
twenty-five feet from the ravine.
XQ. 35. Did you ever observe the deposit in the
ditch leading from the outlet of the tank, and in the
ravine? A. I did.
XQ. 36. Please describe the character and ap-
pearance of the deposit, as you observed it? A.
The appearance of the matter flowing through the
ravine was different at different times. When the
laundry was in operation it was bluish and soapy.
In wet weather when the ravine carried off great
Quantities of surface water from the fields or from
the field drain tiles, the water was practically clear.
In dry weather, and particularly during the Sum-
mer months when less water and sewage flowed
through the tank and ravine, the flow was very
dark, even black.
XQ. 37. Did you ever observe the effluent issuing
from the outlet of the tank after a rainstorm, and if
So what was its appearance then? A. I did not.
XQ. 38. The water from the roofs of the build-
ings of the college and from the laundry all pass-
ed through the tank. Did it not? A. It does.
XQ. 39. Did you ever observe the effluent at the
outlet of the tank, or between the outlet and the
885
REV. V. EIUBER.
ravine, during rainy weather or after a storm? A:
I do not now remember that I ever did.
XQ. 40. Did you ever observe the outlet of the
tank at any time when there was an unusually
large Outflow therefrom, and if so, state its appear-
ance at Such time? A. I have a few times observ-
ed such an unusual outflow due to transient causes
in the buildings, such as a large discharge of water
from the laundry. At such times the effluent was
of a much lighter color. At such times it was soapy
and foamed considerably as it went down through
the ravine. I have frequently seen such bodies of
foam collected at various places down the ravine.
|XQ. 41. When was the odor about the tank
found to be most objectionable? A. I never no-
ticed any Smell or odor from the tank, except
when the wind blew in my direction, and then I
never made any particular observation which
would enable me to say whether it was more per-
ceptible at one time than at another. There was
a path about 70 feet from the tank, and from this
distance I repeatedly noticed the offensive odor.
XQ. 42. And I understood you to say also, that
in the ravine below the tank, you noticed an odor.
Is that correct? A. It is, but there the odor was
less perceptible than near the tank, and at a dis-
tance of about 300 yards from the tank where a
private road crosses the ravine, I do not remember
noticing any disagreeable odor.
XQ. 43. Can you approximate the amount of
water delivered to the tank during a heavy rain-
storm and its effect upon the contents of the tank?
A. I cannot.
4420
4421
4422
4423
44.24
886
4.425
4426
4427
4428
REV. V. HUBER.
XQ. 44. How did you measure the depth of the
floating matter on the surface of the tank on Wed-
nesday last? A. I made no measurements myself,
but from my observations made during the time
that Mr. Burdick was making investigation, I ar-
rived at the judgment as to the thickness of this
Scum. He moved a pole through this scum and al-
so shoved down the planks that were lying in this
scum, and by doing this we obtained a sectional
view of this scum.
XQ. 45. What is the character of the water sys-
tem that has been used at St. Bede’s College since
you have been there? A. The water is pumped in-
to a tank outside of the building. The capacity of
the tank is about 11,000 gallons, and from this tank
the water is distributed to all parts and stories of
the buildings.
XQ. 46. Can you state how much water you un-
derstand to be used per day at the college? A.
The amount of water used per day varies probably
from 2,000 to 8,000 gallons per day. The lowest es-
timate is for the time the school is not in session,
and the highest estimate represents the amount
used during the school year, particularly on wash-
day. |
REV. VINCENT EIUBER.
4.429
887
HENRY W. H.ILL.
Henry W. Hill, a witness recalled on the part of
defendants, deposes and testifies as follows, in
answer to questions by Mr. Banning:
Q. 1. Since your other examination in this cause,
have you made a personal examination of the sew-
age tank at St. Bede's College, Peru, Illinois, refec-
red to in such examination? If so please state the
result, and particularly whether you found the con-
struction different from that described in your
former testimony, making any corrections or ex-
planations you consider necessary? A. Last Sat-
urday, September the 2nd, I went to St. Bede's
College for the purpose of inspecting the work go-
ing on there. Naturally when I found the time I
went down to the sewage tank, and to my surprise,
found a tank different from the one described in
my previous testimony. The fact of this matter is
that the brick sewage tank was first contemplated
in our plan, but that subsequently the question
came up whether it would not be advisable to in-
crease the capacity of the tank, and I suggested
the construction of a tank as I described, and I was
of the opinion that that tank had been built. When
I gave my testimony, I was requested by Mr. Ban-
ning to see whether any record of the tank was in
our office, and at lunch time I requested our man
who has charge of the drawings deposited in our
vault to see whether he could find the drawing of
the wooden sewage tank built at St. Bede. He
could not find them, but since I was at Peru last
Saturday, I looked up the files of the original draw-
ing in the vault and I found the original sewerage
plan on which the section and plan of the present
tank are drawn. I found at Peru a brick tank cir-
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
888
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
HENRY W. H.ILL.
cular in diameter, built in the character of a large
catch basin with a trap at the outlet. The tank was
covered with wood planks which were partly de-
stroyed, or decayed. On my return to Chicago, I
immediately wrote a letter to Messrs. Banning &
Banning, stating that I had erred in my memory of
the sewage tank built at Peru, and asked the privi-
lege of correcting my testimony if such they deem-
ed necessary.
Q. 2. Please go on and describe the sewage tank
at St. Bede’s College as you saw it last Saturday,
and as illustrated in the original drawing which
you have here produced, making such explanation
of said drawing and quotation from written matter
thereon as you consider necessary? A. Our
original plan shows a tank, ten feet in diameter,
while the one built is nine feet six inches in diame-
ter. It is built of 12 inch thick brick wall, laid in
German Portland Cement. It has a brick trap
wall, four inches thick, which in our drawing shows
to be built up to the bottom of the top cover, while
in reality it was built only a little above the over-
flow pipe. It shows in the front part of the tank
a wooden ventilator, about 12 inches wide. I saw
that ventilator laying there tumbled over. This
ventilator was put there to let the odors arising es-
cape. It was not to let air in, but let Smells Out.
The trap wall being stopped just above the overflow
pipe, does not alter its purpose from the one shown
in our drawing. Our specification reads that it
should be built on a plank foundation, three inches
thick, and I do not know whether that was chang-
ed, but if it is built of wood, constantly under
water, there is no reason why it should not be in
889
FIENRY W. H.ILL.
the same condition as originally. The top shows
a wooden tank cover as built. This cover I no-
ticed last Saturday, was partly rotten and a few
planks fallen down into the tank. On the original
drawing is a written description of the tank and
sewerage system of the college building, the part
relating to the tank being as follows: “Build 450
feet south of boiler house, in the direction of the
main 15 inch sewer, a round sewage tank, ten
feet in diameter, with 12 inch thick brick wall laid
in German Portland Cement deep, built on
plank foundation with trap. The outflow to be a
wooden box, 15 inches square, about 10 feet long,
all as shown on digram.”
Q. 3. Since your former examination, have you
found any original book entries relating to the con-
struction of that tank? If so please state what
they are, quoting them into the record as a part
of your answer A. On page 91 of our regular ac-
count book, I find that the contractor who built
the sewerage system of St. Bede College, including
the tank, Mr. Charles Birkenshaw, received on De-
cember 5th, 1890, a certificate in full, the amount of
$1,532.75. This is the original entry in our regular
account book, kept at that time.
Counsel for complainant waives the en-
try in evidence of the original book of ac-
count referred to by the witness, and
agrees that the statement made by the wit-
ness of the item appearing in said book be
received with the same force and effect as
if said book itself had been offered in evi-
dence.
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
890
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
EIENRY W. H.ILL.
Q. 4. In your former testimony you stated that
the sewage tank at St. Bede's College, Peru, Illi-
nois, was built in 1891. What do you find the facts
to be at the time it was built? A. It was built in
1890, instead of 1891. Our term of building ex-
tended from the Fall of 1889 till the Fall of 1891,
but in referring to the book I find the sewage tank
was built in 1890.
Q. 5. When was the college opened and the sew -
age tank put into active use? A. The college was
opened at the Fall term of 1891 and the entire
Sewerage system was put into use at that time.
That included the sewage tank.
Q. 6. As I understand your answer to question
2, the top of that sewage tank was built as shown in
the original drawing which you have produced here
to-day? A. Yes, sir. There were 2 by 10 inch
plank laid closely together, and I believe that the
planks that are there to-day are the original
planks, because I find the original ventilator
there.
Q. 7. Please look at this drawing which I now
hand you, marked “Defendants' Exhibit, Sewage
Tank at St. Bede College, Peru, Ill.,” and state
whether it correctly represents that tank as you
saw it last Saturday? A. Yes, sir, it does in every
particular, except that I do not know that the bot-
tom is of masonry.
Q. 8. In your former testimony you stated that
the roof area of the St. Bede College Buildings was
about 15,000 square feet. If you wish to make any
correction in this respect, please do so. A. That
statement was made just from memory, without
having the plan at hand. From the original draw-
891
FIENRY W. H.ILL.
ing now before me I have computed the area of all
the roofs of the different buildings, and find the
same to be 18,720 square feet.
Q. 9. This original drawing which you have pro-
duced here to-day is entitled, ; Plan of Sewerage
for St. Bede’s College Buildings at Peru, Ills., Bail-
er & Hill, Architects.” Please state when and by
whom this drawing was made? A. That was made
in the Fall of 1889, at our office under my personal
supervision.
Counsel for defendants offers said draw-
ing in evidence, and it is agreed that a
tracing thereof may be used in place of
the original, such tracing to be marked,
Defendants' Exhibit, Original Drawing,
St. Bede Sewerage System.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher:
YQ. 10. Did you examine the tank at St.
Bede’s College after the tank was finished? A.
Yes, sir. g
XQ. 11. When you examined it, did it have a
wooden bottom ? A. That I do not remember.
XQ. 12. Do you think it would be possible to tell
by prodding the bottom with a pole whether such
bottom was made of masonry or plank? A. It
would be very difficult to tell the difference. I don’t
believe you could tell the difference.
XQ. 13. How do you know that the brickwork
of the tank was laid in cement, and not in common
mortar? A. Our specification calls for German
Portland Cement and the work was executed by
Charles Birkenshaw who was a sewer builder of
the highest reputation, being personally on his
work all the time and never did any dishonest
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
892
4455
4456
4457
4458
HENRY W. H.ILL.
work. The brickwork which I saw last Saturday
was in perfectly sound and good condition which is
proof to me that it was laid in Portland Cement.
XQ. 14. Was there any ventilator used upon the
top of the tank? A. Yes, sir. It was made from
one inch plank, about ten or twelve inches square
and about three feet high, with two sides open. It
had a little shed roof on it of plank and the two
opposite sides were left open about ten inches
square. I saw that ventilator last Saturday tum-
bled over laying on the plank cover.
XQ. 15. State, if you know, the size of the tank
used for supplying water to the college buildings
at St. Bede College? A. I should judge it is a tank
15 feet in diameter and about 18 feet high. I have
not measured the tank. It may be somewhat small-
€T.
HENRY W. HILL.
4459
893
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
JAMERON SEPTIC TANK COM-
PANY of Chicago,
WS. >
VILLAGE OF SARATOGA
SPEINGS.
The answer of the defendant, the Village of
Saratoga Springs, to the bill of complaint of the
Cameron Septic Tank Company of Chicago, the
complainant herein, this defendant now and at all
times saving and reserving unto itself all the bene-
fits and advantages of exception which can or may
be had or taken to errors or uncertainlíes, or other
imperfections, contained in said bill of complaint,
for answer thereto, or unto, so much thereof as said
defendant is advised is material for its answer,
SayS:
1st—That it is a municipal corporation created
by and under the laws of the State of New York,
and having only the powers conferred upon it by
its charter; that the exclusive management and
control of the system of sewers in the Village of
Saratoga Springs, and of the disposal of the sew-
age of said Village, and of all apparatus, appli-
ances and devices for the disposal of such sewage,
are and were at the several times mentioned in the
bill of complaint, by law vested in the Sewer,
Water and Street Commission of Saratoga Springs,
N. Y., which is and was at all such times consti-
tuted by law a body corporate, and is not under
the direction nor control of this defendant: that it
is provided by law that all actions or proceedings
on account of any act done or omitted by the said
4460

4461
4462
4463
4464
894
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
Commission shall be brought against the said Com-
mission in its name of the Sewer, Water and Street
Commission of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., and that
all the acts mentioned in the bill of complaint, if
such acts were in fact performed as therein alleged,
were done and performed by the said Sewer, Water
and Street Commission of Saratoga Springs, N. Y.,
and not by this defendant.
2nd—That it denies that Donald Cameron, Fred-
Prick James Commin and Arthur John Martin,
subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, and resi-
dents of Exeter in the County of Devon, England,
were the original or first inventors of any new and
useful improvement in processes of and apparatus
for treating sewage, as alleged in the said bill of
Complaint, and says that it is not true that said
alleged invention was not known or used in this
country, and not patented or described in any
printed publication in this or foreign countries,
before their invention thereof, or that the same had
not at the time of their application for a patent
therefor, been in public use or on sale for more
than two years.
3rd–That except by said bill of complaint, it
is not informed 'whether letters patent for said
alleged invention, in due form of law, were issued
to Donald Cameron, Frederick James Commin and
Arthur John Martin, subjects of the Queen of Great
Britian and residents of Exeter in the County of
Devon, England, or wether said alleged letters pat-
ent were signed and countersigned according to
law, were issued under the seal of the Patent Office,
and delivered unto the said Donald Cameron, Fred-
erick James Commin and Arthur John Martin, and
it leaves the complainant to make such proof
thereof as it may, and it denies that said letters
895
patent granted to said Donald Cameron, Frederick
James Commin and Arthur John Martin, their
heirs and assigns, for the full term of seventeen
years, or for any other term, the sole and exclusive
right, or any other right, to make use and vend the
said alleged invention throughout the United States
and the territories thereof, or any right whatso-
€WeI’.
4th.--And this defendant further answering,
says, as to the several averments of the bill of com-
plaint respecting the several alleged assignments of
said letters patent, that it has no knowledge except
as derived from said bill of complaint, and there-
fore leaves the complainant to make such proof
thereof as it may be advised is material and neces-
sary, and it may be able to produce.
5th–And this defendant further answering as
aforesaid, says that it has knowledge, except that
derived from said bill of complaint, as to whether
the complainant in this cause now is or ever has
been the sole and exclusive owner, or other owner,
of said alleged letters patent, or of the invention
and improvements therein described and claimed,
or of any rights secured by said letters patent, and
it leaves the complainant to make such proof thereof
as it may be advised is material or necessary, or it
may be able to produce, this defendant denying
that any of the alleged rights in the bill of com-
plaint specified with respect to said alleged letters
patent ever had any existence, in the complainant
Or any person or corporation through whom said
complainant claims.
6th–This defendant further answering, says
that it has no knowledge that the complainant has
expended large sums of money and devoted
much time and effort to the developing of said in-
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
896.
4475
vention, and to the devising and providing means
of carrying on the business of building, installing
or licensing others to build or install the struc-
tural combination of said letters patent, and mak-
ing the same profitable to itself and useful to the
public.
4476
4477
4.478
4479
7th—And this defendant further answering,
denies that said alleged invention has been of great
advantage and utility to the public and is capable of
being made a wide-reaching public benefit, or of any
public benefit, and denies that it is highly conducive,
or conducive in any degree, to the public health.
8th—This defendant further answering, denies
that at the time alleged in said bill of complaint,
or any other time, this defendant made, constructed
or used, or is now using any apparatus for, or pro-
cess of, treating sewage contained or emoraced in
the alleged invention described or patented in or
by said letters patent No. 634,423, and denies
that it has unlawfully and wrongfully made or con-
structed or used, and is now using sewage aparatus
Containing, and in its structure and operation em-
bracing, the invention described and patented in and
by said letters patent No. 634,423, and denies that
it has infringed upon the exclusive right, or any
right of the complainant thereunder, and denies
that it has in any way infringed upon any rights
of the complainant or intended to do so, and it
denies that it has occasioned large damages to
the complainant and made and realized manifold
advantages therefrom, or that it has derived and
received and is still deriving and receiving great
gains and profits, or any gains and profits what-
soever and avers that the complainant has
not incurred any damage by any unlawful or
wrongful act of it, the defendant. It denies that
897
the alleged use of said alleged invention, by the
defendant, or its alleged appropriation thereof or
any unlawful or wrongful acts of the defendant in
disregard of the alleged rights of the cornplainant,
have had, now have, or ever have had the effect to
greatly encourage and induce or in any wise in-
duce and encourage others to venture to infringe
the alleged letters patent in disregard of the al-
leged rights of the complainant.
9th—And this defendant further answering, says
that the letters patent sued upon, are invalid for
want of patentable invention.
10th–And this defendant further answering,
says that the alleged letters patent of the com-
plainant have never been adjudged valid in any
action brought thereon, and that their validity
has not been acquiesced in by the public.
11th–This defendant further answering, says
that the apparatus described in said letters patent
was not an invention when produced by said Donald
Cameron, Frederick James Commin and Arthur
John Martin, and was not novel at thaw time.
12th–The defendant further answering, says
that said Donald Cameron, Frederick Jumes Com-
min and Arthur John Martin were not the original
inventors and first discoverers of the invention pur-
porting to be covered by said letters patent, or of
any material or substantial parts thereof, and that
the same material and substantial parts thereof had
been in public use in this country prior to said
alleged invention, and for more than two years
prior to the application, and the same has been
described and illustrated in printed publications
prior to the date of said supposed invention of said
Donald Cameron, Frederick James Commin and
Arthur John Martin.
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
898
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
13th–This defendant further answerſng, says
that the alleged invention of Donald Cameron,
Frederick James Commin and Arthur John Mar-
tin, had been previously invented and used by many
other persons whose names are unknown to defend-
ant, and which, when known, it prays leave to set
forth in this answer.
14th–This defendant further answering, says
that the letters patent mentioned in the bill of com-
plaint, were not granted for any invention or dis-
covery of any new and useful art, machine, manu-
facture, or composition of matter, nor for any new
and useful improvement thereof not kilown or used
by others in this country and not patented or de-
scribed in any printed publication in this, or any
foreign, country before the invention on discovery
thereof by the persons to whom such letters were
issued, and not in public use or on sale for more
than two years prior to their application.
15th–And this defendant further answering,
avers that the complainant has full aird adequate
relief at law, and has not set forth in Its said bill
of complaint such facts, matters and things as are
essential to the jurisdiction of a court of equity in
the premises.
Wherefore, said defendant having fully answered
the complainant’s said bill of complaint in so far
as it is advised the same is material and necessary
to be answered, denies that said complainant is
entitled to the relief demanded in said bill of com-
plaint, or in any part thereof, or any relief what-
soever, and prays the same advantage of its afore-
said answer as if it had pleaded and demurred to
said bill of complaint, and prays to be dismissed
hence, with its reasonable charges in this behalf.
899
In witness whereof the President of the
Village of Saratoga Springs has hereunto
(Seal) affixed the corporate seal of said Village
and has caused the same to be attested by
the Village Clerk.
ADELBERT P. KNAPP,
President of Village of Saratoga Springs.
Attest:
C. H. KNAPP,
Village Clerk.
J. P. BRENNAN,
EDGAR T. BRACKETT,
Solicitors for and of Counsel for Defendant. *
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
900
4495
4496
4497
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT NORTH-
ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY.,
THE VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGs,
AND THE SEWER, WATER & STREET
*
Complainant,
WS.
C O M M I ss I O N
SPRINGs,
O F
Defendants.
SARATOGA
*
In Equity,
Wo. 7,020.
AMENDMENT TO ANSWER.
Now come the defendants and amend their
answer as follows:
By cancelling paragraphs
answer heretofore filed in this case, and substitut-
ing therefor the following:
12 and 13 of the
12. The said invention having been disclosed
and patented or described in the following Let-
ters Patent and publications:
4498
4499
TJNITED STATES
. 138,250, dated April
108,664,
184,099,
258,744,
223,826,
280,545,
315,912.
366,333,
367,576,
368,071,
403,946,
424,838,
476,654,
484,823,
505,166,
530,622,
556,594,
268,120,
580,793,
& 4
Oct.
NOV.
May
July
April
July
Aug.
Aug.
May
April
July
Oct.
Sept.
Dec.
29,
25, 1870,
7, 1876,
30, 1882,
3, 1883,
14, 1885,
12, 1887,
2, 1887,
9, 1887,
28, 1889,
1, 1890,
12, 1892,
25, 1892,
19, 1893,
11, 1894,
March 17, 1896,
NOV.
April
28, 1882,
13, 1897,
& &
& &
&&.
LETTERS PATENT.
1873, to Fritz Hille
Geo. W. Wigner
G. R. Moore
A. S. Glover
G. E. Waring
Sila.S Wilcox
Rober". Corscaden
Marble & Knapp
G. A. Allen
Loring Coes
Meyer & Weck
Frank L. Union
Elmer F. St. John
Ernest E. Scruby
Oluf I... Ivleyer
W. D. Scott-Moncrieff
Frank L. Union
L. Mouras
G. D. Mitchell
901.
BRITISH LETTERS PATENT.
NO. 232, dated Jan. 30, 1860, to Thomas Walker
& & 2,329, “ Sept. 22, 1864, “ Walker & Walker
& & 3,203, “ Oct. 20, 1868, “ Gavin Chapman
& & 3,562, “ Nov. 23, 1868, “ Smith & Bazalgett
& & 364, “ Feb. 8, 1870, “ G. W. Wigner
££ 742, “ March 11, 1872, “ Denton & Field
“ , 1,706, “ June 14, 1870, “ Bevan George Sloper
& & 2,760, “ Oct. 17, 1871, “ James Brough Pow
& 6 5,391, “ Dec. 9, 1881, “ Wm. R. Lake (a com-
munica, t i O n f r O m
Louis Mouras)
6& 7,134, “ May 16, 1887, “ Wilhelm Gurtler
& & 3,312, “ March 1, 1890, “ Adeney & Parry
“ 22,747, “ Dec. 30, 1891, “ Joseph Tertius Wood
tº g 8,671, “ May 2, 1894, “ Frank B. Candy
“ 21,142, “ Nov. 8, 1895, “ Cameron & Commin
“ 23,042, “ Oct. 17, 1896, “ Cameron, Cammin &
Martin
GERMAN LETTERS PATENT.
ND. 9,792, .dated Dec. 11, 1879, to Alexander Muller
FRENCH LETTERS PATENT.
No. 144,904, dated Sept. 22, 1881, to J. F. Mouras
ALSO IN THE FODLOWING PUBLICATIONS.
A publication entitled “Fourth Annual Report
of the Massachusetts State Board of Health for
the Year 1872. ”
Also a publication entitled “Special Report of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health,’’ pub-
lished in 1876.
A publication entitled “Journal of the Society
of Arts” (British), published for the Society by
Úeorge Bell & Sons, 4, 5 and 6 York Street, Covent
Garden, London, 1882; particularly the article be-
ginning on page 532 and entitled “Some Practi.
cal Aspects of the Recent Investigations on Nitri-
fication,” by Robert Warington.
Also a publication entitled “Report of the 54th
Meeting of the British Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science,” held at Montreal in Au-
gust and September, 1884,” published in London,
1885, by John Murray, Albemarle Street, and es-
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
902
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
pecially the article therein beginning on page 682,
and entitled “On Nitrification, by R. Waring-
ton.’’
Also a publication entitled “Minutes of Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
With Other Selected and Abstracted Papers, Vol.
LXXXVIII.,” edited by James Forrest, published
by the Institution at London, 25 Great George
Street, Westminster, S. W., 1887, and especially
an article beginning at page 155, entitled “Sew-
age Sludge and Its Disposal.” by William Joseph
Dibdin.
Also a reprint of a report to the London
County Council, entitled “Report by the Chem-
ists on the Experiments on the Filtration of Sew-
age Effluent During the Years 1892-3-4-5,” and
printed as a part of the “Interim Report of the
Commissioners appointed in 1898 to inquire and
report what methods of treating and disposing of
sewage (including any liquid from factory or
manufactory process) may properly be adopted,”
Vol. 2, Evidence, the same being published in
London in 1892, and especially a paper by Mr.
Dibdin therein.
Also a publication, being a report by Mr. Henry
Austin, C. E., Chief Superintending Inspector of
the Board of Health, London, published in Lon-
don in 1857, entitled “Means of Deodorizing and
Utilizing the Sewage of Towns,” with especial
reference to the description of the Clifton Union
Works, the Cheltenham Sewage Works, the Sew-
age Works at Ely and the “Proposed Sewage
WorkS.”
Also a publication entitled “Journal of the So-
903
ciety of Arts,” Vol. XLVII., London, published
for the Society by George Bell & Sons, 1898; es-
pecially page 263.
Also a publication entitled “Minutes of Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,”
Vol. 48; especially the article beginning on page
350, entitled “Mouras' Automatic Scavenger.”
Also the same publication, Vol. LXXII, pub-
lished 1883, page 359, an article entitled “The
Theory and Active Working of the Automatic
Scavenger.”
Also the same publication, Vol. LXXVIII, pub-
lished 1884, and especially page 502.
Also a publication entitled “The Engineering
News,’’ published in New York, April 15, 1882,
and especially an article on page 117 entitled “An
Automatic Vault Cleaner.’’ e
Also a paper read at the “Seventh Interna-
tional Congress of Hygiene and Demography,”
held in London in 1891; entitled “Application of
a Reservoir Interceptor Made on the Type of
Mouras Fose and of a Peat Filter for Sewage in
the System of Separate Sewerage,” by L. Pag-
liani, Professor of Hygiene and Director of Pub-
lic Health in Rome, Italy, the paper referred to
being in print and stamped with a rubber stamp
“American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
August 25, 1891.”
Also a printed pamphlet entitled “Extracts
from the Press on the Scott-Moncrieff System for
the Purification of Sewage,’’ the same contain-
ing extracts from various British Press publica-
tions as follows: “Pall Mall Gazette,” Septem-
ber 24, 1892; “Suffolk Times,” September 30,
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
904
4515
4516
451.7
4518
4519
1892; “Engineer,” October 14, 1892; “Hampshire
Advertiser,” July 26, 1893; “Pall Mall Gazette,”
June 21, 1893; “Builder,” August 12, 1893; “In-
dustries and Iron,” October 6, 1893. This
pamphlet having been furnished witness Snow
by Mr. Scott-Moncrieff, and extracts from a
paper purporting to be read by Mr. Scott-Mon-
crieff on the 5th of October. 1893, at Powchester,
printed in “Industries and Iron,” October 13,
1893.
Also a book entitled “Sewage Disposal
Works,” by W. Santo-Crimp, published in Lon-
don, 1890; the special article referred to being a
description of the tanks are Croyden; also a de-
Scription in the same book of the Merton Sew-
age Disposal Works, on page 151, in connection
with Plate 12; also a description on page 164 of
Said publication of the tanks at Chiswick, Eng-
land.
Also in the publication heretofore referred to,
‘‘Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers,” for 1877, Volume XLIX, pages
180–182, an article by Professor H. Tanner.
Also the same publication, Volume LXXVI,
1884, an article by Santo-Crimp entitled “The
Wanole Valley Main Draimage.” *
Also in the same publication, Vol. LXXIX, page
351, an article by Alfred Barton Brady entitled
“The Burnham Sewerage Works.”
Also in the work by Santo-Crimp above re-
ferred to, published in London, 1890, an article
on page 194, a description of the works at Friern
Barnet; and on page 216, a description of the
works at Wimbledon.
905
Also a report of the Royal Commission on Sew-
age Disposal, July 28, 1898, Vol. II, entitled “Evi-
dence of the Interim Report of said Commission.’’
Also the publication “Minutes of the Proceed-
ings of the Society of Civil Engineers for 1889,’’
pages 392-93, a description by W. H. Lindley, in
Vol. XLVI, of the tanks at Frankfort, Germany.
A publication in book form by George E. War-
ing, Jr., entitled “Sanitary Drainage of Houses
and Towns,” published in 1876.
Also a publication in book form entitled “Sew-
age and Land Drainage,” by George E. Waring,
Jr., 3rd Edition, New York, D. Van Nostrand
Company, London, 1891, especially pages 287,
288, 291, 292.
Also a publication or catalogue entitled “Flush
Tank Company, Chicago, Manufacturers of Auto-
matic Siphons for Intermittent Flush Tanks,”
169 La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill., *892, and es-
pecially pages 24-26. +º
Also a publication in book form by George E.
Waring, Jr., entitled “On the Modern Methods
of Sewage Disposal,” published in 1894, pages
216–218.
Also a publication entitled “Sanitary Engi-
neers,” a periodical regularly published in the
City of New York; especially an article entitled
“The Disposal of Sewage by Special Surface Irri-
gation in Suburban Residences,” by Edward S.
Phillbrick; the same being published in the Said
Sanitary Engineer in the issue of May 10th and
May 18th, 1883.
Also a publication in book form entitled “Sew-
age Disposal in the United States,” by George
W. Rafter and M. N. Baker, published in 1894,
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
906
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
New York, D. Van Nostrand & Company; Lon-
don, Sampson, Low, Marston & Company, Lim-
ited, especially an article beginning on page 458
entitled “Broad Irrigation at the Worcester
State Hospital for the Insane.” Also page 507,
an article relating to “Intermittent Filtration of
the Massachusetts School for the Feeble Minded.”
Also a publication entitled “19th Annual Report
of the Massachusetts State Board of Health for
the year 1887,” especially an article on pages 100-
101, on the sewage disposal system at Medfield,
Mass.
Also a publication entitled “Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers,” published in
1887, an article relating to the sewage disposal
system at the Lawrenceville School at Lawrence-
ville, New Jersey.
Also in the Report above referred to entitled “In-
terim Report of the Commissioners,” printed in
1898, Vol. 11, Evidence; especially questions and
answers Nos. 1862, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1927,
1935, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1959, 1962, 1964, 1968,
1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019,
2048, 2049, 2059, 2060, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2069, 2070,
2071, 2079, 2080, 2081 and 2158.
Also a publication entitled “Cosmos les Mondes,”
published weekly in Paris, especially articles of De-
cember, 1881, page 622, January 21, 1882, page 97,
and January, 1883, page 110.
XIII. On information and belief the defendant
further says that the alleged invention, or material
and Substantial parts thereof described and claimed
as new in said letters patent No. 634,423, and at-
tempted to be patented thereby, had been in public
use in this country for more than two years before
the application of said Cameron, Commin & Mar-
907
tin for said letters patents by the persons and at the
places following:
At the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, Chicago, Illi-
nois, and known to William S. MacHarg, William
E. Dee and Browne & Kavanaugh, of said Chicago,
and others.
At Champaign and Urbana, Illinois, and known
to Professor Arthur N. Talbot, of Champaign, Illi-
nois, and C. B. Burdick, of Chicago, Illinois; John
C. Quade; and John C. F. Sell, Urbana, Illinois.
At St. Bede College, Peru, Illinois, and known
to Henry W. Hill, of Chicago, Illinois; Charles B.
Burdick, of Chicago, Illinois; and Vincent Huber,
of Peru, Illinois.
At Rochester, Minnesota, and known to William
S. MacEHarg, Chicago, Illinois, and others.
At the Altenheim, Chicago, Illinois, and known
to William S. MacFTarg, of Chicago, Illinois, and
Henry W. Hill, of Chicago, Illinois.
At Lake Forest, Illinois, residence of Slason
Thompson, and known to W. S. MacHarg, of Chi-
cago, Illinois.
VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, and the
SEWER, WATER AND STREET COMMIS-
SION OF SARATOGA SPRINGS,
By their Solicitor,
JNO. J. HEALEY, JR.
CHARLEs L. STURTEVANT,
Of Counsel.
STIPULATION.
It is hereby stipulated that the foregoing amend-
ment to the answer may be filed as of this date, the
proofs being closed and the case ready for hearing.
GIFFORD & BULL,
LIVINGSTON GIFFORD,
Of Counsel for Complainants.
Dated, October 23rd, 1906.
4530
4531
4532
4533.
4534
908
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, NORTH-
ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY.,
vs.
VILLAGE OF SAGATOGA SPRINGS AND I in Equity,
THE SEWER, . WATER AND | Wo. 79*.
STREET COMIMISSION OF SARATOGA
SPRINGs, N. Y.
STIPULATIONS.
For the purpose of Saving time and expense to
the respective parties, it is hereby stipulated and
agreed as follows:
1. That the testimony to be produced in this
cause by either party may be taken orally under
the provisions of Equity Rule 67 as amended,
before any notary public, United States Commis-
sioner, or other officer qualified in the premises.
2. That a certified copy of the patent in suit,
namely, patent No. 634,423, granted Oct. 3, 1899 to
Cameron, Commin & Martin, shall be received and
accepted for all purposes of this suit with the full
force and effect of the original patent.
3. That certified copies of assignments or li-
censes offered by either party hereto in support of
title shall be accepted with the same force and
effect as though they were original instruments.
4. That uncertified copies of United States Let-
ters Patent referred to by the defendants in their
answer may, for the purposes of this suit, be used
with equal force and effect as would certified copies
thereof.
5. That any exhibits, specimens or models intro-
duced on behalf of either party hereto may be re-
909
tained by the party offering them up to the time
when they are needed in court, subject to the right
of inspection and production by the opposite party
at all convenient times and places, and that said
exhibits, specimens and models may be used by
either party where depositions are to be or may
be taken, subject to the above mentioned conditions
and restrictions.
6. It is admitted by counsel for the defendant
that the Cameron Septic Tank Company, of Chi-
cago, the complainant herein, is a corporation
created by and existing under the laws of the State
of Illinois, and a citizen of said State and was so
at the filing of the bill of complaint.
G. H. HOWARD,
Solicitor for Complainant.
EDGAR. T. BRACKETT,
J. P. BRENNAN,
Solicitor and Of Counsel for Defendant.
4540
4541
4542
ſiliſi




- **
*
3. * *
~ *
º
jºša".
fºr sk.
síº,