,aT1d2)6Q,^
<.^y-^
"Bn
3^
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive
in 2010 witii funding from
Boston Public Library
http://www.archive.org/details/furtherremarksonOOwilk
MR. WILKINS'S
FURTHER REMARKS
SUPPLYING THE CITY OF BOSTON
PURE WATER.
alO -^
FURTHER REMARKS
ON
SUPPLYING THE CITY OF BOSTON
PUEE watee:
IN ANSWER MAINLY TO
INQUIRY INTO THE BEST MODE OF SUPPLYING THE CITY OF
BOSTON WITH WATER FOK DOMESTIC PURPOSES, ETC.
BY JOHN H. WILKINS.
BOSTON:
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN.
1845.
boston:
PRINTED BY FREEMAN AND BOLLES,
WASHINGTON STEEET.
FUETHEE EEMAUKS.
Some months ago I published a pamphlet entitled Remarks on
Supplying the City of Boston with Pure Water, which was distributed
to a great extent through the city. The views therein expressed
were received with much more favor than I had reason, under the
circumstances, to anticipate ; and as I believe them to be still im-
portant, I now propose to review the several positions therein taken.
In doing so, I shall of course have occasion to notice the objections
which have been made to them ; and especially those made by Mr.
Hale, in his Inquiry into the best mode oj supplying the City of
Boston with water, &c. I may truly acknowledge that the appearance
of this last pamphlet is the occasion which calls me again before the
public; but in the following pages I shall by no means limit myself
to the consideration of the objections therein made. I trust the author
will excuse me for using his name for the sake of brevity ; as he
must be sensible that the disguise assumed on the title-page is too
transparent to serve any valuable purpose.
In my former Remarks, I stated that I had endeavored to look at
" facts and to form opinions for myself" on tliis subject of water ;
and that inquiring into the subject in this spirit, I had come " to some
definite conclusions, not altogether in accordanee with the opinions
of the commissioners." Of course it was to be supposed that Mr.
Hale and myself would differ in our opinions. I certainly had no
expectation of bringing him to the approval of my views ; and I
apprehend he did not expect me to be satisfied with his answer to
them. My end I hope is, (and certainly his should be) to impart
information to our fellow-citizens, so that they may form a correct
judgment on this most difficult subject; so that the public mind may
settle down in the approval and acceptance of that system of supply,
which shall combine the best water and the greatest quantity with the
greatest economy. In doing this, I shall endeavor to meet Mr. Hale's
statements fairly, and qualify them, so far as they ought to be quali-
fied, by other authentic statements either from himself ox others ; and
if he should deem it of importance to notice these further kebiarks,
I hope he will have the same end in view.
In my Remarks I stated that I was inclined to favor the plan " to
distribute the water, for dobiestic purposes, free from charged
From this doctrine Mr. Hale " feels bound to dissent;" and gives
some reasons which appear to have much more weight with him than
they do with me. As this is still a matter of no public interest at
present, I beg to refer the reader, who is desirous of seeing what my
views are, to note A, at the end of this pamphlet, where he will find
the substance of two communications published in the Courier, Sep-
tember 24 and 25, 1844. I will notice this point no further at present
than to say, that I am not tenacious of this plan ; I entertain no par-
ticular desire to have it meet with public favor. And yet I should
exceedingly regret to have the city accept any act, or so commit itself
in any manner, that it shall find itself restricted hereafter from the
full and free control of the water when it is brought into the city.
The distribution, and the terms of distribution, should, I think, be
always in the hands of the City government, to be affected through
the ballot-box, like all other municipal interests.
Disposing in this manner of a question somewhat incidental, I
propose to handle the matter again in the same order 1 did before.
This is different somewhat from that adopted by Mr. Hale ; but I can
better examine and meet his views, by bringing them into connection
with mine in the order I have adopted, than to follow him.
The three propositions which I undertook to maintam in my
Remarks were,
1st. The water of Charles River is better than that of Long Pond.
2d. It is vastly more abundant.
3d. It can be introduced into the City at greatly less expense.
And to the reconsideration of these several propositions I propose
mainly to limit myself now. I shall notice some other matters at
the close.
Preliminary, however, to a consideration of the first point, I propose
to consider the adventitious causes of impurity in Charles River,
which form the staple of Dr. Channing's pamphlet, and which Mr.
Hale dilates upon with apparently great satisfaction.
In the first place, I wish to call the attention of the reader to the
striking difference, noticeable in the tone and manner of treating this
point, by Mr. Hale in 1837 and in 1845. In 1837 (Report, p. 15)
he says, " The opinion has been often expressed that the Charles is
rendered very impure by filth from the various mills upon its course.
The amount of this is exceedingly minute when diffused through the
river. We are of opinion, therefore, that this ought not to be taken
as seriously affecting the quality of the water of Charles River."
And in page 62, in answer to objections of Mr. Baldwin to Mystic
Pond on account of mills on the stream flowing into it, the Report
says, " With regard to the influence of mills in rendering waters
impure, we have already expressed our opinion in the report, when
giving an account of Charles River." This is all very temperate and
correct language — used undoubtedly under a responsible sense of
the facility with which any water may be rendered unpopular by even
a slight enumeration of possible causes of impurity. How singu-
larly such sensible remarks as the above, contrast with the whole
scope and sentiment of Mr. Hale's pamphlet from pages 47 to 54.
Let me quote the following: "Into this basin (at Watertown) the
water is received over another dam, on which are situated Bemis's
mills, the seat of cotton and other manufactories. At Waltham, three
miles only from the spot at which the water is to be taken out of the
river for use, is a third dam, on which are situated the celebrated
Waltham factories, with all their works for dying and bleaching, and
also a great variety of other manufacturing establishments. All the
waste water, and impure substances discharged from these manufac-
tories, and from the residences of 2500 inhabitants, including the
operatives at the factories, are discharged directly into the river.
These, of course, go to swell the mass of those fluids, which three
miles below, is to be pumped into the reservoir on Cory's hill, and
conveyed thence to Boston, for the daily beverage of its inhabitants."
Now can it be that the same hand that sketched the effect of these
mills and factories in 1837, wrote the above in 1845? And if so,
can it be that the dams and factories are identically the same in
number, and about the same in extent, now as then ? All this is cer-
tainly true; and it must be left to others to judge what can have so
utterly and entirely changed the author's opinions and views, where
there is absolutely no visible cause. The fact I suppose to be indis-
putable that there has been no new dam erected on the river, within
twenty miles of Watertown, during the last fifteen years ; and scarcely
any extension of works. I have made inquiry, and can learn of
none. What was said by the commissioners in 1837 is just as true,
and as worthy of confidence, now as it was then. If the views then
expressed were not Mr. Hale's real views, he must be esteemed to
have been disingenuous ; and if they were his real views then, it re-
mains to be explained how his views have become so completely
revolutionized with so little, or no, change in the circumstances.
In this connection I will introduce some other extracts showing
the animum in which Mr. Hale writes. Speaking of the impurities
(though perhaps not derived from mills) in that river, Mr. Hale says,
[Daily Advertiser Feb. 10,) this impurity was " one of the objections
to the adoption (by the commissioners of 1837) of this source of
supply." But he afterwards affirms {Advertiser, May 19th,) re-
ferring to the action of the commissioners of 1837, " the Charles
River source was the nearest and cheapest, but it was rejected on the
ground of the less degree of purity of the water." Here instead of
its being one, it is taken to be the sole, cause of rejecting the nearest
and the cheapest source. Now let us see what the Report of 1837
says, and all that it says, on this subject, (p. 31.) " As the con-
stancy of the supply, however, in this plan (that is, Charles River)
depends upon the operation of machinery, which always implies some
shade of uncertainty, though in this case, as our estimate provides
for two complete engines, pumps, and buildings, either of which will
elevate the supply by operating twenty hours per day only, the
chance of failure must be very small ; yet taking into consideration
the possibility of such a contingency, and likewise the better quality
of the waters of Spot and Mystic ponds, we are of opinion that the
first plan, founded upon Charles River as a source, ought not to be
adopted." Will any one pretend that the sole, or even the leading,
reason for rejecting Charles River, as here set forth, was the impu-
rity of the water .'' Certainly not ; — it scarcely makes a reason at
all in relation even to the Medford ponds ; and it is all but certain that
it would not have been thought of at all, had the decision lain between
Charles River and Long Pond. The enumeration of the Medford
ponds as of " better quality " than Charles River, implies that Long
Pond was not so considered ; for there was as much reason to name
Long Pond, as Mystic and Spot Ponds.
Still farther, to show that Charles River was not rejected on the
ground of its impurity, but on other ground, let us make one ex-
tract more. In answer to some of Mr. Baldwin's objections, p. 53,
the commissioners say, " if it were possible to raise water by steam
power, with9ut expense, our examination would have ended with
Charles River or Mystic Pond." But how and why would the exam-
ination have ended with Charles River, if that source " was rejected
on the ground of the less degree of purity of the water" .? Surely
the " expense " would be no greater to raise a less pure, than a
more pure, water. Again, if Charles River was rejected on account
of impurity, why did the commissioners estimate upon it at all ? Why
go to the labor of finding the cost of a supply of water, which, on ac-
count of its quality, thev did not intend to take }
Again : Why does Mr. Hale now print Dr. Hobbs's letter } Why
did he omit it in 1837 ? The letter was written in 1834. If it con-
tained views deemed to be important, why was it not printed by the
commissioners in 1837 ? And if deemed not to be important, why
is it printed now? Its real importance was just the same then that
it is now ; and the reason for publishing it much greater then than
now, because Mr. Hale was acting in a more responsible capacity.
It seems to me, therefore, impossible to dismiss from the mind the
idea that Mr. Hale has exposed himself to the charge of having beea
disingenuous in 1837, or of having indulged an unjustifiable spirit of
amplification and exaggeration in 1845.
And as further proof of this disposition to exaggeration in 1845,
let me call attention to two prominent overstatements, which I chance
to have the power to correct ; how many similar ones may be in his
book, which I have not now the power to correct, I know not. On
p. 49, he says : " On the immediate banks of this basin (from which
the water is to be taken) are dwelling houses on both sides the river,
and also slaughter houses, soajj and candle toorks, and other manufac-
turing estallishmenis.'''' Afterwards he again speaks of the offal of
slaughter houses, alluding to the same establishments. Now proba-
bly some surprise will be felt at learning, that, as possible sources of
impurity to the waters proposed to be taken, these establishments
can have as little effect, as if they were established down the river in
Cambridge or Brighton. Those on the north side stand beside a
canal, I should judge to be seventy rods long, which takes the water
from the pond above the dam down to the mills ; and if any drain-
age come either from these establishments or the mills themselves, it
can never pass up against the current to mix v/ith the water of the
pond. Every "establishment" here referred to, is more than 400
feet heloio the dam. And those on the south side are separated en-
tirely from the water of the pond by Baptist, or Jackson's, brook,
which runs into the Charles below the dam, and which must take all
the drainage, if there be any, from every one of these establishments.
Again : Mr. Hale says, '• At Dedham the river receives the waste
water of such common sewers as are required for a manufacturing
population of from 3000 to 4000." One can hardly express his
amazement at such a statement, — so full of error. In the first
place, the population of the whole town in 1840, was but 3,290 ; and
this is not a manufacturing population to any considerable extent, but
an agricultural one, scattered through three or four distinct territo-
rial parishes. In the second place, the Charles Eiver scarcely runs
through the town at all, and sHriis it only on one side; of course
nearly all the population live at a distance from the river. In the
third place, there is not a dam on the river where it touches Dedham,
and of course there are no manufactories on the river ; and there is
8
no tributary stream, of any consequence, in that town to which the
remark could apply. In the fourth place, the people of Dedbam
probably do not know what a common sewer is, having no such thing
on their premises ; and should any one inquire for a " common
sewer" there, he would he directed to a person who took in plain
needle work. The only establishments in Dedham, worthy of being
called factories, are on Mother Brook, which runs out of, not into,
Charles River.
The person who supplied Mr. Hale with such facts as I have here
noticed, must, I should think, have earned more than a penny a
line. The ability to draw so long a bow, should have received a
compensation in some degree commensurate to the rarity of the acj
complishment.
But I have expatiated quite enough on this subject. There is one
plain and conclusive answer to the whole difficulty, root and branch,
namely ; that the real causes of impurity be removed. It is needless
to criticise the precise meaning of the act which has been rejected ;
but sec. 19 was, beyond all doubt, intended to give the city a com-
plete remedy against all such practical causes of impurity ; ' and a
new act should, and would, embrace provisions to obtain the same
object, only more clearly expressed. Equity would require the city
to pay the actual expense ; but it could be but a trifle. And no
serious doubt need be entertained that the owners of the establish-
ments on the dams would meet the wishes of the city in a liberal
and accommodating spirit. Under, such legal provisions, we should
drink our Avater with as little apprehension as we eat our food.
When we purchase our meat and vegetables, we seldom examine
them for taint or decay, because the presumptions are that the
butcher and sauceman are under the restraints of the law, and would
not offer offensive articles for sale. Just so, it being unlawful to
render our water impure, we should drink it freely without any ap-
prehension or fear that the provisions of the law would be violated.
FIRST PROPOSITION.
That the Water of Charles River is letter than that of Long Pond,
The waters of Charles River and Long Pond are to be compared
by the qualities or ingredients ; 1st, which they exhibit to the senses ;
2d, which are developed by analysis ; and 3d, which result from the
circumstance of one being a running, and the other a stagnant mass.
1. As to the qualities or ingredients which they exhibit to the senses.
— Water is usually considered pure when it is free from odor, taste
and color. Now as I am not aware that any body pretends that the
water of either Charles River or Long Pond is objectionable on the
score of taste or odor, I shall limit what I have to say under this head
to color. July 1, 1834, Dr. Jackson says, of Charles River water,
" clear, transparent, colorless.'''' Of Long Pond water he says, " Has
a slight tint of browns He says of another specimen take7i from
the outlet, that it was free from color ; " but as it is not proposed to
take the water from the outlet for the use of the city, it is not very
obvious how this latter examination bears upon the question. Mr.
Hayes, May 24, 1837, (near three years after Dr. Jackson,) says of
Charles River, " Nearly colorless ; " and, to the praise, as I appre-
hend, of Long Pond water, he says, it " resembles (Charles River) in
physical qualities." February 27, 1845, 1 obtained a bottle of water'
from Charles River, which was exhibited at the senate chamber be-
fore the committee, and afterwards on the Jirst day of debate on the
Water Bill in the house of representatives, and which I have still in
my possession, which I regard as colorless, or nearly so. On the
3d or 4th of March, 1845,1 obtained another specimen which was ex-
hibited on the second day of debate in the house of representatives.
I believe these specimens were regarded as colorless by the members
of that body. The water of the last specimen is lost ; any one may
still inspect the Jirst.
I am aware that, in point of color, the commissioners of 1837
ranked Long Pond water before that of Charles River ; but as the
number of specimens examined, and the times and circumstances
under which they were taken are not stated, what they say of their
examination may be entirely true, and still the conclusion may be
erroneous. So in the chamber of the senate before the committee,
I believe there was a sample taken from the outlet of Long Pond as
colorless as the sample from Charles River, but the samples generally
(for there were several taken from different parts of the pond) most
certainly were not. I have also had specimens from Charles River
taken at different times, say April 14 and 25, and May 14 ; and also
of Long Pond, taken (I suppose) about March 1st, and (from the ex-
act point of the pond which we propose to tap) April 25th. On care-
fully comparing these samples as to color, the last specimen of Long
Pond was whiter than the first, and whiter than some of Charles
River ; while the first specimen from Charles River was a good deal
whiter than the last from Long Pond, and the last from Charles River
much whiter than the first from Long Pond, and somewhat whiter
than the last from Long Pond.
Now this appears to be the true state of facts, so far as my know-
ledge or reading goes, and which does not appear to be contradictory
3
to any other authentic knowledge on the subject. There have been
three times, with long intervals between, and at different seasons of
the year, when the water of Charles River was found to be color-
less, or nearly so ; while there is not, that I am aware of, the slightest
evidence or good reason to suppose, that any specimen was ever
taken from Long Pond at the point where we propose to take it, that
was free (or nearly so) from color. The inference I draw is, that if
we take Charles River we shall sometimes, probably often, have the
water colorless, or nearly so, and can then have our clothes washed
white ; while, if we take Long Pond, we shall have it with ^perpetual
discoloration, though this discoloration may occasionally be less than
that of Charles River.
Dr. Gould, describing a specimen of Charles River water received
from Dr. Channing, who received it from Mr. Hobbs, says, it " ap-
pears to be what we doctors would call sadly jaundiced; that is, it
has a greenish yellow tinge, about the color of chlorine gas,, probably
arising from chlorophyll, the coloring matter of plants," &c. Having
occasion to call on Dr. Gould, he showed me the identical bottle from
which he took the water above described. ]t was a common jank
bottle of black glass ; I noticed that it was partly full, and feeling de-
sirous of examining it myself, Dr. Gould was obliging enough to
allow me to take it. I took it to my store, put the water into a clean,
white, glass decanter, {and have it still for the inspection of the cu-
rious,) and I find it to be just about the most free from color of any
Bpecimen I ever saw of surface water. I think the advocates of Long:
Pond may be safely challenged to produce a sample mo-re free from
color, f om the point of the pond at which we propose to take it.
Dr. Gould says, however, that the color has changed ; which he at-
tributes to its having been kept from the light. Whether this can be
so, I leave to others to judge.
In all the specimens which I have seen, the subsiding substance ir»
the Charles River water has uniformly been of a less offensive char-
acter than that of Long Pond.
Though animalcules are exhibited to the sense of sight, I shall de-
fer the consideration of them to the third ground of comparison.
2. Qualities or ingredients developed hy analysis. — There ap-
pear to have been three distinct analyses of both these waters, at
distant intervals ; viz. Charles River, by Dr. Dana, Dr. Jackson, and
Mr. Hayes : Long Pond, by Dr. Jackson, Mr. Hayes, and again by
Dr. Jackson. The result of Dr. Dana's analysis has never been pub-
lished. Mr. Hayes (p. 9, Report of 1837,) gives the earthy matter,
when dry, in Charles River water, 100,000 grains, 3.22 grains,
and in Long Pond water 3.03 grains ; when burnt, Charles River
11
1,8 grains, Long Pond 2.1. Dr. Jackson in 1S34, gives earthy mat-
ter in Charles River, when dry, 4. grains, and Long Pond 6. grains ;
or fifty per cent, more in Long Pond than Charles River. In 1845,
(p. 142, Proceedings before Joint Committee, &c.) he found in the
sample taken from that part of Long Pond, where it is proposed to
take it for the city, 6. grains in 70,000 grains, or (to compare it with
the foregoing results) near 8.7 grains ; that is, near fifty per cent,
more than he found in the same pond in 1S34, and more than twice
as much as he found in Charles River, and almost three times as
much as Mr. Hayes found in Charles River. Dr. Jackson does not
seem to have tested the substance by burning in either case.
But there are more subtle analyzers than the crucible — the living
fibre of men and animals. Mr. Lincoln, a representative of Boston,
stated, in debate on the bill, that a gentleman (a clergyman) who had
resided many years on the banks of Long Pond, told him that he had
known periods when the fish had become diseased and unfit for the
table — supposed to arise from some deleterious ingredients in the
water. An authority worthy of being quoted on such an occasion, I
esteem worthy of being referred to on this. So Col. Baldwin, speak-
ing of Concord River in 1834, says, that besides being charged with
coloring matter, like Charles River, it " has the additional objection
(that is, additional to the objections to Charles River, which has no
such quality) of its possessing some poisonous quality. I remember
when the locks, (kc. of the Middlesex Canal were built 30 or 40
years ago, the workmen obliged to labor in the water, complained
that it made the hands and feet sore, and if a little scratch occurred
to their flesh, or the skin was torn or bruised away, the water would
cause it to fester into a serious wound, and it was often necessary to
suspend working in it that the sore might heal. This character of the
water was confirmed to me a few days ago by Mr. Wilson, a master
carpenter, who has been employed twenty years in the direction of
the canal works there (Billerica,) whose expression was, if a man
gets a little piece of skin knocked off his hand while working in it,
the water would fester it up so thai I do not know hut it xoould eat his
hand up in time ; but working in the Merrimac River would wash it
well again." Now Concord River water is, to a great extent, Long
Pond water ; and, unless both these stories are fish stories, it might
be well to exercise some caution.
3. Qualities or ingredients, which result from the circumstance of
one leing a running, and the other a stagnant, mass. — Before enter-
ing upon this topic, I wish to introduce the following letter from Mr.
Hayes. The substance of my letter to him, to which this is an an-
swer, will appear from the questions which he has embodied in his
letter.
12
" RoxBURY Laboratory, 13th May, 1845,
"J. H. WiLKiNs, Esq.
" Dear Sir, — Your note, with the pamphlet, came to hand this
evening. The queries, which you have proposed to me, refer to an
important and not less exciting subject. In the brief replies, which
follow, I must be allowed to express my opinion, without reference to
considerations of comparative expense, quantity of supply, elevation
of source, &;c. ; keeping in view only the facts of science, so far as
they have a practical bearing on the points you have named. To
your 1st, ' Are you aware of any general principles, on which pond
water should be preferred to river water .'' ' I reply, that I am not ac-
quainted with any general principles, which would lead to such a
choice being made.
" 2d. ' Are you aware of any particular reason, why the water of
Long Pond should be preferred to that of Charles River .'' or, on the
contrary, have you in mind particular reasons why the water of
Charles River is to be preferred to that of Long Pond ? '
" For the general purposes of consumption, either of these sources
would afford an abundant supply of excellent water. For all general
purposes, I know of no reason for preferring one over the other. Of
the desired supply, a very small proportion would be used for drinking
in its natural state. It is in reference to the part so used, that [ ex-
press a preference for the water of Charles River.
"Both these waters belong to the same class, and differ but slightly,
so far as physical characters are presented. The foreign matter dis-
solved in them, differs but little in chemical composition. They are
peaty waters, and contain all the substances of organic origin, usually
found in such waters, in a changing state.
" The proportions of these matters, when referred to weight, are
very small, but they are sufficiently great to affect the senses. The
substances of organic origin, found in these waters, change in char-
acter and composition by exposure to atmospheric air, or by exclu-
sion from it, as well as by elevation of temperature. The free access
of air favors a change, by which a colored water becomes nearly
destitute of color ; the elements of the oi'ganic matter become differ-
ently arranged, and soluble colorless substances, and insoluble colored
principitates, result. These changes are much aided by the presence
of other substances, especially those belonging to a different class
of organic matter. Chemically speaking, therefore, the addition of
matter repulsive to our senses, may not increase the amount of or-
ganic impurity, but contribute essentially to diminish that already ex-
isting. It would be a forced comparison, to represent an almost pure
water by ' wort,' or an infusion from which beer is made ; but the
action of the added impurities in water is not unlike that of the yeast,
used with the intention of producing a more transparent and pure
fluid. Flowing waters, most rapidly undergo the changes, resulting
in a diminution of the colored organic matter, at first dissolved.
" Water, to be palatable and salubrious, must contain air, or gases,
dissolved in it ; and all waters, which are particularly prized for drink-
ing, contain the larger quantities of gases, or air. In this respect.
13
the waters of ponds and rivers differ ; and in the water of Long
Pond and Charles River, the quantities are unlilve. The river water
contains a much larger proportion of air and gases, giving briskness,
or a sparkling appearance to the water. In the sample furnished to
ine by the water commissioners, for chemical analysis, ihe dissolved
gases contained more oxygen than exists in the same volume of
atmospheric air ; indicating that the changes requiring the aid of
OJfygen, or the purifying processes, had been completed.
" The existence of the larger animalcules, in greater abundance,
in the pond waters, is an indication, as Dr. Gould has observed, of
impurity. In the water of Charles River the number is compara-
tively very small, as is that of the infusorial insects ; partly from the
fact, that they become the prey of other animals and fishes in flowing
water. In flowing waters, the elements which have presented the
forms of organic life in animalcules and insects, become the materials
of vegetable growth ; and classes of plants result from, or depend on,
the decay of animal life; all tending to the purification of the water.
In future years, the surface, drained into Long Pond, will doubtless
become changed, and the increase of impurities will then be concen-
trated in that water.
" Briefly, these are the reasons for preferring the ' living,' flowing
water of Charles River to that of Long Pond. I have supposed, ihat
from both these sources the obvious causes of impurity would be
removed. Respectfully, ^, ^ j^ HAYES "
These are the views of Mr. Hayes, the same gentleman who ana-
lyzed the waters for the commissioners in 1837, and who reported of
the water of Charles River that " it is more brisk and sparkling than
either of the other specimens.'''' And though Mr. Hale (Daily Adver-
tiser, February 10,) thinks these qualities are of little value except as
accompanying Champagne, yet I can entertain no doubt that nine out
of ten of those who, from principle, choice, or necessity, do not take
champagne at all, but take cold water in abundance, will be glad to
find these qualities in their water. It is certain that many animals
appreciate the diffei'^nce between running and stagnant water. A
clever horse, if left to himself, will pass into the current, and not stop
to drink at the stagnant margin.
I come now to the consideration of water insects or animalcules.
In my Remarks, I quoted the authority of Dr. Lee, of New York, to
the effect that these were not to be found in river or spring water. I .
have reason to suppose Dr. Lee's proposition requires considerable
qualification ; still I suppose the remark to have grown out of an im-
portant practical truth, viz, that animalcules are much less likely to be
found in running, or river, water, than in pond water ; and when
found, are less numerous and less formidable (if I may use the word)
in the former than in the latter. In what I have to say of these dis-
14
gusting objects, I wish to be understood as speaking only of such as
are visible to the naked eye ; for it is to such only that any one can
attach nnuch importance.
Before I enter upon the subject, I will take occasion to say that I
am not without apprehension that some will think me not only con-
tending against what cannot be avoided, but also against what it is
not desirable to avoid if we can. I am not without suspicion that
some esteem the presence of these creatures as a positive advantage.
What can be the object of publishing to the world such facts as the
following, unless it be to induce a taste for such things ? " Whatever
its (the water of the Mississippi) effect on health may be, it is certain
that it contains a sufficient amount of animal matter (20 kinds of ani-
malcules in a living state, active, and in great abundance) to he some-
what nutritious.'''' Again, " That they (animalcules) are capable of
affording a considerable degree of nourishment even to man is clear ;
and the facts not un frequently stated of persons subsisting for some
length of time upon water alone, will not appear paradoxical."
These facts were communicated to Dr. Channing by Dr. Gould.
They are sent out to the people by Dr. Channing.
Now my doctrine is that the presence of visiile animalcules is an
objection to water ; that it is to be avoided entirely, if possible, and
to every practicable extent, if not. However nutritious they may be
to all, and however agreeable to some it may be to take their food
and drink at the same time ; I must be classed with those who are
willing to forego all such advantages, and are desirous of taking their
food from a plate and their drink from another vessel ; and the fol-
lowing remarks on this subject are submitted for the consideration of
those only who sympathize with these views and tastes.
We are told upon authority that I feel no disposition to dispute,
" that animalcules exist in all water exposed to the open air" ; but
this is to be limited to invisible animalcules, and is not true with re-
gard to visible ones. Dr. Gould does not appear to have found visi-
ble ones (to the naked eye) in either sample of Charles River water
sent him by Dr. Channing ; nor does it appear that any specimen has
been taken from that river in which they are or were visible. And
here I cannot with propriety forbear to refer to Mr. Hale's manner of
• quoting. Page 48 of his Inquiry., Slc, he quotes Dr. Gould as fol-
lows, in regard to a specimen of Charles River water, " Animalcules
of several kinds are detected without difficulty." This is given as
Dr. Gould's statement. Now what is Dr. Gould's language ? " Ani-
malcules of several kinds are detected without difficulty by a micros-
cope^ upon allowing the waters to settle and pouring off the top."
Now this is an important qualification ; and as not one pei^son in a
1^
thousand has a microscope, I submit that Mr. Hale's quotation cannot
be true, and is therefore a misrepresentation of Dr. Gould, whose pro-
position undoubtedly is true.
The following extracts will place this matter in its true position.
They are from Dr. Gould's Letter to Dr. Channing, an authority I
regard as highly as any one. " In lakes or ponds of water, which
may be called standing water, they (animalcules) will be found in
greater abundance than in river or running loater.'''' Again : " They
are much more abundant in stagnant than in running water.''"' Again :
" Though they may be in myriads at some little shalloio tnarginal
nook, they loill scarcely be found at all at the flowing outlet, although
it be the same water of the same pond.'''' (This last was Dr. Jackson's
experience of Long Pond water in 1834.) And the following is
worthy of very particular consideration, " their presence indicates
impurity in the water; and that which abounds most in them maybe
pretty safely set down as 7nost impure.'''' Can language be plainer,
can ground for inference be stronger, that the water of rivers is more
pure than the water of ponds .? And this not only in regard to animal-
cules, but to other organic matters which give life and sustenance to
them.
Here then we have the doctrine I contend for ; and now how do
facts agree with it. Dr. Jackson analyzed for Mr. Baldwin 9 differ-
ent waters, viz. Spot Pond, Waltham Pond, Sandy Pond, Baptist Pond,
Ponkapog Pond, Massapog Pond, Long Pond, Farm Pond, and Charles
River ; and what was the result as to animalcules .? In six out of
the eight ponds he found animalcules ; hni found none in Charles Ri-
ver. Again, Dr. Jackson analyzed 6 specimens of pond water for
Mr. Eddy in 1836, and what was the result.^ In every one, with a
single exception, he found animalcules. Besides the discoveries of
the Doctor, I have inspected a great many specimens of Charles Ri-
ver water, and I have never been able to discover any animalcules
with the naked eye. I have also inspected many specimens of Long
Pond water, and have often seen them alive and active. Citizens
were invited to call at the mayor and aldermen's room, just before
the vote on the water-act, to inspect several specimens of water. I
called, and took particular notice that while the specimen of Charles
River water was free from these creatures, all the specimens of pond
water (Long Pond included) abounded with them.
It is matter of some surprise to see with what zeal and industry
Dr. Channing, and after him, Mr. Hale, endeavor to break down all
distinction between one water, or one kind of water, and another,
in regard to animalcules, as if there were absolutely no degrees of
better and worse, pertaining to them. They seem to insist, with a
pertinacity worthy of having the truth to support and justify theniy
that all waters in this respect are alike, and that "the only remedy
against them is, to avoid too curious a search by microscopic eyes,"
&c. But they are supported by neither theory or fact, at home ; nor
are the consumers- across the ocean so accustomed to their presence,
or so indifferent to it, as we might be led to infer from extracts of
evidence given by Mr. Hale. As I deem the matter of considerable
importance, and as I believe the evil can be, and ought to be, in a
great degree, guarded against at the outset, and we and future gen-
erations be spared the disgust of witnessing forever these crea-
tures in our drink, I propose to quote somewhat more largely from
the testimony of Dr. Clark and others, before the Parliamentary com-
missioners referred to by Mr. Hale, than he has done.
Dr. Clark was professor of Chemistry in the University of Aber-
deen. He appears to have given much attention to water, to its ordi-
nary impurities, and to the most effectual method of removing them.
His examination before the commissioners was long and minute ; and
he was obviously a witness whose opinions were considered as enti-
tled to great weight.
" Question 41. Is the presence of water insects of any conse-
quence, and is that peculiar to London water, or have you found
them in the water of other districts in England > Answer. Those
insects are not peculiar to the London waters, hut the London are the
jirst of the waters supplied for the use of the inhahiiants of Towns, in
which J EVER, saw them. They are not general in the waters of other
towns, at least in Scotland, (Aberdeen, his residence, is in Scotland,)
AND ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND EXCEPT IN SUCH WATERS AS ARE
NOT IN A CHOICE STATE Fo:i DRINKING. They are an indication in
general of a vegetating process going on (in) the water; I think I
have observed, from examining a great variety of specimens of water
kept in glass vessels, that the two things generally go together, (viz.)
the vegetating process and the breeding of those insects. Either cir-
cumstance I should apprehend to be a presumption of the other, and
TO INDICATE A STATE OF WATER UNFIT FOR DRINKING."
The above question and answer I regard as exceedingly pertinent.
I shall have more to say of these London waters ; but I copy the next
question and answer to show the effect of the-e impurities upon the
consumption of water by those classes of inhabitants in London which
ought to be the greatest consumers.
" Question 42. Can you state what effect on health is likely to
ensue from the constant use of water containing animal or vegetable
impurities ? Ans. I am not prepared to make any statement upon
that subject ; nor am I aware that, in regard to a question of so much
17
interest, there has been much accurate information obtained. How-
ever, there is one very obvious consideration as regards the health of
the inhabitants, that if you have water not jit for drinking, in which
there is matter offensive in any degree, by so much as the water is
offensive you lessen the habit of drinking water. Now you cannot
restrict the supply of water to such quality as is naturally repulsive
— you cannot thus render the inhabitants abstinent from water, with-
out interfering with the healthful functions of their bodies. It was
with no small concern that I learned how few of the inhabitants of
London, and especially of the lower oders, drink water. In
making my experiments upon these (London) waters, when I inquir-
ed of the servants about me how they liked particular waters, it was
with perfect surprise I discovered that they — generally mere lads —
knew nothing about the taste of the water. They are the same sort
of persons as would be accustomed to drink water in other places, but
they have another beverage here.""
And what beverage do the friends and advocates of Temperance
think would be likely to be resorted to under such circumstances ?
" Question 82. Are the animalcules of which you speak those visible
to the naked eye, or those which you discovered by a microscope .''
Ans. I speak only of such as I have observed by the naked eye ;
but it is wonderful how the naked eye improves in its power of ob-
servation by some practice in watching those animalcules.
'■'■Question 83. Have you found any water supplied to the Metro-
polis more especially characterized by those animalcules than other.?
Ans. I found the animalcules to abound in the waters of all the
companies."
This answer requires some qualification or explanation ; Mr. Wick-
steed, engineer of East London Water Company, in answer to the
Question (4527) "are there insects in the water (of the East London
Company) in hot weather V answers, " Not that I am aware of ; I
have not seen any." Quest. 4516, to same, " Where is your water
taken from } Ans. From the River Lea, near Lea-bridge."
From this testimony of Mr. Wicksteed, there can be no reason to
doubt that the Lea-waters, distributed by the East London Com-
pany, are an exception to Dr. Clark's assertion ; and his answer
probably should be understood as true only under the circumstance
of having received a quantity of it at Aberdeen from Mr. Wicksteed,
and having " kept the water for a long time in open vessels in a large
laboratory." {Quest. 27.) Under such circumstances animalcules
may have been developed.
" Question 84. Do you find this common ? Ans. I have never
found them (animalcules) in the Scotch waters that I have been ac-
3
18
customed to in Towns, nor indeed had I ever observed them at all
in any town's water, till I examined London water.
" Question 85. Do you think the poor inhabitants of London are
prevented from drinking the water supplied to them from finding
objectionable matter in it ? Ans. Certainly."
" Question 96. You have seen the mode in which it was proposed
by the late Mr. Telford to furnish an increased supply of water (to
the Metropolis) ? A7is. Yes. Quest. 97. He proposed to take it
from Hertfordshire on one side, and Surry on the other ; what opinion
have you formed as to the modes suggested ? Ans. My real im-
pression, from a consideration of the whole subject of water in con-
nection with London, is, that the source of supply that should not be
departed from is the Thames ; it is so copious. Then, with regard
to the supply of water to London from a distance, there are many
points that one would like to know beforehand ; for instance, I fOund
some water in the neighborhood of Watford, in one of the rivers, the
Gade, about one half harder than the water here (London). One
vv'ould require to know a little more about the hardness of all the
waters that have been proposed to be brought to London, and to
Jcnow ichether there would not be a tendency to vegetation in the course
from the source to London. I do not mean absolutely to say there
would be as much vegetation as we now have in the London waters ;
but, I should like to see, from the experience of other places, whether
such would not be the result. My opinion is, that there would be as
much vegetation and as many insects as from those loaters.''''
'•'•Question 98. On the whole, from your consideration of the sub-
ject, you think the Thames would probably be the source from which
to derive the additional supply to the Metropolis ? Ans. For this
reason, as well as others, that where there is such a river there is an
inexhaustible supply ; and there are so many instances where, having
started with a limited supply, the inhabitants have experienced consi-
derable inconvenience from a deficiency, that I do not think it would
be desirable to look for a supply from any source but a large river."
I now notice the evidence of Mr. Robert Thorn, quoted by Mr.
Hale. He appears to have been the engineer for supplying Green-
ock, Paisley, and Air with water ; and plans for supplying other
towns were furnished by him, but the duties of his business (cotton
spinning,) rendered it impossible for him to attend to their execution.
In describing his plan, he says (Quest. 109) " The distinguishing
features of my plan are, the obtaining some natural basin at a suffi-
cient height, either in itself containing a large supply of water, or into
which a great extent of surface can be drained. Thus -a reservoir is
formed, which I take care shall be deep enough to maintain the water
19
at a low temperature^ and to prevent the hreeding of insects and the
growth of vegetables ; and capacious enough to hold at least 4 months''
supply of water. ''^ These are the features of his plan, to find, or make,
a reservoir which shall hold in a state of stagnation 4 months supply
at least. And though it is a part of his plan to " take care" that
this reservoir shall be " deep enough to prevent the breeding of
insects," can any body doubt that he tells the truth when he says he
" had seen animalcules in the water in particular parts of Scotland !"
and particularly " wherever the water was shallow and warm,"
which of course was not in his own reservoirs which were deep and
cool. It is needless to call the attention of the reader to the different
views of a source entertained by Mr. Thorn and Dr. Clark, who
would look to no other than a " large river."
Besides the fact stated by Dr. Clark that insects in water prevent
the consumption of it by classes which ought, and under other circum-
stances would, use it freely as a drink, we may get some apprecia-
tion of the importance attached to the matter by several witnesses
examined before the commission.
Dr. Clark speaks of the importance of having reservoirs neither too
large nor too small ; not too large, lest the process of vegetation and
of breeding insects should be promoted ; and not too small, lest an op-
portunity for settling should not be afforded. Mr. Thorn feels obliged
to make" his ponds of 4 months' supply, deep and cool, to prevent
animalcules being developed. Mr. Haivkesby, the resident engineer
of the Trent water works at Nottingham, says (Quest. 5330) " if we
observe the growth of certain small aquatic plants, or — more espe-
cially if we remark ascending to the surface of the water small bubbles
produced by gases resulting from the decomposition of organic mat-
ter, we know that a haiitat is being formed for insects, and that if this
process be not arrested, insects will soon make their appearance in
considerable numbers ; we therefore infer from these early indica-
tions that the time has arrived at which it becomes prudent to antici-
pate the coming depuration of the water by cleansing out the reser-
voir." And at the Southwark works in London, where the Thames
water has animalcules, in order to have the water as free as possible
from them (Quest. 5933) " in summer weather we frequently let the
water out (of the reservoirs) in the afternoon, and take in a supply of
cool water for next day's distribution," is the statement of Mr. Quick,
the engineer.
Hence, although the inhabitants of London are to a great extent
afflicted with the presence of these noxious creatures in their water,
and on that account forego to a great extent the taste of it, year in
and year out, in its natural state ; and although Mr. Thorn discovered
20
them in Scotland "whenever the water was shallow and warm," yet
there is no doubt that their presence is everywhere in Great Britain
regarded as a nuisance of a serious character, and to be guarded
against by all the precautions and remedies which science and ex-
perience can render available. We can discover no symptoms of
indifference to them among the people, nor manifestation of faith in
the doctrine that " the only remedy against them is, to avoid too
curious a search," &c. The remedy of the paupers of London is to
go without the water, or mix spirits with it to disguise its disgusting
quality ; and we ought hardly to feel any disappointment, if a like feel-
ing and a like habit should prevail here under like circumstances.
But Mr. Hale informs his readers " that the London companies ob-
tain their supply exclusively from rivers or springs — chiefly from
the Thames — and none of them from ponds."
The London water works derive their supplies from the Thames,
the River Lea, and what is called the New River. We have seen,
from the testimony of Mr. Wicksteed, for many years the engineer of
the East London Company, that the water drawn by him from the
River Lea is free from visible animalcules. It remains, then, to
consider those circumstances of the Thames and the New River to
which the breeding of these insects is probably to be attributed.
Although Dr. Clark found animalcules in the water of such Lon-
don companies as take the water of the Thames " much above any
part affected by the sewage of London," yet it certainly is not above
the influence of other causes which are known to favor the develop-
ment of these creatures. The tides of the river affect the rise, fall,
and stagnation of the water, many miles above the point where water
is taken by any London company. Steamboats are continually ply-
ing up and down the river, going as far as Richmond at least.
The natural current of the stream is therefore rendered sluggish,
and entirely checked at high water. Besides, there are numerous
densely populated towns on the margin, the sewage of which proba-
bly flows into the river, and may be as prolific in this species of nui-
sance as the sewage of London. The town of Brentford, celebrated
for mud and filth, is so situated, and probably so drained; and also
other towns. So that below the lock or locks at Tedington, the
Thames may be said to lose the essential character of a river, or
running stream, and acquires that of a turbid arm of the sea. It is
no more to be expected that the water of the Thames should be free
from animalcules in the parts under consideration, than those of the
Mississippi should be below St. Louis, where we know they abound.
The flow of each is altogether too sluggish to check the development
of the nuisance in question.
21
And how is it with New River, the supply of the oldest water com-
pany, whose works were completed in 1613, — 232 years ago?
"The supply is from the springs of Chadwell and Armwell (two
thirds) with additional supply (one third) out of the (river) Lea, near
Chadwell in Hertfordshire, which is about twenty miles from London,
in direct distance ; but the course of the river is about thirty-nine miles."
This supply being originally from springs and a river, and the same
river which gives the East London works water without animalcules,
we must look to adventitious circumstances for their development
between the source and the delivery of the water. And what are the
circumstances which might be expected to produce such a result.?
In the first place, the water traverses an artificial channel of great
extent, near forty miles, open and exposed to light and air, very slug'
gish in its current from two causes, viz. its circuitous course — going
round two miles to gain one — and from its very slight fall — being
only three inches in the mile. These are just such circumstances as
are calculated to create an a joHon expectation of animalcules; and
joined to the fact, that in a good many places the stream becomes quite
wide, and therefore "shallow and warm," we should be rather sur-
prised if animalcules did not appear. It will be remembered that Dr.
Clark gave as a reason for not quitting the Thames for a supply,
that he thought the tendency to vegetation and breeding insects in
the water, during its course from a distant source to London, would
produce as many as were in the Thanties, (see above, p. 18.) It is
not unlikely that he had in his mind the example of the New River
in this respect.
In the ser-.ond place, it is not unlikely that the very extensive reser-
voirs of this company contribute to the development of this nuisance.
I name this as a cause which may operate, though I am not at all
certain of the fact. The reservoirs are very extensive, and the water
lies stagnant in them some time ; and if not long enough to generate
animalcules, still it may aid preexisting causes of development.
It seems to me, therefore, that the existence of animalcules in the
New River water and the Thames water, under the circumstances of
the case, does not at all weaken the general doctrine in regard to
river and running water, nor blend the distinction I have endeavored
to consider and establish between river and pond water.
And here I close what I have to .lay on the subject of animalcules ;
entering my protest against all statements and arguments going to
show that there is no distinction in waters in regard to them ; believ-
ing that such statements and arguments are falacious and deceptive.
The foregoing facts and statements I believe sufficient to establish
beyond controversy, that there is a distinction between river and pond
2^
water, and, of course, between Charles River water and Long Pond
water, which is worthy of influence upon the judgment of the com-
munity in electing between them. On the influence which this
distinction shall have, may depend the fact whether the citizens of
Boston, in all coming time, shall have foreign water suitable and
popular for drinking^ or fit for ivashing and cleansing only.
There are some peculiar circumstances, worthy of a passing notice,
attending Charles River. The fact that its stream, from the
mouth to the source, is but a succession of ponds, affords the water
peculiar facilities for becoming clear of sediment ; while the constant
ingress and egress of the whole contents of the river, into and out of
each of these ponds every day, changes the water so often and so
rapidly that no suitable time is allowed for the development of any
processes of vegetation or of breeding insects. In dry times, the
ponds fill up by night and are drawn off" by day ; and this to such an
extent, that probably scarcely a hogshead of the water lies in bulk,
unmixed with other portions, for eight and forty hours together, unless
it be in some nook or eddy. This constant alternation of rest and
motion is a most favorable promoter of purity ; so that in dog-days,
when one would take a drink of Charles River water, he will feel a
moral assurance that it has not been ten days from the springs, and
in its course has been subjected to a succession of purifying processes ;
while, in regard to that of Long Pond, he will feel a like assurance
that it has been steeping near six months on the marshes and peat
bogs of Natick, without having undergone any purifying process at
all, except what results from perfect stagnation : a process, which, if
.it tends to purify in one way, most certainly tends to rendei impure
in another. Within ten yards of the point in Long Pond, whence it
is proposed to take the water, as laid down on the map, is an ex-
tensive swamp, the hillocks and mounds of which are submerged
when the water is high, and left dry when the water is low. This
swamp is full of all manner of vegetable growth, from the white birch
and alder, down through all grades of aquatic shrubs and plants.
All this vegetable growth deposits its foliage and stems in the pond
annually, where it lies and decays in mass ; and this, right at the
mouth of the proposed tunnel.
Second Proposition.
The Waters of Charles River are vastly more abundant than those
of Long Pond.
The commissioners of 1844 say (p. 25) : " The maximum supply
which, in their opinion, can be held in reserve (in Long Pond) by
artijficial means, for regular and permanent use, is computed not far
to exceed twelve feet per second." This is more than I can see
good reason to regard as a minimum, and it is a minimum which in
this connection we want. There is, in my judgment, serious ground
to doubt whether any artificial means can infallibly supply twelve
feet per second. It confessedly depends upon snow and rain ; for
the springs do not sometimes yield one sixth of that quantity, and the
average natural yield is less than one half. And snow and rain are,
in the wisdom of Providence, sometimes in a great degree withheld.
The system does not rely upon the natural resources of the pond, to
yield half that amount ; and the artifcial ones proposed, are subject
to all the liabilities to failure which must necessarily attend experi-
ments of this nature.
But of the amount in Charles River, in the dryest seasons, there
can be no doubt. In this connection, I wish to put upon record the
following statements, furnished me in a letter from Lemuel Crehore,
Esq., of Newton Lower Falls, dated Feb. 22, 1845. He says :
" After years of controversy between the proprietors of mills on
Mill Creek (or Mother Brook, as it is more usually called,) and the
Neponset, and those on Charles River, some time about 1832, an
agreement was matured between the parlies, that one third of the
water should pass to the former, and two thirds to the latter ; and in
1840, to carry into full effect the stipulation, two canals were con-
structed, the one on the Creek, (or Mother Brook,) twenty feet wide,
that on Charles Biver, forty feet wide, and each twenty rods, or three
hundred and thirty feet, in length. The sides are walled two feet
high, and the bottoms level with timbers across every twenty feet,
and kept perfectly smooth.
" That (canal) in the (Mother) Brook, or Creek, is situated im-
mediately north of the old road leading to Dedliam village ; that on
the Charles River, about one mile above the dam at the Upper Falls
(in Newton.) These were completed in the summer and autumn of
1840.
" To determine whether the object had been effected with accuracy
by what had been done, sundry comparative admeasurements were
made in the two canals, during the low stages of the water, in 1841,
and occasionally at subsequent periods. In 1841, the follov^ing were
the results in the Charles River branch : —
Inches.
min. sec.
Cub. ft. per S.
July 23—14 deep
on
sills.
Velocity
5 4,
330 feet
= 50 2-3
" 24—14 "
"
IC
<(
5 26,
"
l(
" 43 1-2
" 26—12 "
CI
It
"
7 0,
((
C[
" 31 3-7
" 29—12 "
tf
C(
"
6 0,
(1
It
" 36 1-2
Aug. 3 — 12J "
(f
t[
i[
5 40,
IE
"
" 39 2-3
" r— 13 "
It
tc
IC
4 40,
((
l(
" 51
" 24—121 "
"
"
((
4 45,
(1
II
" 47 17-57
Sept. 4 — 143 "
it
II
l(
3 4,
11
(i
" 72
24
" In 1843, 1 have been able to find but one memorandum of an ad-
measurement, which was probably at its lowest.
Aug. 3 — 131 in. deep. Velocity 5 min. 30 sec, = 44 32-33 ft. per sec."
In 1844, obstruction in the river was discovered, so that, instead
of one third, something more than one half the water was found run-
ning through the Motherbrook Canal. " After its removal, (i. e., the
obstruction,) no rains intervening to materially affect the stream, it
was measured, and the results were as follows ; —
July 26 — 14 in deep. Velocity 5 m. 0 sec, = 51 1-2 ft. per sec.
Aug. 4 — 15 " " " 4 " 30 " " 61 1-27 " "
« i7_i7 1' « « 3" 30 " " 882-21 " "
"These admeasurements were made, and minutes preserved, by
Mr. A. C. Curtis, agent for the proprietors on Charles River, from
whom I procured them.
" In addition to what flows through the canal, at the place of ad-
measurement, there falls into Charles River below, Garfield's Brook,
Rice & Parker's Brook, Stoney Brook, Waltham Brook, (between
upper and lower factories in Waltham,) Major Jackson's Brook, and
Baptist Pond Brook at Watertown, (all) which may be safely esti-
mated at one fifth in (additional) quantity."
It is worth remarking that the velocity, in the above instances, was
measured by putting light substances afloat. Now it is very apparent
that causes might operate materially to retard the speed of the float-
ing body, so as to show that speed considerably less than that of the
water ; but no cause could operate to give the floating body a greater
velocity than the water which bore it : so that, whatever errors may
have resulted from the imperfect mode of operation, it is almost
certain they are on one side, that is, they made the quantity less than
it really was.
In my Remarks, I did not feel inclined to attach much importance
to the greater quantity of water in Charles River than in Long Pond ;
because I did not see reason to believe that the city would ever
require more than twelve feet per second, or seven millions gallons
per day. But since those Remarks were published, I have heard so
much about the importance of an " abundant," " never failing" sup-
ply to the city, " for all coming time," &c., that I can hardly be
blamed if I catch a little of this expansive spirit, and inquire
whether Long Pond is the source which can supply it ; and if the
"abundance" confessed to be in Charles River, is not worthy of
more weight than I have hitherto been disposed to claim for it.
However unfortunate it may have been in other respects, it is
certainly a great advantage to me, that the commissioners of 1837
were divided in their opinions. It gave occasion to Mr. Baldwin to
urge some very strong objections upon his colleagues ; and it gives
me occasion to avail myself of some very appropriate answers, i. e.,
25
appropriate on the supposition that the demand for water will be as
great as those commissioners, and also those of 1844, suppose.
One of Mr. Baldwin's objections was, that the works recommended
by the majority, (Mr. Hale and Mr. Treadwell,) were not adequate
for such an increase of population as he contemplated ; and that, if
adopted, the city would go on in "• piecemeal way," " and never
satisfy the wants of the citizens." Mr. Baldwin (who was in favor of
Long Pond) probably did not dream that he was to be met by his as-
sociates on his own ground, and to be battled with his own weapon,
and in a manner too perfectly indefensible ; but so it was. The
majority say (p. 56) : " Let us look a little farther into the future.
When the population shall have increased to 240,000, which may be
in thirty or forty years, all the water which will be supplied by tho
conduit from Long Pond to Corey's Hill, or all the water from
Long Pond, will be required for their use, and an additional
population can only he supplied by neiv ivorks.'''' " It appears^ there-
fore, that additions loill be required to the works, ivhichever plan may
be adojjted.''''
With such prognostications as this before them, it ill becomes those
who advocate Long Pond, to dwell upon its capacity to furnish a per-
manent and everlasting supply for the use of the city, when, by the
prediction of one who is the most prominent in their ranks, it may be
entirely drained in thirty years. If any confidence at all is to be placed
upon such opinions, then certainly it does become a matter of serious
consequence whether the selected source will furnish forty cubic feet
per second cer^ainZj/, or only twelve, and that proiZemaficaZZ^. I will
just add, that the commissioners of 1837 estimated the yield of Long
Pond about 12^ per cent, greater than those of 1844. How the next
board would estimate it is doubtful.
Third Proposition.
The water of Charles River can he introduced into the City at vastly
less expense than that of Long Pond.
In my Rebiarks, in supporting this proposition, I went upon the
supposition " that enough was as good as a feast " — that an ade-
quate, and even liberal, supply of the present wants of the city, with
provision for increased demand, arising from a more general habit of
using the water, and from increase of population, was just as valuable
as a supply four or five times greater than can at present be wanted^
and which must run to waste till a demand shall be created. But Mr.
Hale, I suppose, would hardly agree to this doctrine. " If it (what I
26
would save in providing for the supply when wanted and not lefore) is
to be regarded as a saving, it is a saving purchased at the sacrifice of
4,500,000 gallons in the amount of supply." Well, if the supply be
4,500,000 gallons greater than can be used, and will run to waste if
attained, where is the sacrifice ? It is very easy to talk about an
abundance of pure water, and it is easy to talk about the magnitude
and magnificence of the cost that shall furnish it ; but really that
abundance is utterly valueless which cannot be appropriated, and
that magnitude of scale and expenditure is a public loss which is un-
called for by public use and convenience.
In the Eemarks, I undertook to show that a sufficient supply of
water from Charles River can be delivered into the same reservoir at
the same place, and that the quantity can be regularly increased till
it equals in amount that from Long Pond, at an expense but little
more than half the estimates for bringing 7,000,000 gallons from
Long Pond.
Reasoning, as I could, on the data before me, and the best opinions
I could form, I arrived at this conclusion, viz. — " So far then, as the
city supply is concerned, it seems that the larger work of bringing
water from Long Pond, possesses absolutely no advantage whatever
over the smaller one, of bringing it from Charles River ; and of
course that the expenditure of $436,000, which the larger is esti-
mated to cost more than the smaller, is a sheer waste of so much
public money, for which the public derive no benefit whatever."
What were the data and opinions which formed the groundwork of
such conclusion ? I will state them.
1st. That the demand for water, when the loorks should he com-
pleted, would not exceed ten gallons a day, for every man, woman,
and child in the whole city ; and that this demand might regularly
increase till it reached twenty-eight gallons per head daily in thirty
years.
2d. That the number of inhabitants at the completion of the works
might be 120,000 ; and that this might increase to 180,000 in fifteen
years.
3d. That the estimates of 1837, in regard to Charles River as a
source, loere to he relied upon ; and might be reduced in the ratio
that coal and other leading articles had since fallen in price ; and
also somewhat by the increased facility in the manufacture of en-
gines, &c.
If I had any success in showing that these points were to be relied
upon, or if in reviewing them now, I can establish them as sound,
the conclusion I before came to, that near half a million of dollars
could certainly be saved by resorting to Charles River, must be re-
27
garded as established and confirmed. But if I should fail to establish
each of these positions, it will not by any means follow that Charles
River should be abandoned ; for I shall maintain that the whole
7,000,000 gallons (which is all that Long Pond can supply) can be
delivered now, at the outset, into the reservoir on Cory''s Hill, cheaper
than it is estimated to bring the same quantity from Long Pond.
This proposition being established, it becomes a matter of inferior
moment whether the former positions be established or not.
The first point I propose to review is, Will the demand for water^
at the completion of the works, exceed ten gallons per day for every
inhabitant, as well those who do not take the water as those who do ;
and will the demand, arising from a more general habit of taking the
loater, carry up the consumption to twenty-eight gallons jjer head per
day in less than thirty years ? Will the present demand exceed ten
gallons per head of the whole population? I think not, because I can
find no instance on record where such a consumption has occurred at
first ; and I know of no reason why more should be expected of
Boston, under such circumstances, than of other places vastly more
deficient in water than Boston is.
Before I proceed farther, I will notice what I regard as a great
error in Mr. Hale's representation of the consumption in Philadelphia.
He limits himself to the city, leaving out the districts, and makes the
consumption come up to twenty-eight gallons or more for each inhab-
itant. Now every one conversant with this matter, knows that the city
of Philadelphia is but the central portion of what is usually under-
stood by Philadelphia. It is the central region cut out from the sub-
urbs, or districts as they are there called. Thus we are accustomed
to hear of the Navy Yard at Philadelphia ; but Philadelphia city has no
navy yard ; it is in a district. The city of Philadelphia is the central
and wealthy portion of that mass of population which lives upon the
business of the place ; while the working classes, the mechanics,
artisans and laborers, are found in the districts. In other words, the
inhabitants of the city are precisely the folks who will take water,
while the inhabitants of the districts are those who, to considerable
extent, will not, because they cannot afford it. Now if Boston were
supplied with water, it would be just as absurd to select a half dozen
streets, where necessity or choice should induce every occupant to
take it, and hold them up as an example of the consumption of water
in this city, as to abstract the city of Philadelphia from its suburbs,
and hold that up as an example. The true way and the only way
worthy of the slightest regard, is to take the tvhole water district, as
well the suburbs as the city. You then get the mass composed of all
classes ; those who can and will, and those who cannot and will not,
28
take the water. Hence, although Mr. Hale may be correct in stating
that the city consumes twenty-eight or even more gallons per day
per head, so is Mr. Shatluck doubtless correct in stating that the con-
sumption of the loater disLrict is only eighteen gallons per day per
head. Now which is the true method to adopt ^ Most certainly the
principle adopted by Mr. Shattuck is the true one. Mr. Hale may,
with propriety, say that such a principle does not give a perfectly
true result, because there are parts of the districts to which pipes do
not extend, and that of course the option of taking is not extended to
all. This may be true ; but it only shows the difficulty of making a
calculation that is entirely correct — it no way justifies the use of
one obviously and clearly incorrect.
I am aware that Mr. Hale makes the distinction, and speaks clearly
enough of the city ; and yet, from keeping out of view the true cha-
racter of the city and the true character of the districts, and the inti-
mate connection between them, and limiting himself to the consump-
tion of the city alone, I think he has done the subject injustice, and
induced others to form notions of the consumption of water, which
well-established general facts, or even all the facts of this particular
case, will not at all justify.
Philadelphia city was supplied with foreign water about 1780, and
has had it ever since. Successive works have been erected, the pre-
sent one having gone into operation in 1822. In 1826, the districts
were supplied ; and at the end of 1831 the consumption of the whole
water district was about 11 gallons per head per day. Now consid-
ering that the city portion of the water district had taken foreign water
50 years, and the district portion had taken it for over 5 years, and
the whole had arrived at a consumption of only 11 gallons, is it un-
reasonable to suppose that the city commenced with much less, and
that it would be a very moderate time to allow hoth 10 years to come
up to a consumption of 10 gallons per head per day ? If so, how
very liberal is it to allow Boston to commence with a consumption
which was not attained there in less than 10 years.
Besides Philadelphia, Mr. Hale takes London as an example. Mr.
Hale affirms, on the authority of the evidence taken before the Parlia-
mentary commission in 1843 and '4, that the consumption of the
Metropolis was equal to 24^ imperial, or near 29 wine gallons to each
inhabitant. I suppose Mr. Hale took this from Mr. Wicksteed,
(Quest. 4484.) It is only an estimate or supposition, not derived from
actual data ; and though an opinion, or off-hand estimate of Mr. W.
is generally worthy of confidence, yet I think this is not. For as
London is supplied by eight different and independent companies,
nothing can be clearer than that nobody could be authorized to speak
29
for them all. The agent or engineer of each company might speak
for that company and for no other ; and from these answers of all,
an aggregate might be made up. Mr. W's. statement was made
merely as a basis to calculate the expense of pumping, and not to
give any information as to the quantity consumed.
Now in the volume above referred to is the testimony of several of
the engineers of the different companies, to which I beg to call the
reader's attention. W, C. Mylne, the engineer of the New River
Company, (as his father was before him,) states (Quest. 5760) that
" the population within the district is nearly 900,000 individuals :"
that is, nearly half the population of the metropolis ; and I believe it
is generally supposed that this company supplies about as much water
as all the other companies. Quest. 5716, "What is the quantity of
water at present (March 21, 1844) distributed by the New River
Company .? Ans. The average annual quantity of water supplied
by the New River works for the last 3 years has been 614,087,768
cubic feet." A cubic foot is 74 wine gallons. Hence the amount
furnished annually is 4,605,658,260 wine gallons ; or 12,618,242 gal-
lons per day. Apportion this quantity among 900,000 individuals,
and it gives to each almost exactly 14 gallons per day. Now I do
not see where there is room for error in coming to this result.
Mr. Wicksteed puts the consumption in the East London district
at 18 gallons daily per head. 1 suspect he means those who take it,
but it is not certain. Mr. Quick, the engineer of the Southwark
Co., computes that district (Quest. 5874.5 and 5926) to contain
23,000 tenants ; — 18000 take water, and 5,000 do not. At 6 indi-
viduals to a tenant, the population is 138,000, and the supply is
2,160,000 gallons per day, which yields 15f gallons per head per
day. In regard to 1000 of their tenants, Mr. Quick remarks they
are " consumers, having manufactories, tanners, fellmongers, hair-
washers, glue-makers, curriers, dyers, hatters, brewers, distillers,
steam engines, railway stations, hospitals, &c. which take large
supplies."
Now taking what I suppose, but do not know, to be true, that the
gallons of Mr. Wicksteed and Mr. Quick are imperial, equal to about
5 quarts, and that Mr. Wicksteed allows 18 gallons to each inhabitant,
(which I doubt) the supply to an inhabitant in East London district is
near 23 wine gallons, and in Southwark district about 19 wine gallons.
The supply of New River we have seen is . 14 gallons
East London is ..... 23 "
Southwark is ...... 19 "
3)56
Average . . . 18|
30
Here then we have the particulars of 3 out of the 8 water districts
of London ; and we find that the average supply to each inhabitant daily
cannot exceed 18| wine gallons. Now what can there be in the
other 5 districts, embracing a population that cannot exceed 6 or
700,000, or say £ of the New River district, that can call for such an
enormous consumption of water as shall not only go themselves, but
shall carry all the other districts with them, embracing twice their
own population, up to 28J- gallons per day ? It is utterly preposte-
rous to suppose any such thing.
On the contrary there are abundant reasons for supposing that the
remaining districts would not increase the average, but rather dimin-
ish it ; for it is well known that the west of London embriices the
population which quits the Metropolis in the warm weather, and is
also more free from manufactories than the more central and eastern
parts. I can therefore find no reason to suppose that the actual eon-
sumption of London at this moment exceeds 18 wine gallons per day
per head.
And I find the common statements of the enormous consumption of
water in London have not passed without suspicion on that side of the
water. Mr. Thorn, whom Mr. Hale quotes, says in relation to them,
" I have seen them and heard them explained. Judging from my
knowledge of the facts in other towns, I should say that the quantities
set down were seldom delivered ;" and afterwards he says " these
facts lead me to question reports which state the family supply beyond
13 (16 wine) gallons, per diem. In London, doubtless, the quantity
used for watering streets, for public works and the like, must be very
great."
B. G. Soper, Esq., resident in London, who made a report upon
the filtration of water, (p. 168, Appendix,) is incredulous in regard
to the reported large quantities of water consumed in families. He
says : " I will state some experiments I have recently made to
ascertain the real quantity of water consumed in a private family.
These experiments have convinced me that there is considerable mis-
statement or miscalculation on the subject of the supply of water to
private houses.
" My family consists of five grown persons and six children ;"
have two cisterns, both together of a capacity of one hundred and
fifty imperial gallons ; " the water being turned on three times a
•week, if both cisterns were entirely empty before the water came in,
the total consumption would be four hundred and fifty gallons per
week." But from repeated guages, is certain that the " whole con-
sumption of water in my family does not exceed three hundred and
fifteen gallons per week, or forty -five gallons per day." This being
for eleven persons, is about four imperial, or five wine, gallons per
head, per day. He adds, " that from twenty to twenty-four dozen of
linen are washed in the house, weekly," and " I am not aware that
any economy is particularly practised by the servants, or that there
is a deficiency in the common amount of scouring and waste usually
practised." After such an experiment, he might well doubt the usual
estimates.
William Gravatt, (p. 259,) the engineer of contemplated works at
Bristol, intended the works to be competent to afford twenty gallons,
per day, to each inhabitant ; but says, " the quantity persons actually
require, is very much less. I have taken some pains to find out what
quantity of water which families, who are cleanly, and are abundantly
supplied, would use. I have (at Bristol) allowed twenty gallons a
head, but the quantity that a family will use is only four gallons a
head each day," (or five wine gallons, agreeing in this respect with
Mr. Soper's experiment.) He adds further : " The actual consump-
tion of water of an English family — a man and his wife and three
children — taking the cleanest of several families of the working
classes, was under twenty gallons a day, (or four gallons, five wine
gallons, a piece.) This is far greater than the average of a great
number ; where I saw, on going into their houses, that they were
clean, I .ascertained this to exceed by far the quantity they could
use."
Having then, as I conceive, shown that in regard to both, London
and Philadelphia, the consumption of water ought not to be taken at
over eighteen or twenty gallons per head per day, instead of twenty-
eight and a half, as taken by Mr. Hale ; I will now refer to the con-
sumption of other places, which are esteemed to be well furnished
with water. Mr. Thorn, as quoted by Mr. Hale, says, " the quantity
supplied to Glasgow did not amount to thirteen (sixteen wine) gallons
for each, and nearly one quarter was suffered to run to waste." " In
Perth, the quantity applied to each individual, was only eight gal-
lons. In Grenock and Paisley, where the pipes are kept constantly
full, and there is nothing to prevent the people from using what they
please, the quantity taken is less than twelve (fifteen wine) gallons
for each." "Plymouth has only ten gallons per head — man,
woman and child." At Ashton-under-Lyne, where, according to a
Report of I. R. Coulthart, Esq., the supply is most copious, (p. 75,
appendix,) " fifty-five gallons per day to each house, or ten gallons
per day to each individual," is given ; i. e., to each who take the
water, but considerably less when averaged upon the whole popula-
tion. Large quantities are used for manufactqries which are excluded
in this estimate.
32
At Nottingham, Mr. Hawksley, the engineer, says (p. 136, appen-
dix,) " it is impossible to state the quantity of water consumed by
each class of tenants, as all take it ad libitum. The quantity deliv-
ered by the Trent Water Company, is after the rate of seventeen or
eighteen gallons per diem, or eighty or ninety gallons per house, but
this is inclusive of trade consumption," and is estimated on those who
take the water only, and would be much less if averaged upon the
whole population. The works went into operation in 1831, and in
1844, only two thirds of the houses took water. Mr. Hale refers to
the case of Nottingham (p. 29) ; and unless the reader were particular
to notice the distinction between water-takers or tenants, and . the
whole population, he would be likely to derive a very erroneous im-
pression (as Mr. Hale appears to have done) of the water consumed
in that place per head of the whole population. Mr. Hale goes
through some statistical arguments, the force of which I hardly see,
but the result, I apprehend, is clearly erroneous. There are but four
and a half individuals to a tenement, and Mr. H. infers that each person
has twenty-five wine gallons per day. Now Mr. Hawksley distinctly
states (Q. 5248) that he supposes the consumption in a laborer's
family to be forty gallons per day (or fifty wine gallons) ; which, di-
vided among four and a half persons, is about eleven wine gallons
per head, of those who actually take the water ; and this would be
reduced one third, or say to eight gallons, if averaged upon 50 per
cent, more, or the whole, population. And it is to be kept in mind
that the water-takers here have the water on at all times, and may
draw it, for use or waste as they see fit, at any hour, day or night.
' And as five-eighths, at least, of their tenants appear to be of the
laboring class, it shows that a very large proportion of the water sup-
plied goes to the great consumers, such as " brewers, dye-works,
steam-engines, and inns, and other places of large consumption." •
But Mr. Hale (p. 28 and 29) says : " There are other towns which
are supplied at a rate exceeding the estimate of Mr. Thorn, above
stated. The situation of the town of Preston is described in the
testimony of the Rev. I. Gray (should be Clay) before the above-
mentioned commissioners, as having been very similar, before the
establishment of a water company, to that of Boston at the present
time, except that it is much smaller." Having then a place, acknowl-
edged to have been as Boston is, I suppose the experience of that
place in the enjoyment of water, may be taken to illustrate what that
of Boston will be in the enjoyment of a like blessing. It becomes of
some importance, then, to get at the facts.
In stating this case of Preston, I will quote Mr. Hale's, supplying
in brackets such additional facts or remarks as seem relevant. " Water
was supplied from various sources, wells, pumps, water casks, rain
water cisterns, &c., besides private works erected in 1729 [answer-
ing to our Jamaica Pond works] which afforded a limited supply.
Under an act of Parliament, [obtained in 1832, and took near 2 years
to get into full operation] the Preston Water Works Company had
been established, which brings in an abundant supply of excellent
water from a distance of 7 miles. Already [i. e. in 10 years] more
than half the houses in the town, 5,026 out of 9,994 are supplied with
water by the company, and there is [i. e. was *' during the last three
years"] an increase in the number who take it of about 400 annu-
ally." [If this increase has been regular, what was the original num-
ber of water-takers ?] Omitting a few sentences not important, Mr.
H. goes on thus, " The average supply is about 80 gallons, to each
house daily, factories and public establishments included. [" The
quantity of water provided is at the pleasure of the consumer, the
mains being constantly full and at high pressure."] This is equal to
16 imperial or 21 [20] wine gallons to each individual supplied [but
as only half the individuals are supplied the amount averaged upon
the whole is but 10 gallons] of a chiefly laboring population [like
that of Boston,] and evidently [?] with a small allowance for public
and manufacturing purposes." Evidenily ! "By means of the
company's fire plugs, and carts adapted to the purpose, the police com-
missioners are enabled, in dry weather, to promote the public comfort
and convenience by regularly watering the principal streets." " Fire
plugs are placed in all the streets, &c." in which there are mains.
" The quantity is at the pleasure of the consumer," factories and all.
These quotations are from Mr. Clay, But Mr, Robert Anderson,
manager of the Preston water works, gives some additional facts,
p. 159, Appendix. He says, " Our actual consumption of water is
76 gallons per house (daily,) lut this includes all the large consumers^
OF WHICH WE HAVE A GREAT MAN'V IN MILLS AND RAILWAYS. [Here
is the evidence of " a small allowance for public and manufacturing
purposes."] The average consumption in tenements of the laboring
class — [such, " chiefly,"' as mentioned above] is 45 gallons daily,"
[so that the public and manufacturing purposes consume the " small
allowance" of the difference between 45 and 76 gallons to each indi-
vidual water-taker, or a trifle over 40 per ct. of the whole.
Here then we come to a result in a town which 2oas like Boston,
and which it is expected, in the consumption of water, Bos^ton may-
emulate. After having had a full and abundant supply of water 10
years, half the people take it and half do not ; those who take it con^
sume 15 gallons per head daily, (76 per tenement of little over 5,)
or 19 gallons wine measure; but as only half take it, the consump-
5
34
tion averaged upon the whole population Is 9^ wine gallons per head
per day. And yet I am not considered "liberal" because 1 think
that Boston, whose situation is granted to be similar to that of Pres-
ton, will not require at the outset a supply greater than Preston has
been growing up to in 10 years.
Here I close my reference to the consumption of water in other
places. I have taken considerable pains to come at facts ; and have
endeavored to learn the lesson which experience would teach. It is
idle to suppose that people here are going to do very differently from
what they have done elsewhere ; and so far as we have regard to the
general practice elsewhere, we shall be in no danger of important
errors. I have made no allusion to New York ; for she has so en-
tirely disappointed all calculation, reasonable and unreasonable, that
I believe she is regarded on all hands as an anomaly.
And what does experience teach that bears upon the proposition
under consideration ? Does it teach that when our works are finish-
ed, the demand for water will exceed 10 gallons per head per day ?
Certainly not ; — but on the contrary that this amount is " very libe-
ral," and considerable time will be required to grow up to such a
consumption. Does it teach that the consumption will come to 28
gallons per head per day in less than 30 years .? No such thing ; —
but, on the contrary, that the consumption of Boston will not attain
even to 20 gallons in 30, if it does in 100, years. Here then is a
great gain upon my former estimate ; a gain, sanctioned, as I con-
ceive, by all experience without exception. Should, therefore, any
one consider the minimum of 10 gallons to begin with too small, but
that 20, as a maximum, is sufficient, he may considerably increase
this minimum, without at all impairing the general result of my
former calculations; while those who think 10 gallons to begin with,
and 20 gallons to grow up to, are quite adequate and sufficient, will
not fail to notice how very far within the truth those calculations
really are.
The second element, assumed by me as a basis to estimate the
demand for water, was, tJiat the population of Boston might be 120,000
when the works were completed, and might reach 180,000 in 15 years ;
and my estimates were made on such a number and such an increase.
On this point Mr. Hale says nothing ; and, of course, I suppose I may
assume that it meets his views. Although I conceive that the com-
plete establishment of my points does not require me to reduce this
estimate, yet there are certain facts which I did not before take into
account, and which have so important a bearing upon this question,
that I hardly feel justified in omitting to notice them.
In the first place, if the population be 120,000, when the works are
8f
completed, they will not all be dependent on the contemplated works
for water. To say nothing of East Boston in this connection, it is
entirely reasonable to assume, that the Boston aqueduct will continue
to supply to the extent of the present works, if not to the capacity of
the pond. The present company will reduce their water rents to the
city's scale, and they will be certain to retain their customers ; and
if the city should ever distribute water gratis, for domestic purposes,
it will then be for the interest of the city to purchase those works at
a fair value, and to use them to supply the southern district : so that,
whatever may be the policy of the city hereafter, I do not see any
reasonable ground to doubt that those works will be relied upon for
such supply as they can afford.
These works, I believe, are now supposed to supply about 30,000
inhabitants, situated in different and remote portions of the city. But
as the supply is, to a considerable extent, partial and insufficient, and
in many instances delivered under great disadvantage, I suppose it
would hardly be prudent to rely upon these works to supply a greater
district than 25,000 ; and if that district be selected, so as to deliver
the water under the most favorable practicable circumstances, I do
not know of any reasonable ground to doubt that it may be fully sup-
plied. If, then, we deduct from the supposed population of Boston
at the completion of the works, (120,000,) the district supplied by
the present works, (25,000,) we shall have only 95,000 inhabitants
relying upon the contemplated works for a supply ; and the expenses
necessary to deliver 10 gallons daily to 120,000 persons, would de-
liver nearly 12§ gallons to 95,000 : so that the calculations in the
Remarks, which gave only 10 gallons, are really good for 12f gal-
lons, to each inhabitant in the district to be supplied.
Again, as to the increase of the city, or 180,000, to be supplied in
15 years. It is obvious that a great part of the increase to our popu-
lation in the next 15 years is to be in East Boston, where the con-
templated works can give no supply. I say obvious, because this
increase must be on the outskirts somewhere, and the circumstance
that the lands in East Boston are in the hands of individuals who are
always alert in crowding them into the market, while those on the
neck belong to the city, in whose behalf no such alertness is usually
exercised, will, I conceive, operate, for many years to come, to bring
into occupancy the lands of East Boston much faster than the vacant
lands in the city proper. I conceive, therefore, that it is a very
reasonable estimate to allow to East Boston a population of 25,000
at the end of 15 years. Here, then, will be a population of 25,000
which cannot be supplied, and another 25,000 which will be supplied
from another source : making 50,000, to be deducted from 180,000,
36
to be supplied 15 years hence : leaving only 130,000 to be supplied
at that time, or 10,000 more than were allowed in my former calcu-
lations to start with. I do not care to trouble the reader to go through
a calculation to see how strongly such facts fortify my former calcu-
lations. Their bearing is obvious, and their precise value may be
readily calculated. Here, again, the reader cannot fail to notice how
very far within the truth my former calculations, based upon popu-
lation, present and prospective, really are.
I now come to the third and last element or ground of calculation,
adopted in the Remarks, viz., that the estimates of 1837, in regard to
Charles River as a source, were to be relied upon, and might be
reduced in the ratio that coal and other leading articles had since
fallen in price, and also someivhat by the increased facility in the
manufacture of engines, &c. Mr. Hale admits that the estimates for
pumping are sufficient if the works were " executed under his (Mr.
Treadwell's) supervision ;" that is, sufficient for the work then esti-
mated, but not for the addition I put upon them for a part of the
time. But he objects to various deductions made by me, which I will
notice in detail.
1st. As to fuel. "The reduction" made by me, he regards as
" excessive by at least one half." On what grounds he objects to my
reduction, I am at loss to conceive, as he gives none. The estimate
of the comissioners of 1837 was based on using bituminous coal at
$10 per chaldron. I reduced it to $8 per chaldron in this way,
viz., by " the general reduction which has since taken place in fuel,
the substitution of anthracite for bituminous coal, and the improved
methods of generating steam since adopted." Now, is this reduction
unreasonable .'' It is certain that there has been a general reduction
of fuel within that time. It is certain that anthracite has been sub-
stituted for bituminous coal, to a great extent, within that time. And
I supposed also, that new (and I presume improved) methods of
generating steam have been since adopted, certainly to the extent re-
quired by the above change of fuel, if no further. To substitute 1^
gross tons of anthracite for 1 chaldron of best bituminous coal, is, I
suppose, very liberal — more so than need be. I submit, then, that
an allowance of $ 6 per gross ton for anthracite (or $8 for 1^
tons) is a very liberal price. Hence I conceive I have a right to in-
sist, that the deduction I made is a fair one, even if there have been
no improved methods of generating steam adopted since.
But it is truly surprising that Mr. Hale should object to this deduc-
tion ; for in a written estimate which he submitted to the committee
of the legislature, when he was giving testimony before it, he him-
self put down bituminous coal to $8 ; — just as I had done. Why he
thinks this too low now, does not appear. .
37
2d, As to cost of engines. I made a deduction on the estimated
cost of engines in 1837, of 10 per cent, or 87,000. To the whole of
this Mr. Hale objects. The grounds of this deduction are thus stated
by me : " The two engines are heavy items in the cost (say $70,000)
and are constructed almost entirely of iron. It is not obvious, there-
fore, why a similar reduction on the iron used for them should not be
made as upon that for the pipes." (I had just gone through with a
reduction of f ths on the cost of the pipes, to which Mr. Hale does not
object.) " There can be no doubt, too, that, in the last seven years,
important improvements have been made in constructing engines; so
that from both considerations, it appears to be a moderate assumption
that engines, of the capacity estimated, can be constructed 10 per
cent, cheaper now than in 1837." But Mr. Hale will allow no de-
duction on either of these grounds. But if there had been a fall in
iron, (as there notoriously had been at the time of writing) why
should not the cost of the engines be reduced to that extent } Surely
there can be no reason. Then as to improved methods of construct-
ing engines ; — if nothing is dispensed with or altered now that was in
use then, surely the vastly increased demand for engines since, must
have given important facilities in manufacturing them. New me-
thods, by which labor and expense are saved, are introduced into
every species of manufacture; and the competition growing out of
a brisk demand is constantly operating in the same way to reduce
price. In whatever way I am able to look at this matter, I do not
see the slightest ground to question a reduction on the cost of the en-
gines to the extent proposed.
But besides these deductions from indisputable facts, a letter was
submitted by Mr. Derby to the legislative committee from Messrs.
Hinkley &, Drury, engine builders of this city, of established reputa-
tion, in which they offered to construct an engine that would raise
2,304,000 gallons, of 10 Ihs. each, 100 feet high in 10 hours ; — but
as the weight of a gallon is usually reckoned only 8 lbs., the work
would be equal to raising that quantity 120 feet, or to the top of
Cory's Hill, — for 22,000 dollars. The pumps, gearing, fixtures,
and other matter ready to put in operation, were supposed to be from
$2,500 to 3,500 additional ; — say in all, 825,000. Here instead of
having a deduction of 10 per cent, on the cost of 1837 (835,000), we
have a saving of f ths, or near three times as much as I asked. Be-
sides this, we are offered an engine that will do in 10 hours nearly as
much work as one of those of 1837 would do in 20.
So far then as the deduction of 10 per cent, on engines is con-
cerned, I think I have shown that it is not unreasonable ; and that
Mr. Hale has no just ground to object to it. But, on the contrary, a
larger deduction might have been reasonably made.
38
Again, Mr. Hale objects that I have put upon the works more labor
than was contemplated by the commissioners ; and " that so far
as the estimate of 1837 is relied on for an authority, it should be
taken as conclusive only for the quantity for which the scale of work
was specially adapted." " It is, therefore, unreasonable to assume
the estimate of 1837 as sufficient for a greater permanent practical
effect, than the works proposed were designed to produce." Let us
look at the details of this plan of 1837. The first and largest item
in the proposed works was the pipe from the source to the reservoir.
The next was provision for two engines, each of which would do all
the work in 20 hours per day. Now as to the pipe, why may it
not convey water 24 hours as well as 20 hours } It is an arm that
never tires ; and if no more strain is put upon it in the additional
4 hours which it is used, it is not obvious why it may not be so used.
The proposed conduit from Long Pond is to convey water 24 hours
in the day ; and it is not very obvious why as strong an objection
may not be made to that arrangement, as to imposing a similar con-
stant service upon an iron pipe. The only ground of objection that
seems to me can be entitled to the least consideration, is afforded
by the circumstance that my calculations sometimes required both en-
gines to be at work at the same time ; thus increasing the velocity of
the water in the pipe. How much, if anything, this may be worth re-
garding, I am not prepared to say ; and it is hardly worth estimating,
as the time is so short in which this extra duty is required, as we
shall see.
And as to the engines, no theory requires that lialf the motive
power should be constantly idle. Prudence requires that there should
be a spare engine to resort to in emergencies ; and it comes to pass
in this case that the spare engine is half the motive power provided.
But if the work to be done required 3 or 4 engines, still it would not
be necessary to provide more than a single spare one ; — just what it
is necessary to provide in this case, where the work is only that of
one engine. Now the utmost labor, which any of my calculations
imposed upon the two engines, was to raise 3,420,000 gallons per day,
for a short portion of the 15 years. This is near 27^ hours' work of
one engine, or 13J hours of two. I put the question then to practical
men, if this be an unreasonable effect to rely upon the engines to pro-
duce } Is not reasonable provision made for all ordinary contingent
interruptions ? I think there is ; and more especially, when it is fur-
ther taken into consideration that all engines are tested by a pressure
many times greater than that under which they ordinarily operate;
and for limited periods may be safely relied upon to perform twice
their ordinary work.
39
I find that for 13 out of the 15 years, on which I calculated, no
more than the labor of one engine is required, and no increase at all
in the velocity of water in the pipe. If, then, it should be found prac-
tically expedient lo increase the works or engines at the end of 13
years, instead of 15, the result will not very seriously affect my cal-
culations. Siill I regard the probability much more reasonable thatthe
new outlay will not be required in 20 years, than that it will be needed
in 13.
There is another item, introduced by Mr. Hale, to be noticed. He
says, that to the estimate of 1837 for water rights, " we must add for
increased value of the water right at Watertown at least $25,000."
The estimate of 1837 was 815,000, of course Mr. Hale's present
estimate is $40,000. It is admitted on all hands that the water of
Charles River, in the dryest time, equals 40 cubic feet per second.
All that Long Pond yields is 12 feet per second. But the commis-
sioners allow 1 foot for loss between the pond and reservoir, relying
only upon receiving 11 feet per second. As it is proposed to lose
nothing between the river and reservoir, the present course of my
argument does not require that the whole water right of 40 cubic feet
should be purchased ; it would be sufficient to acquire a right to draw
11 cubic feet per second out of the 40 ; and it would not be mate-
rial whether this right were the first, second, or third, provided it
came within the 40. Now it comes to pass that the water power at
the Watertown dam is divided into various distinct rights, which may
properly he denominated first, second, &c. ; — the first drawing to
the extent of its right to the exclusion of the second, and the second
to the exclusion of the third, and so on. The first and second rights
of water are now used to operate two distinct mills. The first, a
grist mill, with all its right of water and appurtenances of every kind,
together with one third the water right of the second mill, together
with an undivided half of another piece of property, is in the hands of
a single individual ; and I have in my pocket book a bond executed
by him, by which he obligates himself to sell me, or to my order, the
whole of this property for 125,000. If the city shall wish to avail
itself of this obligation, it shall freely have the power to do so.
As this grist-mill has the first right to water, it is obvious that
nothing more need be purchased, if its right to draw be adequate
to supply the city, or be equal to 11 cubic feet per second ; and if
so, all the other pieces of property may be at once sold. I have
therefore taken some pains to ascertain what the right of water at-
tached to this mill is ; and from the best information I can obtain
it amounts to 30 cubic feet per second, or near 3 times as much as
we are to get from Long Pond.
40
This oae mill, then, having the first right to 30 cubic feet per
second, its value, even in dry times, can be affected but little for
many years by the draft the city will make upon it. 4 feet per
second will give near 2,600,000 gallons per day ; and this is less
than ^ of the power. And it is to be borne in mind that during 8 or
9 months in the year, the water wastes over the dam, and the draft of
the city would injure no right at all ; and that it is only during 3 or
4 months in the year, that the mill privilege would be affected by
such draft. Hence it appears to me quite certain that a right to
draw from Charles River more water than can be had from Long
Pond, can be obtained for a sum considerably less than $15,000, the
estimate of 1837. On the ground that the water power of the grist
mill has been accurately cast, which I have no reason ta doubt ; and
that there are no flaws in the title, which I have no reason to suppose ;
I should esteem it a very satisfactory business transaction to sell
the city the right to draw forever any amount of water it would bring
into the city, under 24 cubic feet per second (or twice the product of
Long Pond), for $15,000, or the bare estimate of 1837.
I believe I have now noticed all the points of objection made by Mr.
Hale to my former estimates ; and I trust I have shown satisfactorily
that those objections are generally not entitled to any weight. But,
on the contrary, that the positions taken by me are far within the
truth.
Mr. H., however, has introduced an estimate of the cost of pump-
ing at the new water works at Philadelphia, which I beg leave to
notice. By this estimate, the expense of pumping 2^ millions, daily,
115 (not 127, as stated by Mr. Hale) feet high, is, $531,000
My estimate for pumping the same quantity, is, 471,000
$ 60,000
Mr. Hale says of the former : " This is near $100,000 (not very
near) over the estimate of Mr. Wilkins, although the distance which
the water is conveyed is but one mile, instead of 3i- miles."
Feeling much surprise on seeing this estimate, I took occasion to
address the engineer ( W. E. Morris, Esq.,) and made some inquiries
in regard to its accuracy. His answer confirms its general correct-
ness, but states the height to be 115 instead 127 feet. But Mr. Mor-
ris gives a key to the great expenditure. The duty of his new
engines (like most others in this country)'does not exceed 15 millions
pound, one foot high, with a bushel of coal. The duty of the engines
estimated in 1837, (and which, Mr. Hale thinks, may be relied upon
if constructed under Mr. Treadwell's supervision) was 60 millions, or
four times that of Mr. Morris's engines. Of course, Mr. Morris con-
41
sumes 4 times as much fuel as would be required on the plan adopted
by the commissioners of 1837. The estimated cost of coal per year,
for the Philadelphia works, is, 89,100; -J of which is consequently
lost, = $6,825. This sum represents a capital, at 5 per cent., of
136,500 ; which taken from the estimate 531,000
136,500
leaves 6394,500
as the cost of raising 2^ millions in Philadelphia, on the principles
adopted in 1837. This is $70,000 less than my estimate. Mr. Mor-
ris says, the " pumps are driven by condensing crank engines,
intended to work expansively, but the cut-off valves not yet used. A
material saving is anticipated, when the half stroke is put in opera-
tion." It apppears, therefore, that the engines, at present, work to
disadvantage, and consume more fuel than they will when completed ;
and, as they now work, the practical effect is near 10 per cent,
greater than the estimated.
I cannot but express surprise that such works should have been
constructed at this day. Mr. Morris says, " I was desirous to see at
our new works this kind of machinery (referring to the Cornish engine)
introduced. But anxiety to secure cheapness of first cost, and ap-
prehensions of delay and failure arising from the novelty (in this
country) of the work, prevented its adoption by the water commis-
sioners." He adds : " There are engineers in Philadelphia, who, I
believe, would be willing to construct steam water-works, and guaranty
double the above stated performance," (or a duty of 30 millions lbs.)
Under all the circumstances of such a case, one would about as
soon expect that water commissioners would resort to actual horse-
power to pump their water, and estimate the expense by the quantity
and price of hay and oats, as to such machinery.
I shall have further occasion to consider the practical duty of en-
gines.
I have now gone over all my former propositions ; — have ex-
amined them anew, and the several grounds on which they were
based. The result is a conviction of their truth. I have endeavored
to do this in a fair and libei*al spirit, in regard to points involving ex-
pense ; and to err, if at all, upon the safe side. The result is a
renewed conviction, that, on the principles then adopted, the savino-
of $436,000, as then stated, may be effected, without the slightest
detriment to the supply of the wants of the city, by resorting to
Charles River instead of Long Pond. All the reasoning by which
such a conclusion was reached, appears to me to be valid and irrefu-
table. But if we qualify my former conclusions by what I noio
6
42
believe to be facts, viz., that the population of the city, to be supplied
by the contemplated works, present and prospective, was then much
over-estimated, and the maximum consumption per head was also
much over-estimated, I can see no good reason to question that the
saving would far exceed this sum. For myself, I think this sum
worth saving, " and that it is an economy worthy of the attention of
the city ;" — whatever views of such economy may be entertained by
Mr. Hale and the advocates of Long Pond.
But, after all, the scheme of introducing 7 millions gallons of water
per day, is so magnificent, and spreads such an extent of canvass to
the breeze of popular favor, when compared with one that at present
promises but 2^ millions per day, though in the end it promises even
more than the other, that it becomes a matter of some moment, if it
can be done as I think it can, to take the wind out of that sail, by
showing " that the whole 7 millions gallons can he delivered now, at
the outset^ into the reservoir on Cory^s Hill., cheaper than it is esti-
mated to bring the same quantity from Long Pond.''"'
When Mr. Hale was examined before the committee of the legis-
lature, he gave in for the use of the committee a written estimate of
the expense of delivering 7 millions gallons daily at Cory's Hill from
Long Pond and Charles River.
In this statement, all land and water damage was omitted entirely,
in both estimates ; and a few unimportant items were also omitted in
the Long Pond estimate. I subjoin a copy of this statement, so far
as relates to the point in question, putting in, in brackets, the items
which were omitted, and which should clearly be embraced. I do
this to save printing the statement twice.
Estimate of supply of 7,000,000 gallons of water per day, by pumping from Charles
River, on the basis of the calculation of 1837 — corrected for the increased amount
of supply, and also for reduced cost of materials.
Cost of Construction.
Reservoir on Cory's Hill, same as Long Pond estimate, . . $30,715
2 iron pipes, 30 inches diameter, 3 1-4 miles, 33,820 feet, at 9 63 (per foot) same
as Long Pond estimate, ...... 325,686
4 Stop cocks, ........ 1,000
[4] Engines, double the estimate of 1837, ■which was for 2 1-2 millions gallons
m 26" hours] ........ 126,000
Buildings, &c. estimate of 1837 increased 50 percent. . . . 33,000
Annual Expenses.
Coal for 2 1-2 millions, 507 chaldrons, for 7 millions, 1420 ditto, at $8, de-
livered at [Charles River] instead of $10, as estimated in 1837, 11,360
Superintendent, Enginemen, Firemen, Wear, Tear, Insurance, &c.
[estimated, in 1837,] at .... . 6,738
Add to above 50 per cent. . . . . . 3,369
10,107
[Expenses] per annum ..... S21,467
Equal, at 5 per cent., to a capital of ..... 429,340
[Water rights and land damage, as per Report, 1837] , . . 18,949
964,690
43
Estimate of same supply from Long Pond, .... 749,191
[Water and land damages, as per Report, 1844,] .... 121,000
[Sundry small items omitted from page 32] .... 4,700
875,491
|_Making a difference in favor of Long Pond,] .... 89,199
8964,690
According to this estimate, corrected, so as to cover the land and
water dannages and a few items omitted, Mr. Hale's statement shows
the Long Pond scheme to be cheaper than Charles River by $89,179.
Now the first thing to be noticed in this paper is, that though it
purports to be an estimate " on the basis of the calculation of 1837,
corrected for the increased supply, and also for reduced cost of ma-
terials," this basis is soon abandoned. In this estimate is an item for
two iron pipes of thirty inches each. But why two, instead of any
other number, would not have occurred to any one, from inspecting
the paper alone. In the estimate of 1837 there was only one, and
that of twenty-one inches. And taking that of 1837 as a basis, and
correcting it " for the increased supply," what is required ? Of
course one pipe, that shall bear the same relation to that of 1837 as the
increased supply bears to the supply of 1837. This is obviously
the true problem — and the whole of it. The increased supply is
7,000,000 gallons per day ; and the supply of 1837 was 3,000,000
gallons per day. What is wanted, then, is a pipe whose capacity
shall be to that of one of twenty-one inches, as seven to three. By
calculation, this is found to be one of thirty-two inches diameter ;
only a little larger than one of the two here estimated for. That is,
one pipe of thirty-two inches diameter will deliver 7,000,000 gallons
in the same time, and under the same circumstances, that one of
twenty-one inches will deliver three millions ; and it will deliver it
with a less proportional expenditure of power, because the friction in
a large pipe is proportionally less than in a small one.
Here, then, instead of providing tiuo pipes of thirty inches, we
have only to provide one of thirty-two inches ; and the estimate must
be corrected by the difference in cost.
Now the two iron pipes, of 30 inches, are here estimated to cost $325,686 ; of course one
costs . . _ . _ . . . . Sl62,843
By the ordinary rules of increase in cost as the size is increased, there should
be added for a 32 inch pipe a trifle less than 125 per cent. ; but call it
12s per cent. ....... 20,355
The cost of one 32 inch pipe . . . . ; 183,193
Take this from the cost of two 30 inch pipes , . . 325,686
Makes a saving of . . . . . . 142,488
Now take from this the balance against Charles River, as above stated, 89,199
Leaves in favor of Charles River, .... 853,289
Here, then, we come directly and irresistibly to the result, that
44
7,000,000 gallons per day can he delivered into a reservoir on Cory^s
Hill cheaper, by $53,289, than the same quantity can he delivered at
the same place from. Long Pond.
It seems to me that the propriety of the corrections here made is
too plain to leave any doubt. But I should hardly do justice to the
argument if I omit to notice at least one other item. I refer to the
engines. Allowance is here made for 4 engines, each of which will
deliver 3 millions of gallons in 24 hours. Of course 7 millions re-
quires two engines to be at work all the time, and one a third of the
time. In other words, one engine is allowed to be idle all the day,
and another two thirds of the day. I can entertain no doubt but that
this allowance is too large, and is unreasonable ; and I think one en-
gine might with safety and propriety be dispensed with. But as my
proposition will permit me to be liberal, I will allow provision for
three engines, any two of which will do all the work, leaving one to
be resorted to in emergencies. This plan would require the three
engines to be increased in power -^th each, or the three should have
the power of 3^, such as were embraced in the plan of 1837. But
to increase the power of engines one sixth will not require an equally
large increase of expense. I presume that y'^ added to the
cost, will effect this increase of power. The cost of each engine in
the above statement is $31,500, and three such will cost $94,500
add Y(j fo^ increased power . . . . 9,400
Cost of the 3 proposed engines . . . 103,900
which deducted from the cost of 4 in the estimate 126,000
leaves a saving in engines of . . . $22,100
Add this to the former balance .... 53,289
Makes balance in favor of Charles River . . 75,389
or something more than 8 per cent, of the whole cost.
But seven millions is estimated by the commissioners to be a sup-
ply for 250,000 inhabitants. Of course only a part of that supply is
wanted at present, and the rest will be required nobody knows when.
So that to this advantage here stated, of $75,389 in favor of Charles
River, must be added all the saving that may accrue from the cir-
cumstance that only a part of this supply is wanted now, while the
rest will be called for gradually, through an indefinite period of time.
Thus far the argument has been based upon the principles of the
estimate of 1837. The foundation of that estimate was, of course,
the duty of an engine, or the mechanical effect that might be pro-
duced by the consumption of a bushel of coal. This was assumed to
45
be 60,000,000 lbs. raised one foot high. This, although far exceed-
ing the duty of any engines that have been set to pumping in this
country, is still far below the practical result brought to pass in Eng-
land. Mr. Wicksteed had an engine erected in 1838, to pump water
for the East London works, which performs a duty of 90 millions, or
50 per cent, more than that estimated upon in 1837 by our commis-
sioners. And this was not any hap-hazard result, brought about by
a kindly working that nobody could account for. He says, " Messrs.
Harvey & Co. were bound, under heavy penalty, to effect an average
duly during 12 months' regular work of the engine, equal to 90 mil-
lions lbs. raised 1 foot, by the consumption of 94 lbs. of good Welch
coals, which was accomplished.'''' (It is to be remarked, however,
that it is only the best of bituminous coal that weighs 94 lbs, to the
bushel. Generally it weighs less.)
Besides this result effected by Mr. Wicksteed, at page 170 Appen-
dix to the Parliamentary Examination, so freely quoted from in the
foregoing pages, may be found the following extract on
EXPEKSE OF RAISING WATER BY STEAM POWER.
" To give a correct idea of the performance of the most economical
steam engines yet constructed, Mr. Farey has made the following
computations : —
" Taylor's engine, at United Mines, which has made the highest
performance of any yet constructed, has, on an average of all the vari-
ations of its performance, during the 12 months of the year 1841,
raised 92^ millions lbs. water, one foot high, by each bushel of coal
which has been consumed by it ; and in 1842, the average was 99^
millions.
" An average of the two years would be 95|- millions. A bushel of
the coal actually used is considered, on an average, to weigh 94 lbs.,
and if Taylor's engine be reckoned to raise only 94 millions one foot
high, by the consumption of 94 lbs., then one pound of coal will raise
one million pounds of water one foot high.''''
No one is more sensible than I am that we are liable to disappoint-
ment in the results of mechanical operations, both favorably and un-
favorably, in a manner for which we cannot easily account. But in
the matter of a steam engine, where an effect has not only been pro-
duced, but been guarantied under heavy penalty that it should be
produced, it is difficult to see why what has been done, may not be
done again. If Harvey and Co. engaged with Mr. Wicksteed to
make, under heavy bonds, and did make, an engine to effect certain
results, why would they not engage with the city of Boston to do the
same thing } Undoubtedly they would. And if they would do so,
46
I doubt not some of our own builders would do the same, even if
they went across the water to obtain the necessary knowledge,
I cannot, therefore, see any good reason to doubt that the estimated
duty of the engine, in 1837, is from 40 to 50 per cent, lower than
need be ; and, of course, that the quantity of fuel might be estimated
at the same rate less. It will be seen at once that such a saving in
an annual expense would relieve the Charles River estimate of such
a sum as could not fail to give it, in any possible aspect of the city's
wants, a decided preference.
I had intended, in this connexion, to have obtained and presented
some estimates from city builders of engines, to show what could be
effected in the present state of that art or science as practised now.
But I have been deterred from soliciting such proposals or estimates,
because I did not feel free to put them to so much trouble with so
little prospect as is at present offered of their obtaining a job.
From the foregoing facts and estimates, I cannot doubt, and I can
see no good reason for other people to doubt, that a much larger
quantity of water than 7,000,000 gallons daily can be delivered on
Cory's Hill from Charles River, at the estimated expense of delivering
that quantity from Long Pond.
I here close what I have to say upon Charles River and the ex-
pense of pumping.
A few other matters claim notice, and especially, the proposed
conduit from Long Pond.
In my Remarks, I stated in relation to the Long Pond conduit, that
" in this construction there is novelty so far as my inquiries have ex-
tended. I can find no example where a structure, so frail and un-
substantial, has been relied upon to perform so important service ;
and for myself, I hope I shall never see it relied upon. If the Long
Pond scheme is to be executed, let it be done on a plan less liable
to failure, less liable to perpetual patching and repairing, than this
project contemplates. But even at the best, a structure like this, if
executed in the most substantial manner, like the Croton-works, is
much less secure than one of iron pipes." Mr. H. questions all these
propositions. Though there is a flavor of flippancy in the passage which
I do not feel disposed to justify, I believe all the important allegations
to be true. With regard to " novelty," Mr. Hale refers to sewers
constructed in London, Philadelphia and New York, 8 inches thick
or two courses of brick, as examples to the contrary. Now I do not
regard them as pertinent to the point. In the first place, they are
laid deep in earth, never disturbed. Those in Philadelphia are laid
to the depth of 3 to 30 feet ; those in London never less than 10 feet
deep (without the utmost necessity,) and varying to 20, 27, and even,
47
in one instance, to 68 feet deep. Now, I think, these are important
circumstances that tend to give support to the structure. In the
second place, they are not " relied upon to perform so important
service," as the proposed conduit. If a drain gives way, the evil is
local. It may obstruct a street for a few days, and put a neighbor-
hood to inconvenience. But if the proposed conduit should fail, it
would affect the whole city. No region would escape its injurious
effects ; while some could hardly endure them. I submit the point
then, that, if all Mr. Hale claims for the strength and stability of the
drains he names, were well established, it still would not obviate the
charge of " novelty " in relying upon " a structure so frail and un-
substantial " " to perform so important service." The different im-
portance of the services, I think, greatly qualifies the folly or wisdom
of the risk incurred in their performance. As to the remaining point,
that a structure of this kind, " if executed in the most substantial
manner, like the Croton-works, is much less secure than one of
iron pipes," I beg leave to quote from Messrs. Treadwell and Hale's
Report of 1838, p. 16, as follows : " We believe, if anything may be
relied upon for conveying water from one point to another, it is an
iron pipe. Experience for more than half a century in Europe, and
for many years in this country, attests its excellence. We may,
therefore, consider this as perfectly safe." I regard this as quite
satisfactory authority as to the security of iron pipes. Now, the
Croton conduit has been delivering water during three years only.
It is notorious that it has repeatedly been examined, and repairs found
necessary ; — and these requiring a large expenditure. On p. 33 of
Proceedings before a Joint Committee of the Massachusetts Legis-
lature, &c., I find the following item in a statement for the year 1844,
made by Mr. Shattuck, viz.
" From which (viz. amount of water rents for 1844) deduct the
annual cost of maintaining the aqueduct from the Croton River to the
city, about $25,000." If then iron pipes be " perfectly safe," it may
be assumed that it would not cost $25,000 per annum to maintain
them, as the Croton aqueduct appears to ; and therefore I think the
proof is furnished that works like the Croton, are less secure than
iron pipes.
But even the sewers named by Mr. Hale, are not worthy the con-
fidence and the commendation which he claims for them. The Phil-
adelphia and New York drains have just been laid ; and whether
they will be successful or not, time will decide. It is not safe to de-
duce an argument from them ; especially an argument which will be
of little or no weight in regard to the present question, even if the
sewers should remain firm. New York has built her palaces almost
48
to the clouds, with walls of 8 inches only ; and, perhaps, Philadelphia
has done the same. It is no wonder, then, that their underground
masonry is of a like slight character. Experiments are so rife that
no wonder they are tried in such cases. The disposition to run great
risks for small gains, in this country, is so connate and urgent, that
we perhaps ought to marvel less that these cities reduced their sewer
walls to 8 inches, than that they did not reduce them to 4.
Let us look now to the London sewers, referred to by Mr. Hale.
The English brick is 44 inches wide and 9 inches long ; and gen-
erally I find that a brick in length and width is usually reckoned a
wall of 14 inches. Hence those bricks are 12J per cent, greater
than ours ; and this difference may be of importance. As a small
per centage upon the result of a voyage may often make all the dif-
ference between a good or bad voyage ; so a difference in the size of
brick, no greater than this, may make all the difference between a
successful and unsuccessful experiment. The act of Parliament
(1667) for rebuilding the city of London, (repealed in reign of
George III.) directed, " that sewers 5 feet high and 3 feet wide, shall
have side walls \~ brick thick, the top 1 brick on end ; the bottom to
be paved plain, and then 1 brick on edge circular." Qii. 3409. This
act was without doubt the origin of the custom, which has prevailed,
and still does prevail, in most of the districts of London, of building
the side walls, let the form be what it may, IJ- brick or 14 inches
thick. Even when the form was changed, as it appears to have been
in the city, still this thickness was preserved ; while the Westminster
and other districts retain both the form and thickness contemplated
by the act. But within a few years, the Holborn and Finsbury dis-
tricts have taken upon themselves to construct egg-shaped sewers with
walls of 1 brick. As to the egg-shaped form^ I am not aware that
any one objects to it ; though some do not allow it any advantages in
regard to strength, and many do not to the extent claimed. As to
the reduction of material in the Holborn and Finsbury districts, quite
a diversity of opinion prevails among those who have these matters
in charge in regard to its safety and expediency. There seems to be
considerable feeling existing among the commissioners of the different
districts in regard the Holborn innovations. Mr. Hale, with a little
infusion of a spirit, which I have regretted as characterizing a single
paragraph of my Remarks, has referred to the testimony of " four
eminent civil engineers," as commendatory of the deviation. Mr.
Hale stretches the testimony of these gentlemen to establish a point
which, from a careful reading I am satisfied, was not in the mind of
one of them. I mean the proposition, that an oval or egg-shaped
form has " superior advantages in point of strength'''' over a circular
49
one. When these gentlemen spoke of the " greater" or " greatest"
strength to be attained by this form, they were in their mind always
comparing it with the Westminster form, and not with the circular.
If Mr. Hale would establish this proposition, I think he must bring
some other witnesses, and develop some new scientific principle. I
have never before seen the proposition laid down, and, of course,
never noticed any attempt to prove it. I will quote some testimony
not favorable to Holborn form.
Mr. Thomas L. Donaldson, Chairman of the Westminster Com-
mission of Sewers 8 years, and a Commissioner 27 years, examined.
Qu. 4158. " Do you consider that a straight side is as much equal to
sustain pressure as a curved side ? Answer. Yes ; built with brick."
Qu. 4159. " You think a curved side has no greater power to sustain
pressure ? Ans. No, for the difference of form is made up of soft
mortar." It is very plain, that, to obtain the full benefit of a curved
side, the brick should be bevelled or radiated ; in which case one
witness ( Qu. 2025) was in " doubt whether there would be the ne-
cessity for any mortar at all."
Mr. Richard Kelsey, Surveyor to the Commission of Sewers for
the city of London, since 1832, examined. Qu. 3397. " What do
you consider a good sectional foi^m of sewers for a main sewer ?
Ans. If you have a semicircular top and a semicircular bottom, and
straight sides, I think that all the conditions of a sewer are answered."
This is the more candid from the fact that in his district the sewers
are, mainly, of an oval form. Qu. 3406 (to same.) " You say that
some of your sewers are elliptical, or egg-shaped, or oval ? Ans.
They are true ellipses some of them. Inclined sides have been
largely used. They were introduced by my predecessor prior to
1823." Qu. 3408. " What are the dimensions of the brick work ?
Ans. 14 inches all round." Qu. 3409. " Do you not think that is
heavier than necessary } Ans. I do not like to trust to anything else,
I think the commissioners ought to build, as it were, forever." This
witness then states that the Fleet street sewer, built in 1668 with 9
inch walls " and 14 inch contrefortes at intervals," fell in, at 3 sepa-
rate places, in 1715, 1725 and 1737, and was rebuilt with 14 inch
walls ; while the ancient brick arch of the Walbrook sewer, 1 J- brick
(or 14 inches) thick, stood near 400 years, till destroyed in 1834.
Qu. 3412 (to same.) " Do you not think it would be possible, by
altering the shape of those sewers, to make 9 inch brick-work answer
where you now put 14 inch brick-work ; that is to say, make a
cheaper, and at the same time a stronger, sewer ? Ans. I think not.
I do not feel myself justified, as an officer of the commission, in re-
commending them to do that which, if they went into a court of
7
m
justice, they could not justify." I do not know how such testimony
as this, strikes others ; but the facts stated and the opinion given
seem to me exceedingly pertinent and judicious, as applied to sewers ;
and vastly more so, if applied to a conduit of the importance of the
proposed one.
But I have not quite done even with the sewers. Mr, Hale refers
to the testimony of Butler Williams, Esq., Professor in Putney Col-
lege. The testimony of this gentleman is of a very diffusive and ex-
pansive character, abounding in maps, diagrams, figures, formulas,
and statistics, to a much greater extent than that of any other witness ;
— not to say more than that of all the rest put together. He appears
to be a man fully up to the spirit of the age in detecting and repudi-
ating the errors and mistakes of a by-gone generation, and even of
some of his contemporaries. He would, I doubt not, soon become
rich — a second CrcEsus — if he could appropriate to his own benefit
a moiety of what the world might save if it would adopt his sug-
gestions. Mr. Hale says : " The witness (Mr. Williams) knew of
repeated instances in which the latter structure (the Westminster
sewer) had failed for want of sufficient strength in the straight sides ;
he stated that he had recommended the former (the Finsbury sewer)
to be substituted, which he had never known to fail." This is Mr.
Hale's account of Mr. W.'s testimony, and the fair inference from it
would seem to be, that it was a not unfrequent occurrence for a West-
minster sewer to fail, while a Finsbury one was certain to stand.
Now let us look at his testimony. Qu. 5823. " In respect of the
strength, how have you found sewers with upright walls, and with
arched walls, to stand ? Ans. No instance of the failure of the
arched sewer has come to my knowledge, I have seen one instance
near Netting Hill, where the upright sewer had fallen in, been rebuilt,
had again fallen, and was rebuilt, a third time, with extraordinary
precaution," &c. This is the whole extent of his oion knowledge ; —
had known of no failure of an arched side, which (with the economy
of masonry) is a modern innovation, and has not had time to fail yet,
and had " seen one instance " where a straight side had given way
twice (before it was finished.) This is the whole of his own knowl-
edge. He says Mr. Sopworth, an engineer, recites an instance of
failure in Newcastle of a straight-sided sewer, which had been re-
placed by a " circular" one (not egg-shaped) which had not failed.
But whether the old sewer had lasted 50 or 500 years, is not stated.
The whole, then, of the " repeated" instances of failure which this
witness " knew," was the single " one instance" of failure at Net-
ting Hill.
This Notting Hill case appears to have been a remarkable one,
51
and to have drawn out the advocates of the different kinds of sewers.
Mr. Williams took his pupils to see it, much as an anatomist takes his
pupils to witness a hospital operation, or a post-mortem examination.
The facts appear to have been these. Mr. Connop, proprietor of the
estate, employed J. Stevens, a city architect and surveyor, to lay otit
the ground and erect buildings thereon. Being in the Westminster
district, the sev/ers must be constructed on the Westminster plan,
though Mr. Stevens (a veiy fair and candid witness) preferred the
Finsbury form. The sewer was constructed, and the owner dis-
covered that it had given way, and called Mr. Stevens's attention to
it. Mr. Stevens says : " I went into the sewer, and through it, as far
as practicable, and found the sides had collapsed. I found the ground
had slipped (a stiff clay, very liable to sudden slips, being on a hill
side) from 40 to 50 feet from the sewer, and the width between the
walls was only 1 foot 7 inches, instead of 2^ feet, the original size.
Was summoned before the commissioners, and stated that I believed
the failure to have originated in the form of the sewer. The com-
missioners thought otherwise, and ordered it to be rebuilt on same
plan ; that they would send a person from their office to be constantly
on the spot and give directions. The sewer was carefully rebuilt.
When about 100 feet of the sewer had been constructed in this (care-
ful) way, and the ground filled in upon it, we perceived indications
of a fresh failure, and in 3 or 4 days after, the pressure of the
ground became so great, that the ends of the struts were forced
through 3 inch planks. Hence we were obliged to take it up a
second time." (This testimony is abridged, but is in the language of
the witness.) Mr, Connop then applied to the commissioners to ob-
tain leave to reconstruct the sewer in the Finsbury form, " but rather
more round." The commissioners held a regular court upon the
question. Their own surveyors examined the matter, and made a
report. This report says, the surveyors had examined the premises,
and " are apprehensive whether the parts which have lately been
built, will be found to withstand the lateral pressure of the banks any
better than the poi'tion which was first built, owing to the insufficient,
unworkmanlike and injudicious manner in which the work is pro-
ceeded with." " The persons who have contracted for building the
sewer (have) a sum so little above the actual cost of the brick- work
alone, that scarcely any price is allowed for the digging, strutting,
and filling in the ground." The Report goes fully into several other
causes of the failure. Mr, Joseph Bennett and George Bird, contract-
ors, Were examined, and thought the failure owing to " want of judg-
irieiit ill the building." The question was finally taken on granting
Mr. Connop's request, and decided in the negative, nen. con. After-
52
wards Mr. Stevens says, we have " rebuilt the sewers in the form
prescribed by them (the Westminster,) and they stood perfectly
well." Thus ended the only instance of failure in straight sides that
Mr. Williams knew of. Many details are given in the testimony of
Mr. Stevens, and also of Mr. Donaldson, which I have not room even
to condense ; but are well worth the notice and consideration of those
who take interest in such matters.
I here dismiss the subject of sewers. If all Mr. Hale claims for
the improvements in their construction, were true, it would not justify
a similar construction of the proposed conduit, because the circum-
stances are not the same, and the necessity of guarding against failure
anything near so pressing. But unfortunately, the merit claimed for
them by Mr. Hale, is not established. No other district of the metro-
polis, except Holborn and Finsbury, have adopted the economy of
constructing 1 brick walls ; nor is there any appearance that any
others will. We have seen what the Westminster commissioners'
opinion is, and also, a city surveyor's (Mr. Kelsey.) In the city, so
far are they from adopting 1 brick sides, that they make 14- brick
tops — which is 50 per cent, more than the act of parliament required.
The whole scheme (so far as economy goes) appears to be the repe-
tition of an experiment (only under worse conditions,)- which was
tried a hundred and fifty years ago, and which then failed. Those
who are on the stage 15 or 20 years hence, (or perhaps sooner,) will
probably have occasion to notice its failure again. But as its failure
is of small moment, we may never hear of it.
Let us return now to the proposed conduit. Whence did the idea
of such a structure originate .'' If we examine the Report of 1837,
we may get some light, and discover, that in this case, as in most
others, necessity loas the mother of the invention. On p. 33, the com-
missioners say : " We have no doubt but a conduit may be con-
structed from Long Pond to Cory's Hill, which shall be as much
beyond the reach of interruption in its operation, as any work of
human art can be beyond the reach of accident. We cannot pretend,
however, that the cost given in our estimate is sufficient to produce
a work of this permanent character, and we should not think it ex-
pedient to increase the expenditure beyond the limits of our estimate,
as the object of supply may be obtained upon either of the other places,
(i. e. Charles River, or Spot and Mystic Ponds,) with more advantage
to the city than by this, if its execution must be at an expense much
beyond that which we have assigned to it.'"* That is : We cannot
pretend that a structure of a " permanent character," that may be
" beyond the reach of interruption," can be made for our estimates ;
and the estimates ought not to be increased, because for such a sum
53
the object can be otherwise obtained. Hence came the necessity, by
a short process, of either abandoning, out-and-out, Long Pond as a
source, or of devising and estimating for a structure, conceded to be
not of a " permanent character." No other alternative was left
them ; and I cannot but regard it as unfortunate that they did not ac-
cept the first, and abandon the second.
I hardly know how far I am called upon to set forth the demerits
of a structure, in favor of which the commissioners themselves have
said so little. They do not seem to have considered it of such a per-
manent character as every body must concede to be desirable ; and
how far it was allowable to run risks, for the sake of the proposed end,
they left for others to judge, but for themselves, the majority did not
recommend it. It is proper to add that, so far as economy of mate-
rial is concerned, the conduit of 1844 was like that of 1837.
But from some cause or another, not very satisfactorily explained,
Mr. Hale's views of the strength of this structure appear to have
undergone a change since 1837. In testifying before the Legislative
Committee, he stated that he considered a brick aqueduct, like the
one proposed, to be as durable as iron pipes ; and page 55 of In-
quiry, &c., he says : " The [proposed] structure, taking into con-
sideration its comparative size, is demonstrately stronger than that of
the Croton aqueduct." In his testimony, he based his opinion upon
experience had since 1837. Now I submit that no experience what-
ever (however favorable its character might be,) in 7 or 8 years, is
sufficient to warrant any such opinion. What is experience, in this
short period, woi'th in testing a work which is, or should be, (in the
language of Mr. Kelsey,) built to last forever } But there has been,
in that time, no pertinent experience that I am aware of, except of
the Croton works ; and from the published reports of the expenses of
repairing that, experience seems to justify anything but such an
opinion.
Now, as to the proposed conduit being "demonstrately" stronger
than the Croton, considering its size, I for one should be glad to see
an attempt at demonstration. Until such attempt be made, I deem it
quite sufficient to invite the reader to inspect the sections of each
work furnished by Mr. Hale, on page 80 of Proceedings before the
Legislative Committee, &c., or page 58 of Inquiry, &c. ; — bearing
in mind that the stone masonry at the bottom is 2J feet thick, and laid
all the way up in cement, while the foundation is always of stone
where the conduit passes upon embankments. I am utterly at a loss
to understand the grounds upon which such an opinion is so confidently
put forth. All I can say is, that I should be unwilling to hazard §uch
. an assertion, until I was prepared to lose whatever reputation I might
54
chance to have acquired for good judgment and discretion, — be it
much or Jittle.
One other circumstance has been forced upon my attention, bear-
ing upon the character of a conduit for conveying water, which I beg
to notice. In the Parliamentary examination, so often referred to
above, several wimesses spoke of the exudation or percolation of
water from without into the sewers. Sometimes this was of an ex-
ceedingly offensive character, especially when the sewer passed
through churchyards. When men went into the sewers to cleanse
them, the character of this exudation became manifest. Mr. John
Roe, who appears to have been the suggester of the Holborn and
Finsbury innovations, and Samuel Mills, testify to this exudation.
Qu. 1973. " You do not believe that the nuisance arises in all cases
from the main sewers .? Ans. by Mr. Roe. Not always from the
main sewers. (Mr. Mills,) Connected with this point, I would
mention, that, where the sewers came in contact with churchyards,
the exudation is most offensive. Qu. 1974. Have you noticed that
in more than in one case ? Ans. Yes. Qu. 1975. In those cases
have you had any opportunities of tracing in what manner the exu-
dation from the churchyards passed to the sewer ? Ans. It must
have been through the sides of the sewers. Qu. 1976. Then, if that
be the case, the sewer itself must have given away ? Ans. No ; I
apprehend, even if you use concrete, it is impossible but that the ad-
jacent waters loould find their way even through cement ; it is the
natural consequence. The wells of the houses adjacent to the sewers
all get dry, whenever the sewers are lowered. Qu. 1977. You are
perfectly satisfied that in course of time exudations very often do, to
a certain extent, pass through the brickwork ? Ans. Yes ; it is im-
possible to prevent it.''''
From this testimony it appears to be certain that a brick conduit,
like the one proposed, does not, and cannot, protect the current
within it from the percolation of liquids without. The thinner the
walls, of course, the liability to exudation is the greater ; and by
building them of a great thickness, probably little or no injurious ef-
fect of this character could result. Now there is one part of the pro-
posed conduit which will, as it appears to me, be pai'ticularly exposed
to an objectionable percolation. For 4 or 5 miles from the point of
leaving the Pond, the conduit is to pass through a perfect swamp or
morass, with scarcely any exception. In order to convey the water
in this direction, it must, at the beginning, be almost entirely sub-
merged in mud ; and until it passes by Morse's Pond, which is but 12
feetjower than Long Pond, it cannot, to any considerable degree, be
raised out of it. By looking at a map which accompanies the Repdrt
55
of 1844, (a part of them at least,) the reader will be able to trace the
line of conduit here referred to. A more thorough New England
swamp, than this is, I never beheld. And how any reliance is to be
placed upon obtaining a practicable foundation, is more than I can
see. But this is not the point I have in mind. This extensive swamp,
embracing that portion drained by Snake brook into Long Pond, at
the very point where we propose to tap it, and that portion drained
by a nameless, but I presume equally snaky, brook into Morse's
Pond, appeared, when I saw it in April last, to abound in frogs and
other offensive water animals, as well as to be steeping with a rank
growth of vegetable matter. While these offensive things, especially
the living, proved that the water was not poisonous, they certainly
satisfied me that it was everything short of it. I do not intend to
exaggerate in this matter ; and if any one thinks I do, I wish he
would visit the locality. Pass up the Worcester turnpike, survey the
bogs, right and left, where the turnpike crosses the swamp as laid
down on the map. Then pass up the county road, and survey the
swamp drained into Long Pond. Consider that the conduit must be
submerged in this semifluid mass, and that the walls of it are to be
so thin that percolation is inevitable ; and then make up his mind
how he is going to relish the water when it gets to Boston. Several
advocates of Long Pond have told us that they have drank those
waters ; but they do not seem to have tried the juices of this swamp
by themselves.
Though the conduit is laid down to pass through this swamp, it
may be said, that it is not necessary it should pass there, but may be
constructed in the firm land on the borders. This may be true ; but
if the borders are what they appear to be, the difficulty will not be
overcome. If the hills are a loose, gravelly substance, as they appear
to be, the water of this swamp will percolate them freely ; and as
the conduit must he placed lower than this swamp-drainage, the con-
duit will still be immersed in it. So that, unless extraordinary pre-
cautions be taken, through these 4 or 5 miles, either by thickening
the walls or otherwise protecting them, for which no estimate appears
to be made, it is not at all apparent how the difficulty is to be sur-
mounted. This swamp water will, probably, find a readier passage
through an 8 inch wall, always wet and never hardened, to Cory's
Hill, than through hillocks and mounds to Long or Morse's Pond ;
and be its quality what it may, we shall probably have it.
I here close what I deem it expedient to say in relation to the pro-
posed conduit. I for one confess I have no confidence v/hatever in
its strength or durability. With my present views, I never would be
accessory to, or share, in any degree, the responsibility of erecting so
56
frail a structure to perform a service so important. I am, therefore,
constrained to repeat that, " if the Long Pond scheme is to be ex-
ecuted, let it be done on a plan less liable to failure, less liable to
perpetual patching and repairing, than this project contemplates," or
will, in all probability, require.
Mr. Hale, on page 25, says : " In the city of London, water is
supplied by several rival companies. In some instances, the pipes of
three or four companies, in addition to gas pipes, pass through the
same streets The consequence of the rivalry between the
companies is, that they produce an average income to their proprie-
tors of not more than two or three per cent, per annum. Another
consequence of the low price is, that the quantity used is much larger
in proportion to the population supplied, than in any other town of
England." This I esteem a very remarkable statement, — full of
error. It is true that the metropolis of London (but not the city^
which is supplied exclusively by the New Eiver Company) is supplied
by several water companies ; but they have long ago ceased to be
rivals. I believe there is one company on the Southwark side of the
Thames which has not yet lost money enough, and has recently laid,
or attempted to lay, pipes into a parish belonging to another water
district. But, generally speaking, there is no rivalry between the
companies; — their districts are defined, and they do not interfere
with each other. Mr. Mylne, Mr. Wicksteed and Mr. Quick, all
speak with as much definiteness of their districts as we should of our
wards. As to the statement that the pipes of three or four water
companies pass in the same street, I cannot but think Mr. Hale is
mistaken. Possibly the pipes of tioo companies may pass the same
street, where the different sides belong to different water districts ;
but, except in such cases, it seems to me the statement cannot be cor-
rect. In looking over the Parliamentary Commissioners' Report, so
often referred to, I noticed no such statement. Mr. Mylne, the en-
gineer of the New River Company, speaks of the great confusion and
evils of laying gas and water pipes in the same streets, and gives
a diagram exhibiting a striking complexity in their interlacing ; and
though the gas pipes belong io four different companies, all the water
pipes belong to one. I cannot but think that, if rivalry between the
companies existed, it would appear in some portions of this Report.
But, besides this absence of evidence of the fact stated, there is
some of a positive character. Mr. Fletcher, the counsel for the city
before the Legislative Committee, based a strong point of argument
upon the fact that between the London companies there was no com-
petition, but that they had carved the metropolis into districts, and
each company took its own. And. he seems to have derived his in-
57
formation from a Parliamentary Report, which I have not seen.
I beg to quote what Mr. F. is stated to have said, from p. 114 of
Proceedings before a Committee, Sfc. "A parliamentary examination
— to a copy of which Mr. F. referred the Committee — had shown
that in London great trouble had arisen from this cause (the supply-
ing water by private companies.) They had there thought to avoid
the miseries and evils of permitting a monopoly of water by establish-
ing a number of companies, thinking that competition would reduce
the prices. But these companies combined together, each took a
particular section of the city, and raised the prices by agreement.
The monopoly was worse than before, and one witness said that he
had been afraid to attend the commission until compelled, for fear
that the compan)^ would stop his supply of water." I will add that it
is well known that the companies are on the best possible terms, and
if from any cause the supply of one company fails, others connect
their mains with it and supply its customers.
To this rivalry, which we have seen does not exist, Mr. Hale at-
tributes the small dividends of the companies. I apprehend that the
true cause of the small dividends is the great disadvantage under
which the water is delivered. The works are old works; — iron
pipes have been substituted for wooden ones; — new improvements
have been introduced. (Qw. 5269.) All these expenditures have
gone into that " receptacle of things lost upon earth" — a construction
account. The expenditure has been so great that the companies
cannot realize a greater dividend than that received. For I have seen
no evidence, nor do I know of the slightest reason to suppose, that
the companies have not, and do not, regulate their water rents with
the sole view of getting the greatest possible income. Mr. Hale at-
tributes these small dividends to the " low price " of the water.
There can be no greater mistake ; for, on the contrary, the London
water rents are the very highest of any I have noticed. Dr. Clarke
(Qm. 31) says : " 3s. 4c?. seems as accurate an estimate as can now be
made" " of the water-rent paid by each person in London." But at
Nottingham (Qm. 5269) it is but Is. Qd., or less than half of London ;
and at Preston it appears to be but little, if any, higher than at
Nottingham (Qm. 13, p. 159, Ap. ;) while the several places named
by Mr. Thorn {Qu. 140,) have water at even a much lower rate. I
have noticed no place in England or Scotland, where the water rent
is anything near so high as in London. The difference in the income
of the London companies, and those of Nottingham and Preston,
arises from the different expenditure for individuals supplied. In
Nottingham this is .£1, in Preston £2, (but will be less as water
58
becomes more generally taken ;) while it is in London £S, and no
reasonable ground to expect much increased consumption.
Mr. Hale deduces, from what he considers this low price, the con-
sequence " that the quantity used is much larger in proportion to the
population supplied, than in any other town of England." Whether
such be fact or not, it is clear that it cannot be attributed either to
rivalry between the companies, or the low price of water. But I
have already shown that there is every reason to suppose the con-
sumption of water in London is greatly overstated ; and that it does
not probably exceed ISf gallons, per day, per head. I have great
doubts whether it in reality should be stated so high. In making the
calculation, (p. 29,) I took the delivery of 3 companies to each indi-
vidual per day. Now, if each company delivered to an equal number
of persons, this method would show a correct result. But as the
number of individuals in the several water districts is greatly differ-
ent, it would seem more correct to adopt the following method to
obtain an average consumption, viz.,
inhabitants, galls, each, gallons per day.
New River Company, 900,000 14 = 12,600,000
East London " (about) 300,000 23 = 6,900,000
Southwark " 138,000 19 = 2,622,000
1,338,000 22,122,000
Now, if we apportion 22,122,000 gallons among 1,338,000 persons,
each will receive very nearly 16J- gallons. So that, instead of allow-
ing 18§ gallons per head per day, to each inhabitant of London, it
would seem to be nearer the truth to allow but 16^ gallons. Whether
this, or even the other, be a greater consumption than is elsewhere
in England, is of no importance. Neither is large.
I here close what I have to say upon the pamphlet of Mr. Hale.
In this review I have endeavored in no case to pervert his meaning, or
to misrepresent him. If I have in any case done so, it has been unin-
tentional. I have, also, endeavored to use no fact or argument to
prove what it did not fairly tend to prove. Whether my review has
a substantial substratum of facts to sustain the points intended to be
established, I leave others to judge.
With a few general observations I propose to close these Further
Remarks.
For all purposes of general reasoning in discussing questions
like this, we are obliged to assume average results. But this is liable
to lead to an erroneous view of the subject. Now, in the consumption
of water, it is obvious from the nature of the case, as well as from
59
experience, that in the hot summer months much more water will be
consumed than in the cold winter ones. Probably a difference equal
to twenty-five per cent, between the extremes, is not too much to
be allowed. If the Long Pond scheme be adopted, permanent pro-
vision must be made for the maximum demand during the whole
year ; i. e. 25 per cent, more than will be wanted in some parts of
the year, and 122- per cent, more than the average demand. So
again, with regard to the future population of the city, and the demand
for water growing out of the number and habits of that population —
how much uncertainty must be allowed to hang over it. The Long
Pond scheme contemplates to burden a population of 125,000 with all
the expense necessary to supply 250,000. But if this demand fluc-
tuate between summer and winter to the extent of 25 per cent., and
the works be calculated to deliver but 11 cubic feet per second, and
that be only an average supply according to the calculation of the
Commissioners of 1844, it is obvious that a scarcity of water will be
felt many years before the population comes up to 250,000, and
before the average consumption be 28 gallons per head daily.
But why limit the population to 250,000 ? The territory of the
peninsula is limited ; but still there is room for an immense in-
crease. Besides South Boston and the neck lands, it is understood
that the proprietors of the empty basin in Back Bay are ready to fill
up every foot south of the Mill Dam and east of the Roxbury branch,
as soon as the city shall build upon the lands of the public garden, or
otherwise release them from the restrictions imposed upon them.
Should this be done, (and it is difficult to see good practical reasons
why it should not be done rather than compel population to go out of
the city,) it will add immensely to the e^i^tent of the city, and it will
be a region which must depend entirely upon water works for a
supply.
But it is rather a contracted view of this subject to limit the supply
to the city. From a reservoir on Cory's Hill it would be practicable
and convenient to supply the low parts of Old Cambridge, Cambridge
Port and East Cambridge, of Brookline, Brighton and Roxbury ; —
all which are fast filling up with a population living upon the business
of the city. It is as certain as anything of the kind can be, that,
within less than 50 (if not within 20) years, there will be a water
district containing much more than 250,000 inhabitants, which might
with the utmost convenience and propriety, draw its supply from the
city's reservoir ; and there is nothing in the way that I can see, why
in process of time even this number may not be doubled, or trebled.
Now the great beauty of the Charles River plan, is its adaptation to
sill these varying elements. The expense of pumping is the great
60
leading expense ; and the excellence of the scheme is, that, be the
demand great or small, the city need not pump a gill more than is
wanted, and when another gill is wanted, it may be had for the
pumping. The present generation is not thus taxed (to any con-
siderable extent) to provide for a doubtful and far distant demand ;
but as that demand grows up, whether in the city or out of it, it can
be readily and conveniently supplied. How the Long Pond scheme
dwindles into insignificance, in view of the demands of such a water
district as is most certain to grow up within a convenient distance of
the proposed reservoir ; and how short-sighted is the policy that
would, without necessity, and, indeed, without a single substantial
reason, adopt a plan which forever puts it out of the power of the
city to supply it !
Of the great importance of furnishing the masses of a densely
populated district with a full and copious supply of good water, no
one is more sensible than myself; and no one would more cheerfully
take his share of the necessary burden, in order to afford such a sup-
ply to this city, than I would. It is becoming and proper that a great
and growing city, like Boston, should receive this supply without
stint. I would have every inhabitant take the water, — pay for it
who could (if that be the plan adopted,) and without pay who could
not. It is not because I would stint the use, that my estimates of
consumption are below Mr. Hale's ; but because from the experience
of other places I do not find reason to suppose that, with a full supply,
and right to use or waste in houses, ad libitum, the consumption would
exceed my estimates. I say in houses, because I am inclined to
think that the water should be taken into every house where it is
used, and that no individual should be allowed to take it from the
street. Public hydrants, or stand pipes, for the use of the poor, are
fast going out of use in England. They are extremely liable to get
out of order ; and during many months they are kept from freezing
with great difficulty. Hence in the erection of new water works it is
getting to be the custom to have no public hydrants for the use of
citizens, but to carry the water into the houses of all who are to use
it. And this method is found to be economical ; — much less water is
wasted and much less stolen. The municipal corporations pay for the
poor ; but they are supplied in their houses. And truly, it seems to be
a pitiful condition to impose upon the indigent and infirm, who from
a decent pride would feel it a much greater hardship to expose them-
selves in the street for a supply than to pay for it if they were able,
that they shall obtain their supply from a public hydrant, in order to
obtain it gratis. Especially when that hydrant, open to whole neigh-
borhoods, is, and will be, drawn from by many who are well able to
61
pay for their supply. I am inclined, therefore, to think well of the
practice now growing up in England, of abolishing public hydrants,
except for strictly public purposes.
To return from this digression, I repeat that, in my judgment,
Boston should have a supply of water from a foreign source ; and I
cannot better give my views than in the language of Mr. Quincy, ap-
pended to the second edition of my Remarks, viz.,
" 1st, That water ought to he introduced into the city of Boston.
" ^d, That this great and all-imjjortant interest of the city ought
never to be placed under the control of one or more 'private corpo-
rations.
" 3rf, That ponds, such as now exist in our vicinity, ought never to
he depended upon as the source of supply.
" 4th, That a eivee was the only source on which a supply of that
element, so essential to life and comfort, should be allowed to depend.''''
(In this Mr. Quincy agrees with Dr. Clarke and Mr. Hayes.)
Who can read and reflect upon these positions of Mr. Quincy,
whose municipal experience far exceeds that of any of his successors,
and to whose wisdom and ability the city owes many of its most
valuable improvements, without feeling and acknowledging that they
are the results of enlarged and comprehensive views of the city's inter-
est ; and that, as such, they ought to be adopted.
I think this enterprise should be undertaken by the city itself, not
that its powers should be delegated to others for the purpose. The
regular organs of municipal operation should, by their own agents,
execute and manage, now and forever, this great and important pub-
lic interest, especially within the jurisdiction of the city ; and I think
no act of the legislature, granting pov/er to execute it, but taking the
execution, control and management out of the hands of the regularly
constituted city authorities, ought ever to be accepted, either as a
" boon" or a bane. I do not wish to review the act which has been
rejected ; nor to characterize its provisions in such terms as I think
they richly deserved. Nor would it become me to give advice in
regard to the future. To impart counsel becomes those who have
treasured up wisdom from an enlarged experience ; and to cause it
to be received, is the province of those who, from nature or education,
possess largely those qualities which exercise sway over popular
sentiment. But it is the lot of the humblest to entertain hopes and
fears ; and it is the privilege of the humblest to express them. I
would, then, express the hope that the legislature will never grant, and
that the citizens of Boston will never accept, an act that interferes
with the regular and orderly working of all the various departments
of our city government. I hope no man, or body of men, will ever
62
be allowed to expend public money, or run the city in debt, except
those to whom the law has given authority to assess taxes, to raise
the money, or pay the debt. I hope no man, or body of men, will
ever be authorized to fill or exhaust, on the city's account, any treas-
ury but the city treasury ; and that every dollar ever in hand, or ex-
pended for the city, will be in the custody, or paid out under the
sanction, of the city treasurer, whose oath of office, and whose bonds,
and whose annual accountability, give some assurance of honesty and
security. I hope no man, or body of men, will ever be allowed to ride
over the authority of the lawfully constituted surveyors of our high-
ways,— impeding our streets, jeoparding life and limb, and, perhaps,
subjecting the city to great expense in way of damages. Finally, I
hope that the citizens will see to it, that the execution, control,
management and use of this great and important interest be always
kept in the hands of the city government, to be affected through the
ballot-box like every other interest ; and that they will be " deaf as
adders" to every attempt to persuade them to allow a different
course,
I here close these Further Remarks. The views I here express,
are respectfully submitted to the consideration of such fellow citizens
as take an interest in the question. I hope they will serve to en-
lighten the mind of the public upon a topic which deeply affects their
welfare.
I will add one word in regard to Spot Pond. The proprietors have
their charter, and are endeavoring to get their stock taken up. They
have acquired privileges, apparently with the acquiescence of the
city ; and if they can get their stock subscribed for, and if they will
give the city government, or one branch of it, the supervision and
control, which they have publicly promised, I do not see why they are
not entitled to a fair opportunity to exercise their franchise. I should
hope that such an opportunity would be allowed them — though their
scheme is by no means my choice.
63
Note A. Page 4.
From Boston Courier, Sept. 24 and 28, 1844.
If, then, water be introduced by the city from abroad, shall all the inhabi-
tants use it freely 1 or shall those loho use it fay water-rents ? In advocating
the former of these methods, I should wish to be very cautious of expressing
any overweening confidence in my own views. The subject, like all sub-
jects involving taxation, has difficulties ; and if I have come to the conclusion
that the payment for water had better, on just and equitable grounds, be made
by a general tax upon the property of the citizens than by water-rents, still I
am by no means insensible to the objections that can hardly fail to occur
to every one against such a method, or to the weight of reasons in favor of
the usual course of collecting rents.
There are three distinct purposes for which water should be brought in,
and for which, to a greater or less extent, it will undoubtedly be used :
1st. To furnish a domestic supply.
2d. To promote public safety, by furnishing the means of extinguishing
fires.
3d. To promote cleanliness and health, by furnishing the means of wash-
ing the streets, &c.; and also of supplying many or few public fountains.
In most of the disquisitions on the subject which have fallen under my
notice, it seems to me that the first of these purposes has engrossed an un-
reasonable share of interest, and that the second and third have received
scarcely any notice. The public attention has been awakened by statements
of scarcity of water at particular seasons, in particular houses or neighbor-
hoods ; and the blessings of a supply of pure soft ivater for domestic purposes,
both to the rich and poor, have been dwelt upon, till we hardly can realize
that there are any other purposes, and those of a general character, for which
water is desirable. But if we will direct our attention to the second of the
purposes mentioned above, and estimate the effect of an abundant supply
of water on the public safety, so far only as indicated by its effects upon
rates of insurance, especially in the city of New York, where the inhabitants
have recently passed, through a transition state, from a very indifferent to a
most copious supply, the conclusion is irresistible, that this second purpose
is one of prominent, if not paramount, importance. Since the introduction of
the Croton Water into the city of New York, the rates of insurance have
fallen nearly or quite 40 per cent. It is not at all probable that the whole
of this reduction is attributable to the introduction of water ; but it is reason-
able to conclude that a considerable portion, say as much as 25 or 30 per
cent., is to be ascribed to that cause. Nor is it to be expected that the rates of
insurance in Boston would be affected to the same degree by the introduction
of water, as they were in New York ; for Boston is better secured against
fire now, than New York was before water was introduced ; and the rates of
insurance never were so high here as in New York, before the introduction of
water. Still, if, as it would seem, the introduction of water into Boston
would substantially diminish the risk of damages by fire, the conclusion is
irresistible that there would also follow a substantial reduction of the prem-
iums of insurance. By the risks referred to in this paragraph, I have in my
mind, more particularly, those attaching to personal property — a kind of
property of which every man has a greater or less portion, and by the loss of
which, whether insured or not, he is more or less affected, and affected, too,
not by any means in proportion to its value in dollars and cents. The risks
64
attaching to real estate, I shall have occasion to refer to again, in a different
connection.
But the public safety, as affected by the introduction of water, is not to be
measured entirely, or indeed, mainly, by the rates of insurance. A sense of
security to our persons, to our families, to our homes — protection against
death or injury to ourselves, our relatives and friends under our roofs, against
being suddenly, if not ruinously, broken up in our business or in our abodes,
— enters essentially and largely into all estimates of public safety. In all
these particulars, every man, woman and child, has a deep and inestimable
interest : an interest entirely irrespective of station and condition, which not
only equally puts at naught the efforts of rich and poor to calculate its value,
but quenches all inclination to do so.
Now we all know, and are accustomed to the fact, that all our means of
defence against fires are provided at the public expense, by a general tax.
In this manner we furnish and repair our engines, our hose, our ladders. In
this manner we keep up an organized fire department, consisting of a chief
engineer, six or eight assistant engineers, and a numerous body of foremen
and privates — and we pay them for their services. In aid of the same
general object, the city government have, for years, been in the habit of ap-
propriating several thousand dollars for building cisterns. If, then, all these
means of security against injury by fire, have been and are provided by a
general tax ; and if the introduction of water will make these means of
security much more perfect, where, it is pertinent to ask, is the injustice or
hardship of paying for this introduction, so far at least as this purpose is sub-
served, by a public tax 1
So also with regard to the third purpose above stated — viz., supplying
water for the purpose of cleaning the streets, &c., and for public fountains —
few will be disposed, I trust, to deny that such a supply would contribute
much to the general cleanliness, health and comfort of the city. Boston is
full of narrow, densely populated courts, lanes and alleys, which ought to be
familiar with the dash of the bucket and the friction of the scrubbing brush ;
but which are, alas, strangers to both. Scarcely can the rains of heaven
reach them.
If, then, we raise annually a large amount by taxation for what is denomi-
nated by the city government the Internal Health Department — embracing
the removal of offal and all nuisances, the sweeping of streets, and, generally,
the prompt and effectual removal of every visible cause of taint to the atmos-
phere, and of sickness to the people ; and if the introduction and free use of
a copious supply of water would greatly contribute to the promotion of this
invaluable object, where, it is again pertinent to inquire, is the injustice or
hardship of providing this additional means at the public expense'?
And as to a few public fountains — the city government are in the habit of
appropriating more or less of the people's money for the recreation of the
people. The Common is a special object of favor, and no inconsiderable
sums are annually expended in ornamenting it, and in keeping it in order.
The same, to a certain extent, is true of the public grounds on Fort Hill,
and perhaps other places. Now, if we are accustomed to pay for these
things, from a treasury filled only by taxation, is it unreasonable to suppose
that the erection and maintenance of some four or five fountains, located in
different parts of the city, imparting both pleasure and health to whole neigh-
borhoods, to be paid from the same purse, would be begrudged by the citizens
generally 1 I think not ; and if they did, it would appear to me very un-
reasonable.
The purposes I have here treated of, are strictly public purposes. The
objects to be attained are strictly puS/zc objects — always so considered, and
always as such provided for. Still, the importance of these purposes are
very likely to be under-estimated.
65
We have seen that two of the three purposes for which water should be
introduced into the city, and for which it will undoubtedly be used, are
strictly public purposes, and that the water for these purposes may, con-
sistently with all our habits and notions, be paid for by a general tax. The
other purpose, viz., domestic supply, though named first, I have, without any
particular intention of so doing, reserved for consideration in the last place ;
and it is obvious that the whole difficulty of my case lies in reconciling the
paying for the water used for this purpose by a general tax, to our sense of
justice and equity.
For the better discussing of this subject, it may be expedient to consider
the inhabitants of the city to be divided into three classes, viz., owners of
real estate, occupants in independent circumstances, and the indigent. It is
not necessary for my purpose that this division should be very accurate or
distinct — generally, 1 wish to embrace among the indigent all those who
really suffer for want of water, and also those to whom the water would be
of important use, but who cannot afford to take it and pay for it, and who, in
the judgment of an individual or of a board clothed with power to give
licenses, would receive licenses for its free use. Nor will it affect the force
or application of my remarks, that many of the independent occupants of
dwelling houses are to that extent also owners of real estate ; for such may
be placed in both classes, and be affected alike with each class.
Now, as to the supply of those occupants who are indigent, is there any
good reason why that should not be paid for by a general tax 1 I believe it
is customary in all cases to provide for the poor gratis, even where the water
is owned by private companies. Surely, where it is owned by the city, the
claims of this class cannot be resisted. It is agreeable to all our habits of
thought and action, to aid this class by a general tax. It is true that our
tendency is to limit this aid to paupers ; but it is not so limited in practice.
If, by some aid at home, it appears probable that a person or a family may
be saved from pauperism, it is usual, in practice, to give it. If persons in
indigent circumstances, out of which class paupers come, and, of course,
always will come, can be supplied with water, so that they can be prevented
from coming into the poor house by doing washing, or any other work re-
quiring a supply of water, it is not only the cheapest, but by far the most
orderly, way in which the city can give its aid. The citizens of Boston
derive much satisfaction from their charitable institutions at South Boston ;
and they feel a lively interest in the welfare and comfort of the less success-
ful and prosperous portions of the inhabitants of the city. I cannot, there-
fore, think it necessary to argue very strongly the point that, if water be
brought into the city at the public expense, it should be supplied to the poor
and indigent also at the public expense. This will dispose of a considerable
portion of the supply for domestic purposes.
And I will take occasion here to remark, that, with this disposition of this
class of consumers, we dispose of all those considerations which we are ac-
customed to hear urged in favor of bringing water into the city at all. All
the grounds of a public necessity arising out of actual suffering for water,
exist in this class ; and whoever would sympathize -with this suffering, must,
so far as I can see, agree, that it should be alleviated at the public expense.
No one can consistently advocate the payment of a water-rent, in order to
supply those who cannot pay for it, and still ought to have it.
I now come to consider the domestic supply for the remaining two classes,
viz., the owners of real estate, and the independent portion of housekeepers
or occupants. These two classes are the tax-payers of the city, and may be
considered as the only tax-payers : so that, whether the water be paid for by
a general tax or by water-rents, the payment must finally come from these
classes. _ What we wish, therefore, is, to see (so far as the supply of these
. classes is concerned) how the principle of a general tax will operate.
9
66
The real estate of the city is this year valued by the assessors at seventy
millions of dollars. It is undoubtedly worth more. It would be fair lo consider
about one half, or thirty-five millions, as destructible by fire, and properly a
subject of risk. It matters not whether it be actually insured or not. If it
be subject to destruction or injury by fire, a risk of that destruction or injury
is taken by the owner, or is paid for by him ; in either case, the burden, to
the full extent of the risk, is upon him.
Now, whatever diminishes this risk is a real saving, and is a direct matter
of benefit to the owners of real estate. No one, I apprehend, can have the
hardihood to question that the introduction of a copious supply of water will
greatly diminish the risk. I do not, as before stated, suppose the effect
upon the risk, or upon the rates of insurance, here, will be as great as
they have been in New York ; still it can admit of no doubt whatever, that
the owners of the real estate of the city will, and must, of necessity, derive
a great, in the aggregate very great, benefit from the introduction of water,
which the other class does not derive.
I can see no general reason why about the same proportion of these two
classes should not take the water. If supplied gratis, I suppose all would
take it ; if water-rents be paid, about an equal proportion of each class would
probably take it. And if water-rents be paid, it is to be presumed that the
worth, or cost, of what each tenant of these classes has, he pays for. This
is the least that can be expected.
Now it is obvious that neither as a class, nor as individuals, do the occu-
pants of dwelling-houses derive an advantage merely from the introduction
of water, to equal, in any considerable degree, that derived by the owners of
real estate. If water-rents be paid, they pay the worth of the water, leaving
the whole benefit incident to the having a supply for the extinguishment of
fires, to be realized without payment by the owners of the houses. To
illustrate by examples. A owns the dwelling-house occupied by B. B
takes the water, and pays a water-rent of $6 per annum. A saves in in-
surance upon the same house, from the introduction of water, just the same
sum annually, say $6. Now, it is clear that A and B derive just equal
benefits from the introduction of water ; but, by the supposition, B, the oc-
cupant, pays a full equivalent for his benefit, while A, the owner, pays
nothing for his.
I would not imply that the saving in insurance upon dioelling houses
would equal the water-rents to the tenants or occupants of those houses ;
yet I suppose that there are some cases in which that saving would equal
the water rents ; and when the stores and warehouses are considered, which
will not usually pay water-rents, it may not be a very extravagant suppo-
sition to suppose that the saving on all would nearly equal the water-rents.
With the best and most popular adjustment of water-rents, (if we have
them,) it must be many years before the amount of rents will pay the inter-
est of the cost of the work. Of this all experience teaches the truth. Now,
if water-rents be assessed, and an amount collected to half the amount of
interest to be paid on the cost, it is obvious that the other half must be raised
by general tax. How will this tax bear upon A and B, the owner and oc-
cupier of a dwelling house — supposing B to be worth as much as the value
of the house ? If B pay a water-rent of $6 per annum, and only half the
interest is met thereby, it may not be far from the fact that, in raising the
other half sum to pay the interest, another $ 6 must come from him and
from the house — say $ 3 from each. So B will, in all, pay $ 9 for what is
worth but $6, and he will, therefore, be a loser of $3; and A will save
$6, and pay but $3 tax — coming out with $3 benefit, for which he pays
nothing.
Now, the examples here put, are not extreme cases. I do not see any
fallacy in them, as exemplifying the operation of a general rule upon the
67
classes now under consideration ; and if they fairly illustrate such an opera-
tion, it seems to me that justice and equity require that the rule should not
be allowed to operate. But, on the contrary, it seems to me that justice
and equity would be immeasurably better exemplified by the payment of the
interest by a general tax, than by an attempt to assess water-rents. For,
although by a general tax a class might pay more in taxes than it would be
required to pay as water-rent, under a system of water-rents, still there can
be little or no reason to suppose that any class will be required to pay so
much as it will be really benefited by the measure.
There are several other considerations which might be urged, strengthen-
ing these views ; but I have neither room nor time, at present, to go into
them. From the best consideration I have been able to give this subject in
its several bearings, it seems to me to square more nearly with all our habits
of public right and equity, that the water, when brought in and distributed
for domestic use, should be paid for by a common tax, than by water-rents ;
and, of course, I hope such will be the plan adopted, unless there are reasons
which have not occurred to me, more cogent and weighty than any that
have.
If the plan shall be that every occupant may have the water gratis, then
it will follow that all, or nearly all, will take it ; and it will also follow,
that provision must be made to supply all, and, of course, a source must be
selected, capable of supplying all, now and prospectively, for a reasonable
period to come.
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the preceding sheets were printed, the Croton Water Board
have published their annual Report. This I have not yet seen ; but the
New York press has given a synopsis of it, accompanied with the usual (or
a little more) laudation of the success of that enterprise.
I am not about to expatiate upon any want of wisdom in the planning, or
of economy in the execution, of the Croton Water Works. I do not know
that an adequate source for a supply could be resorted to nearer ; nor do I
know that the general plan of bringing in the water was more expensive than
it need to have been, nor do I know that a dollar has been wasted or need-
lessly expended in its execution, or that the whole has cost more than ought
to have been expected. But one thing we do know ; — we do know, that,
after many years spent in making surveys, and in discussing the subject, a
vote of the citizens was obtained to undertake the work, on the ground, and with
all possible assurances, that the cost would not exceed (including distribution)
5^ millions dollars, and that the water rents would he equal, at once, to
$310,000. We also knoiv that the work has cost 14 millions of dollars, and
is not yet finished ; that three years of experience has been had, and that the
GROSS income of the second year was hut $ 102,000, and of the third but
$ 118,000; ivhile the net income of the second year was but $32,000, and of
the third $45,000, and 3 miles of distribution pipe. These are facts —
these are anticipations, and these are fulfilments — within every man's
68
knowledge, and suitable for every man's consideration. I think them full of
salutary admonition.
Though such results are before us, published to the world, yet the leading
presses of New York think them highly satisfactory. One thinks that no
sensible man in New York would be without the water, as expensive as it
is ; and the president of the aqueduct is represented {p. 67 of Proceedings
before a Legislative Commiilee, c]'c.) to have written to L. Norcoss, Esq.,
Feb. 14, 1845, " stating that he believed that the opinion of the citizens
was that they would not be without it (the water) even if the debt that it
had cost were trebled."
Now all this is entitled to little more regard than mere bravado. The
conclusion which every sensible man, not interested, must come to, is that,
as a scheme, undertaken on specific and prudent grounds, the Croton
Works is an utter failure. Every consideration which was put" forth, re-
garding the expenditure and income, to induce the people to undertake it,
has signally failed ; and it remains to be seen how the city is to get out of
her difficulty. I fear she will never get out of it, until she sees and ac-
knowledges it. It is well for those to whom the debt is due, that the debtors
keep good heart, and flatter themselves that they are going on swimmingly ;
but to some bystanders they seem to vaunt much in the spirit of Rudge's
Raven, that would " never say die."
It seems, from the statement of the Croton commissioners, that but little
more than half their income, small as it is, has been derived from rents for
domestic purposes; — the rest having been received from sales for manu-
facturing and other similar purposes. Now, how insignificant it appears, to
collect the pitiful sum of $70,000, from near 400,000 inhabitants, as a com-
pensation for the use of the water for domestic purposes, and spend I know
not how much in collecting it ; while, probably, nearly all who contribute in
this way a full value for the water they use, pay, in addition, precisely the
same tax (20 cts. on $ 100) as those who either steal the water or go with-
out it. I could hardly suppose a case better adapted to illustrate and enforce
the propriety of allowing a free distribution for domestic use.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06428 000 9
«««' m'na
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11