Mr. TAWNEY. We will proceed now with the statements of those who are
here to speak for the lake traffic associations, and before doing so
we will hear Prof. Phelps on the subject of pollution by means of
lake traffic.
Prof. PHELPS. The progress report of the commission has sufficiently
placed on record the statement of the extent and distribution by
shipping interests. It will not be necessary for me to make any
further statement than to bring out two points of distinction
between this peculiar type of pollution and that with which we have
been dealing in the case of the cities. The first of these is due
to the movable character of this sort of pollution, whereby it may
and does pass within close proximity to the waterworks intake of
the city. The second of these is due to the fact that the steamboat
traffic is confined in lines, the result of which practice is the
pollution of the steamboat’s own water supply by steamboats which
have preceded it. The importance of this matter, which was emphasized
in the progress report, led us in the United States Public Health
Service to undertake a solution, a possible means of remedying the
situation which would satisfactorily dispose of these things without
undue expense or undue inconvenience to the city interests. These
investigations have been proceeding now for nearly two years, and
I am going to ask Mr. Leslie C. Frank, the sanitary engineer of
the United States Public Health Service, to describe to you the
character of the investigation and the type of apparatus which he has
designed to meet the situation, together with some remarks upon the
application of the apparatus at the present time.
Mr. TAWNEY. State what investigations the Government has made and the
results.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE C. FRANK, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., SANITARY
ENGINEER, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.
Mr. FRANK. As Prof. Phelps has told you, the Public Health Service,
realizing the probable future necessity of treating the sewage from
vessels in some way or another, has endeavored to find a practicable
solution. So that for the past two years we have been studying
various methods, and we have been experimenting with what seemed to
be the best method.
The method of traffic-sewage control is to provide storage tanks
for the sewage so equipped that the sewage is both automatically
disinfected and automatically discharged by means of steam or other
heating element when it has reached a certain predetermined level
in the tank. This method has been described in Reprint No. 247 of
the Public Health Service reports. Briefly, the device consists
of a tank, as shown in the illustration, with a sewage influent
pipe penetrating nearly to the bottom; a discharge pipe having its
influent end near the bottom of the tank, and rising up through
the tank to a point above it; a float and valve with a lost-motion
connection; and a steam influent pipe. The operation of the tank is
simple. When the sewage has reached a certain predetermined level
the float automatically turns on the steam, which escapes into the
sewage through a number of small holes. All of the heat of the steam,
of course, is given up to the sewage, which rapidly approaches the
boiling point. As soon as the boiling point is reached, but not
before, pressure is developed in the tank and the sewage is forced up
and out through the discharge pipe. When, owing to this discharge,
the sewage level in the tank has dropped to a predetermined minimum
the float, through its lost-motion connection, turns off the steam
and the tank is ready for the next cycle of operation.
There are a number of distinct advantages of this method:
(_a_) It depends upon heat for its disinfection efficiency, and heat
is generally acknowledged, as above noted, to be very thorough in its
action.
(_b_) Its action is entirely automatic. This eliminates the
uncertainties of manual operation by a large number of employees.
(_c_) If fresh sewage enters the device while it is being discharged,
the discharge immediately ceases.
There is no danger, therefore, of fresh sewage being carried out
untreated. This advantageous feature is due to the fact that as soon
as any fresh sewage enters the device its contents are chilled to a
temperature at which pressure is impossible. The new mixture must
again be brought to the boiling point before further discharge will
take place.
(_d_) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked over drinking-water
areas.
(_e_) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked while waiting in
stations. This latter has, of course, no public-health significance,
but it does concern very nearly the comfort of the passengers. In
lieu of locking the toilet doors while standing in stations, the
porter has merely to turn off a steam valve penetrating the car floor
external to the toilet. The tank can be designed with a sufficient
reserve capacity to care for any reasonable period of waiting. The
objection will be raised immediately, of course, that the porter
may forget to turn on the valve when the train leaves the station.
This is true, but forgetfulness of this sort will rapidly create its
own remedy. For, at the station stop immediately subsequent to the
complete filling of the tank and its consequent dribbling, the fact
of the porter’s forgetfulness would be made painfully evident by
toilet discharges upon the station platform. It should be remembered
in this connection that the porter can not help himself in such an
emergency by locking the toilet doors.
The above device is now being experimented with upon a stationary
basis in order to secure the maximum simplification of details and to
secure data upon steam consumption, and bacterial efficiency. As soon
as these studies are completed experimental devices will be placed
upon vessels and railway coaches and tested in actual service. It
is believed that the cost of operation will be extremely low. Rough
preliminary office estimates indicate that the cost of disinfection
with the above device should not be over two-tenths of a cent per
cubic foot of sewage disinfected. This preliminary estimate is based
upon the assumption that 1 pound of coal in the average modern
locomotive will evaporate 6 pounds of water, and that locomotive coal
costs $1.50 per ton delivered into the locomotive. This certainly
should be more than sufficient allowance for radiation.
Based on the above estimate, sewage disinfection for a railway coach
which used 10 cubic feet per day for toilet flushing will cost about
2 cents per day. The cost for steamers will probably be somewhat
higher owing to the greater amount of water used per toilet flush.
An estimate of 5 or 10 cents per closet per day would seem
reasonable. The steamers could, of course, reduce this considerably
by substituting railway toilets for their present equipment.
That is, briefly, a description of the manner in which the tank works.
Mr. POWELL. What temperature is the water?
Mr. FRANK. We have been experimenting with the tank since January,
and in none of our tests has the temperature at which discharge began
been lower than 190° F., and that has only been when I have put steam
in at such a high rate that it rose through the water so rapidly
to the surface as not to condense as in the usual adjustment. In
practically all of the experiments where I have so adjusted the steam
valve--mind you, this has an automatic adjustment, too--as to cause
the time of heating to be about 15 or 20 minutes, the temperature has
always been between 200 and 212, practically boiling, always above
the killing temperature for pathogenic organisms. I should say it
was, roughly, about----
Mr. POWELL. One hundred and seven?
Mr. FRANK. No; about 160° F., which is equivalent to 60° C. The
device may be regulated so that the discharge is never under 200. I
think that the effect of the temperature can be illustrated by the
results of our tests. We have never in any case been able to recover
B. coli from the effluent, except once, in a great many tests. I have
forgotten how many there were. In this one case I put the steam at
such a high pressure that the discharge took place in only two or
three minutes. Now, it is possible, in the manner of installing the
device upon a vessel, to make it absolutely impossible for that to
take place. I say that because I have been operating with 100 pounds
steam pressure in Washington and reducing it down to about 5; and it
is always possible on some vessels to make the line carry anything
you want by a proper reducing valve. And if this line can be brought
to somewhere about 10 to 15 pounds per square inch it is physically
impossible for the discharge to take place in anything less than 10
or 15 minutes.
As regards what has been done toward installing the device on
vessels, this experiment has been almost entirely due to the courtesy
of Col. William Livingstone, president of the Lake Carriers’
Association. As you will remember, some time ago he offered to
provide for the commission one or more vessels for experimentation.
He has now made good that promise, and last week I was in Cleveland,
and initiated the installation of the apparatus with which I have
been experimenting in Washington since January upon the _D. G. Kerr_,
just recently off the ways, and now completed, I believe, from what I
heard in Cleveland. The installation of the device will be completed
about to-morrow, and the first trip of the vessel is scheduled to
begin Wednesday morning. I expect to make that trip on her. In regard
to the future experimental work with the device, I do not think it
ought to be too quick. I think we ought to take a fair amount of time
to satisfy ourselves as to the manner in which the device works. I do
not think one or two trips are enough to tell whether it will work
or not. We have been experimenting with the device upon a stationary
basis at a pumping station. That means no motion of the device; and
it is certainly desirable to determine how it will act on a rolling
vessel, and that will be the object of the present experiments during
the coming season.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Do you foresee that the rolling of the vessel will make
any difference?
Mr. FRANK. At present I can not see any definite trouble that is
likely to result. With the rolling of the vessel I foresee that when
the tank is half full the surface of the water in the tank may be
caused to sway at an angle depending upon the rolling of the vessel.
Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the size of the tank?
Mr. FRANK. This tank with which I have been experimenting, which
is designed for a group of toilets, is 24 inches in diameter by 30
inches long, and I have instructed them to place it longitudinally
with the ship, so that the least wave action will take place from
rolling. The ship on which this has been placed, for example, is 500
or 600 feet long and does not receive much effect from pitching.
It is too long for that on the Great Lakes, but it does experience
rolling, so that I have exposed the short portion of the tank to
the rolling. The only thing that I can see might happen is this,
that before the tank fills to the point where, normally, the steam
is turned on automatically, the wave action will turn on the steam
so that steam will enter the device. Also, if the tank is in the
act of discharging, and the vessel rolls, and, say, if it is half
discharged, then if one side of the tank on which the float is
situated should be temporarily depressed, it would shut off the steam
before the sewage had quite discharged. But I can not see any harm in
it. It simply, momentarily, during the storm, reduces the capacity
of the tank and makes the steam turn on oftener and reduces the
capacity of the tank. That is the only effect I can see. I am also
anticipating a possible knocking of the float on the inside of the
tank by the insertion of stoppage lugs fitted by buffer springs. If
the rolling were serious the buffer might be knocked against the top
of the tank and be water-logged, and I am endeavoring to stop that by
the insertion of buffer lugs.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is the capacity of your tank in gallons?
Mr. FRANK. About 70 gallons.
Mr. TAWNEY. Would that suffice for a fairly large vessel?
Mr. FRANK. That would suffice only for about half a dozen toilets,
and if a vessel had a group of half a dozen toilets in the rear and
half a dozen forward they would require to have two tanks. It is
not necessary to delimit the side of the tanks to say how large the
tanks should be. I think it would be much wiser to let that problem
be solved for each particular vessel. The older vessels have a great
many toilets, and would require more tanks. The newer vessels, which
have fewer toilets, would have correspondingly fewer tanks.
Mr. TAWNEY. What is the cost of the outfit?
Mr. FRANK. It is difficult to say, but I should say it would not be
expensive. The experimental tank which we have built in Washington,
which is designed for six toilets, cost $600, but remember that is
experimental, and one of the engineers whom I had to help me put
three-sixteenths steel. That is more like building a warship, and it
does not require to be so heavy. In practice it would not come to
that.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Could you install it in vessels already built?
Mr. FRANK. It depends on the character of the vessel. I think it is
comparatively easy. The _D. G. Kerr_ has been built already and had
the soil pipe already inserted. The master mechanic, with whom I was
talking yesterday about the installation of the device, stated that
he thought it would take, roughly, 24 hours to install that tank.
Mr. MIGNAULT. In what part of the vessel is it placed?
Mr. FRANK. This particular experimental tank is being placed aft. Of
course the tanks in practice would be placed wherever the soil pipes
happened to be built.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is this a freight vessel?
Mr. FRANK. Yes. The cost of the operation, I think, will be almost
negligible. We had this experimental device installed in the sewage
pumping station in Washington, where we had a steam pressure of about
100 pounds per square inch and boilers of about 100 horsepower. It
was impossible at any time to observe any effect whatever on those
boilers when this device was receiving steam at its maximum flow,
and I simply mentioned that to indicate that there would be no
observable, even temporary, effect upon the steam supply for the
engines in the vessels. There is no such great consumption of steam.
I can explain to you steamboat people when I say that a half or
three-quarter inch pipe will carry all the steam you need.
As regards the cost of operation, I have not the figures with me
just now, but I computed, theoretically allowing 100 per cent
additional cost for radiation, and I got 13 per cent for everything,
including the amount by which the steam had already condensed in
the pipe lines. I think the cost of operation goes away down to
point zero something. If you figure it out upon the theoretical
heat units that are known absolutely to be in the steam, there is
no other conclusion but that the cost of operation of the device
is negligible, and that the only thing which really need concern
you is the cost of installation of the device. However, as regards
operation, I think it would be better to wait for confirmation after
the device is tried.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is the only contamination of the water by steamboats that
which is discharged from closets?
Mr. FRANK. I think it can safely be assumed that the only part of
steamboat discharge which has a pathogenic significance is that
coming from the closets and urinals. I do not think any other
particular discharge need concern us.
Mr. TAWNEY. The meats, or anything of that kind, can not become
affected, being thrown into the water? Would that not have some
effect?
Mr. FRANK. I do not know, but I think that the frequency of
occurrence of infected meats upon vessels would be so low that any
infection of the waters due thereto would be negligible and would be
dissipated quickly.
Mr. POWELL. You could take care of that as a separate problem; give
it a dose of steam.
Mr. FRANK. I think some kitchen rules could be formulated that would
take care of that.
Mr. POWELL. What temperature Fahrenheit would you say?
Mr. FRANK. You could so regulate the device that it would be
physically impossible----
Mr. POWELL. But what degree of heat?
Mr. FRANK. Between 200 and 212. The device can be regulated so that
it will never discharge under 200, and is practically always 210. At
centigrade the pathogenic temperature is 60.
Mr. TAWNEY. Don’t you think the complete sanitary requirements should
call for some sterilization of refuse matter of the kitchen? If you
were prescribing sanitary rules to be observed by the lake carrying
trade, would it not be wise to make some provision for sterilization
of refuse matter from the kitchen in the form of infected meats, or
anything of that kind?
Mr. FRANK. I do not think I would be prepared, without a good deal
further thought, to say so. I have not given it any thought in the
past.
Mr. TAWNEY. I was trying to get at whether your system would be
complete in itself for the purpose of preventing contamination of
these waters by reason of steamboat navigation.
Mr. FRANK. I believe it could be safely said that, inasmuch as
probably away over 99 per cent of all infected pollution which is
discharged from the vessel is discharged through the toilets and
urinals, emphasis might reasonably be laid only on those for the
present, until it is definitely shown that real infection can result
from the meats or kitchen waste. As I say, I have not thought of the
problem in connection with the kitchen, and I really do not know
whether you could, by discharging this waste, produce much affection
or any affection.
Mr. POWELL. It would not be a difficult matter to sterilize them with
an iron tank with a cover to prevent the escape of steam and a cock
to turn on the steam. It is easy enough.
Mr. FRANK. Yes. If the meat or any of the feed were in large pieces,
all that would be necessary would be to chop it up into relatively
fine pieces.
Mr. POWELL. It would not cost more than $25 or $30.
Mr. FRANK. I would not place it quite so cheap.
Prof. PHELPS. It could all be burned in the furnace.
Mr. POWELL. There is very little new under the sun. Very nearly
this same appliance has been in use on the Muskoka Lakes in their
steamboats.
Mr. FRANK. Then I will be interested to know how it works.
Mr. MIGNAULT. You are not in a position to estimate the cost.
Mr. FRANK. I would prefer to wait until these experiments furnish me
with actual figures on board ship.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is comparatively small.
Mr. FRANK. I think it could be safely said to be negligible, as far
as steam consumption is concerned.
Mr. SLOMAN. Have you made any inquiry as to whether or not the
garbage could be disposed of by an incinerating plant?
Mr. FRANK. No; I have not.
Mr. SLOMAN. Or whether the cost of an incinerating plant would exceed
the cost of the plant you have in mind?
Mr. FRANK. I think Prof. Phelps’s suggestion to simply throw the
kitchen refuse which is thought to be infected into the furnace is
the most simple and obvious that has been suggested.
Mr. SLOMAN. Your plant does not take care of anything but the excreta
from the closets?
Mr. FRANK. It does not.
Mr. SLOMAN. So that the vegetable matter and all that would have to
be dealt with. After you have sterilized it you would throw it into
the water?
Mr. FRANK. Yes.
Mr. SLOMAN. After you have sterilized it and cast it into the water
and it goes to the shore, would it not become a menace again by
coming back into the water?
Mr. FRANK. No; because the pathogenic organisms can not grow.
Mr. SLOMAN. Is it not a fact that in erecting ordinary dwellings they
have an incinerating plant, by which they take care of the garbage by
burning it?
Mr. FRANK. It may be done in country homes, but it is not done on
vessels.
Dr. MCCULLOUGH. I am much interested in the description of the device
given by this gentleman, and I may say that on the Muskoka Lakes,
where about 30,000 people go every year, we carry out in principle
what he proposes. We have not the automatic device that he has, but
what we have answers the purpose very well. The sewage all goes into
a large tank, and live steam is turned into that for 20 minutes. The
requirement is that the effluent shall not be poured into any of
the harbors; it must be turned into the middle of the lake. All the
steamboats are under one company, and they are very willing to carry
out this device or arrangement because it is a good advertisement
for them. They are catering entirely to passenger and freight and
bringing people to this summer resort, so that our task in getting
them to establish the arrangement is an easy one.
Now, we are beginning to establish similar arrangements on the boats
plying around Georgian Bay. With regard to the garbage which is
thrown from the boats, I do not think we have very much complaint
about the Muskoka Lakes, because it is eaten up by the gulls and
birds found in large numbers on the waters. I am very much interested
in the description of this device, and will be glad to know it is a
satisfactory one, because if it turns out to be so, it will probably
be established on our boats when any new ones come in to be equipped.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Regarding the tank installed on the Muskoka Lakes, is
the effluent rendered harmless?
Dr. MCCULLOUGH. I think undoubtedly, because the steam is turned on
for 20 minutes, and I think that would settle everything.
Mr. POWELL. What is the cost of the plant?
Dr. MCCULLOUGH. It is comparatively small.
Mr. DALLYN. I think about $100 would be the cost.
Mr. TAWNEY. I have here a letter which the chairman asked me to
present. It reads as follows:
SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
_June 20, 1916_.
Hon. O. GARDNER,
_Chairman, International Joint Commission,
Federal Building, Buffalo, N. Y._
MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of June the 19 addressed to Hon.
Daniel W. Hoan, mayor, city of Milwaukee, has been referred
to me for reply.
With the permission of the Sewerage Commission of the city
of Milwaukee I should be glad to attend your meeting, to
be held at Detroit on Tuesday, June 27, to assist you in
any way I can in the discussion for adoption of the most
feasible and efficient system for the disposal of sewage
pollution of the cities which affect the boundary waters.
I am sending this communication to your address at the
Federal Building, Buffalo, also the Federal Building at
Detroit, and Southern Building at Washington, D. C.
Upon my arrival at Detroit on Tuesday morning I will call
at the Federal Building about 10 o’clock.
Very truly, yours,
T. CHALKLEY HATTON, _Chief Engineer_.
P. S.--My engagements are such that I must leave Detroit
for Pittsburgh the night of June 27.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Livingstone, is it your desire to present to the
commission anything on this matter of remedies for the pollution of
these waters occasioned by steamboat traffic?
STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, OF DETROIT, MICH.,
PRESIDENT LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I do not think I have anything to present different
from what I stated to the commission before. I stated that so far
as our Lake Carriers’ Association was concerned we would gladly
cooperate with you in carrying out the objects by every means in our
power, and at that time, in the course of the long discussion that
ensued, I stated that I would be glad to put a boat or two, or more
boats, as the case might be, at your disposal, to test any plan which
the health board wanted to try out. Mr. Frank went over the ground.
It is useless for me to repeat that. He came to me and I arranged
to put a boat at his disposal. He has the apparatus installed,
and he can have the use of her for testing as long as he pleases.
Our thought about the matter summed up is this: We are willing to
cooperate with you in any way in our power, but we have this feeling
about it decidedly, that, whatever apparatus is adopted we feel that
it ought to be thoroughly tested and carried beyond the experimental
stage, so to speak, and that the experts should be satisfied that
the plants installed will accomplish the purpose for which they are
installed, because otherwise, if we were to adopt a mechanical device
to accomplish this purpose and to put it on board our boats costing
a great many thousand dollars and then found after we had installed
them that they would not work properly and had to tear them out, the
result would be a loss of time and money, and no possible good would
result. We have some 16 steamers, and naturally the cost would be
great. We feel now that it is just in the experimental stage. We do
not feel that the time has arrived at which the health bureau are
prepared to say, “If you install this device it will be satisfactory
and accomplish the result”; but as soon as they are prepared to say,
“We have tested this out; we have given it a thorough test; and we
are satisfied in our minds that it will accomplish the purpose set
forth,” then we will say, “Go ahead.”
May I add one thing? I want it to be clearly understood that I am
not asking that our boats be exempt from any part of their duty to
be performed to the general public, but it seems to me the matter
has been overstated, to some extent. I am not putting it in by
way of defense or expiation. I may say that we have in our employ
approximately 17,000 people. If you take all the men employed on
all the boats on the Great Lakes--call it 25,000, if you please--we
employ the majority of them, and it must be remembered that they are
not depositing their sewage or excretion into the water at any one
point, and the idea that they can pollute and contaminate the waters
to the same extent that this great city of 700,000 inhabitants can,
with the sewers flowing into the river, is simply impossible.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is not only the sewage deposited by the employees of
the vessels you speak of, but the steamboat population of the Great
Lakes in 1913 was 50,000,000 souls.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I know that; we carried nearly 14,000,000 out of
Detroit. I am not making any defense. I am not asking that they be
treated differently from any other citizens of the United States. We
do not ask for one blessed thing in the way of exemption. We stand up
and try to do our full share as citizens of the country. I have lived
in Detroit all my life, nearly, and have a large family, and am just
as much interested in Detroit as any man living here can possibly
be, and just as anxious we should get pure water to drink as any man
living. I am not putting it upon the ground of cost either. It is not
a question of dollars and cents. I want that understood. The point we
want to be satisfied on is that it will work efficiently.
I have been connected entirely with freight boats. The average crew
is about 25. The passenger boats carry a larger complement. Unless
I misunderstood him, Mr. Sloman said that the water board sent me a
letter, I think, nearly, if not quite, two years ago and asked that
on account of the intake pipe near Detroit, which is up at the head
of Belle Isle on the American side, we should make some arrangement
that for several miles above that we would have our closets closed
until we had passed that intake pipe. We complied with it, and I am
not sure whether all the passenger lines complied with it. I know I
personally asked them all, and I am reasonably sure the request was
complied with. Nothing was deposited anywhere near the intake pipe. I
went into this matter fully and exhaustively at the last meeting of
the commission, and we stand now just where we did then. Anything you
gentlemen decide, after giving it careful and exhaustive study, we
stand ready to abide by, but we think it has not yet been tested out
sufficiently, and I think Prof. Phelps will agree with me that they
have not yet got to the point where they will say it will do the work.
Mr. MAGRATH. Mr. Sloman made quite a point about the garbage from
steamers as being an injury to property. There must be a tremendous
amount of garbage where there is such a heavy passenger traffic each
season.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. That is true. Where do you live, Mr. Sloman?
Mr. SLOMAN. Up at Sans Souci.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. On Harrisons Island?
Mr. SLOMAN. Yes.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I will say that the orders are peremptory that
no garbage shall be thrown into the river, but, of course, it is
impossible to control all our vessels.
Mr. SLOMAN. What is done with it?
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Sometimes it is thrown into the Lakes, but I do not
claim to make any point on that, because it is not handled as well as
it should be handled, but we do the best we can with the facilities
we have. However, I want to emphasize one thing--that the orders are
peremptory that in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers no garbage shall
be thrown, and you know that I know whereof I speak. The man that
is reported for doing that will get the short shrift. Of course it
is clearly understood that we have careless employees the same as
anybody else. Sometimes on a dark night, if the cook thinks it is too
much trouble to put the garbage into a receptacle which we provide
for it, he throws it over the rail. I presume that sometimes happens,
but I am speaking of the general orders. If I have not filed the
sanitary rules which we have published, I will be glad to file them.
These rules are given to all the members of the crews.
Mr. SLOMAN. Have you ever ascertained the rules in Europe on the
vessels? You have traveled on them?
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I know nothing, except being a passenger on the
ocean. I know the methods of taking care of the garbage for the
cities generally.
Mr. SLOMAN. Would you think burning garbage by an incinerating plant
on the vessel, and keeping the excreta from the closet in a sealed
can and distributing on the land would cost more than the apparatus
your engineers are figuring on?
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I can not answer that question. I have to refer
these matters to those men who are experts.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Would it be possible to incinerate the garbage?
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Oh, yes; I think it would. I am not prepared to
say just how. You can do anything, but the question is as to how
practical it will be. It may be so difficult to carry out as to make
it impossible. There is nothing you can not do if you try.
Mr. POWELL. You can throw it into the furnace. That is incinerator
enough.
Mr. MIGNAULT. That would hardly be a method.
Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I am not here to suggest a plan. I am here to tell
you we will adopt any feasible plan you suggest. We simply say the
experiments have not gone far enough.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. King, have you anything to offer as the representative
of the Dominion Marine Association?
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS KING, K. C., OF KINGSTON, REPRESENTING
THE DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION.
Mr. KING. Just a word. I will ask the commission to pardon me if I
should repeat a little of what the President of the Lake Carriers’
Association has said, as I was not able to catch all that he
said--in fact I must confess that I failed to hear a great part of
his remarks, owing to the noise outside. But I began to pay strict
attention when this gentleman [Mr. Sloman] preferred that very
vehement indictment against the vessels passing through the waters
in question. I am not going to say very much on that point, but I
ask the commission to weigh the accuracy of his statements in some
measure by the accuracy of his knowledge of the position of the
owners of these vessels. I do not think I have to repeat to the
commission, but I will say it again for this gentleman’s benefit, and
the commission will pardon me. What we said at the previous session
of the commission at Detroit--and what I am sure Mr. Livingstone
has already said, although I could not hear him--was that we were
in an attitude of cheerful willingness to place ourselves in the
hands of the commission, and I speak on behalf of all the tonnage
on the Canadian side between Port Arthur, the head of the Lakes,
and Montreal. We place ourselves in the hands of the commission,
trusting the commission will only bring into force, or recommend that
the respective Governments pass legislation that will be fair and
reasonable. We want to do what is right. We are as much interested as
anybody in preventing the pollution of the waters, and I urge--and
I wish to emphasize it very strongly--that nothing should be done
without the fullest and most complete test. I think the commission is
at one with that suggestion and will act upon it.
With regard to what has been done by Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank,
I trust that nothing will be done until you have had the fullest
and most complete test of the proposals. I submit the test should
be had not only on one trip but throughout the season, that it
should include all weather and should include all seasons, and it
should deal with the question of interference by frost, that the
test should be carried out not only on the large freighters but
on passenger boats, on which the conditions may vary, and that it
should be carried out on boats of different sizes and engaged in
different trades. It would be a matter of multiplying the test by
three or four or five in order to cover the various conditions; but
I do ask that this delay should take place, not for the purpose of
postponing unduly any action that ought to be taken by vessel owners,
but because the conditions are so different from those in regard to
municipalities. In a municipality a tremendous amount of money is
going to be spent before one knows absolutely what the effect is to
be, and you are practically committed to that scheme. In the case of
a boat you have an opportunity to decide upon the best scheme, having
regard to the practicability, the cost and effectiveness, and I trust
the commission will be governed to some extent by the consideration
of cost, if it is to be granted.
Mr. TAWNEY. Would you consider it a hardship if the steamboat
companies were required to place an apparatus on one of their boats
at their own expense, with the understanding that if satisfactory
they should complete the equipment on all their vessels; otherwise it
would go no further?
Mr. KING. I do not quite understand the suggestion.
Mr. TAWNEY. Would the companies consider it a hardship if they were
required to install one of these machines at their own expense for
experimental purposes, that they should pay for it at their own
expense----
Mr. KING. And if it was bad not to install it on the others?
Mr. TAWNEY. Let the commissioners decide whether they should go on or
not?
Mr. KING. The vessel owners are willing to do whatever is right, and
possibly this machine may not be the best. We do not know what may
be invested in the next year or two. In view of the infinitesimal
proportion of the sewage which can be credited to the boats,
immediate haste is not necessary, and if it is going to take 5 or 10
years to settle the question with regard to the municipalities, it
would be better to spend the money for the purpose of testing rather
than committing ourselves to one appliance which may not answer the
purpose. I am not urging delay for the sake of delay.
Mr. TAWNEY. I gather from your statement that the steamboat companies
would not be willing to install this apparatus on all of their boats
simply upon the result of one test.
Mr. KING. No.
Mr. TAWNEY. That being the case, in order to get something which
would be satisfactory to the steamboat companies, we would have
to install this or some other apparatus on two or three boats, or
a sufficient number of them to satisfy the steamboat companies
that they were feasible and practicable, at the expense of the two
Governments, which this commission has not the power to do. The
question was whether or not, to carry out your idea, if we could
possibly do so, the steamboat companies were not willing to install
a few of these machines on these boats at their own expense, for the
purpose of testing their feasibility and practicability.
Mr. KING. I am not in a position to give an answer on that point on
behalf of the companies.
Mr. TAWNEY. We are not in a position to commit the two Governments.
Mr. KING. I do think both associations are willing to do whatever
you would consider reasonable in that way, and I think it might be
possible here and there to effect an installation, in order to get a
sure test of the appliances. I do not say that should be done, but I
think the vessel owners are willing to do it. I think the first cost
should be borne by the public till the inspection is done.
Mr. TAWNEY. I am glad to get your idea.
Mr. KING. Our attitude is one of absolute fairness in the matter. May
I say one more thing in regard to the point I was urging, perhaps
unduly? That is the lack of necessity for haste in the case of a
vessel. You spoke of the steamboat population of the boats. May I
point out that that population is a population as individuals for
periods averaging from an hour to a day. They are not engaged in the
pollution of the waters for 365 days in the year. That consideration
is somewhat overlooked. One more remark: It was suggested by Prof.
Phelps that steamboats ought to be dealt with at present, in spite
of the municipalities’ pollution, because of the fact that they pass
the intake pipes for the waterworks systems. May I suggest that
while the tests are going on, it would be a simple matter to devise
rules whereby lavatory doors are locked just as they are locked on
trains, at times when the contamination might take place? They could
be closed when they are passing in close proximity to the intakes. A
move in that line might possibly meet what was in Mr. Phelps’s mind.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that there is danger also on account of
vessels taking their water for drinking purposes in polluted areas?
Mr. KING. I do not think that is a danger which the commission should
deal with. I think we can carry it out by orders that the water
should not be taken except in certain restricted areas.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that considerable typhoid fever has been
caused by that means in the past?
Mr. KING. I can not admit that. I know of one case where a suit was
entered at Rochester, and tried, but no decision yet. I know of no
other cases.
Mr. TAWNEY. I know of several cases in southern Minnesota attributed
to that.
Mr. KING. At the same time, I must admit that contamination does
exist.
Mr. MIGNAULT. There is a great probability of contamination.
Mr. TAWNEY. In the matter of taking water ballast in polluted areas
and discharging that ballast in less polluted areas, as they arrive
near the ports--what have you to say to that? Would it be a hardship
if they were required not to take on water ballast in polluted areas,
or else not to discharge it in the less polluted areas?
Mr. KING. I do not think it would be a hardship, except in cases
where the exigencies of navigation required them to fill their tanks
before they got out of a certain area. There are cases where boats
must have their tanks filled before they get out of the landlocked
harbor. A boat coming from Kingston must have her tanks filled before
she gets into Lake Ontario.
Mr. TAWNEY. Could there not be some regulation in regard to the
discharge of that ballast in the vicinity of intakes?
Mr. KING. I think that could be sufficiently covered with the one
provision. They have to keep her sufficiently trimmed in stress of
weather.
Mr. SLOMAN. You spoke a moment ago about the cost of trying out the
question and solving the problem--that it should not be thrown upon
the vessel owners. Mr. Livingstone had made an offer--at least he has
done something toward experimentation at considerable cost----
Mr. KING. Excuse me; it is at no cost to Mr. Livingstone or the Lake
Carriers’ Association. I understand it is borne by others.
Mr. SLOMAN. Is that so?
Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.
Mr. SLOMAN. Would it be any cost to your vessels to try out the
incinerating of your garbage by putting it in your furnace?
Mr. KING. I do not think so.
Mr. SLOMAN. Would it involve a large cost to have a septic tank
in your holds, running your closets to that tank, sterilizing the
contents and bringing it to port, and carrying it away to the land
somewhere? Would that involve a large cost?
Mr. KING. I think it would, but I do not know. I have no direct
knowledge of that.
Mr. SLOMAN. What do you think as to whether or not that would be a
practical way of solving the problem?
Mr. KING. I would not set my judgment up against that of Prof. Phelps
and Mr. Frank, who have gone more deeply into the subject than I have.
Mr. FRANK. I think that may be answered by saying that in order to
store all of the sewage for a voyage until a port is reached the tank
would have to be many times as large as this small stream tank which
I have described, and the cost would be almost, although not quite,
proportionate to the volume. In addition, the expense of disposal
after the land was reached would have to be met. I think it may be
stated without any doubt whatever that any device holding the sewage
throughout a whole voyage would obviously cost much more than a
device for holding it for about two hours.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. King, you are willing to do anything that we may
prescribe, but you ask us not to recommend that you be required to
spend money on schemes that in their experimental stage may prove
abortive?
Mr. KING. Quite true.
Mr. TAWNEY. I understand that the representatives of the city of
Detroit will not be ready to proceed until the session to-morrow
morning. Is there anyone else here who desires to be heard?