E stablislaed. 1833. k- SHUTE, ^‘•^Acturer ot ^we, 1 % 415 to 429 West 18th Street, bet. 9th & 10th Aves,, Bm l0rfe: Styles & Cash, Steam Printers and Stationers, 77 Eighth Avenu^e. OUR PIPES ARE BRANDED, ■ ;.Y iTir 2 PRICE LIST OF DRAIR PIPE. Size of Bore. Main Pipe, per fr. Bends & Elb’s, each. 2 in.. $0 13 $0 40 3 “.. 16 50 4 “.. 20 55 5 “ . . 25 85 6 “.. 30 1 15 7 “.. 3.5 1 50 8 45 2 00 9 “.. 55 2 50 10 70 3 00 12 “.. 80 3 75 1.7 “.. 1 25 5 00 18 “.. 1 60 7 50 Branches each, one Traps, foot Lengths. each. $0 48 0; $1 00 61 1 25 75 5 s p, 1 75 00 u ^ ss 2 50 1 05 c2 o 50 1 20 r JS ^ a, ^ 5 00 1 1 45 70 .2 o >-• 6 00 00 2 00 t) a ^ 8 00 2 52 J I..4ROK BKANCIfE.S, PEK LINEAL FOOT. 15x6 or under, 1.75 I 15x7 or over, ‘2.25 18x6 “ 2..50 I 18x7 “ 3.00 Six inch Sewer Con- nections, eacli, 40c. INCREASERS& REDUCERS charged at the price of Bends, measured at their largest open- ings. OVAL FLUE PIPE.- 8x4 in., per ft., 40c. 12x4 “ “ .lOc. 12x0 “ “ 60c. TABLE showing Weight, Capacity for Discharge, and Strengtli of our Pipe. Size of Bore. Weight per foot. Fall per ir.O feet without any head. Discharg Per Minn 2 in.. . 34 lbs. 12 inches. 16 ga 3 “.. . 5.4 “ 50 • 4 “.. . 84' “ fm ‘ 5 “ . . . 104 “ 174 ‘ 6 “ . . . 13 “ H 277 ‘ 7 “.. . 144 “ “ 427 ‘ 8 ‘C.. 18 “ “ 570 ‘ 0 “.. . 214 “ 6 inches. 578 ‘ 10 “.. . 274 “ 1061 ‘ 12 “.. . 36 “ 1220 ‘ 15 “... 61| “ “ 2108 ■ 18 ■.. . T8i “ 3306 ‘ igim -T-^terr ils.lper VITRIFIED PIPE, Tested b}’ competent En- sustained an in- ertial pressure of 33 lbs. per square inch. CEMENT PIPE jsustained an internal pres- sure of only 8 11)5. per square inch. i VITRIFIED PIPE, 'with a wall one inch thick, jSustained a column of wa- der 76 feet high, while the Cement Bipe, with a wall lone and a quarter inches in jthickness, would sustain ;onlv a column 18 feet high. W E desire to call the attention of dealers in Drain, Sewer and Water Pipe to the goods manufactured at the Greenwich Pottery, confident that we are offering an article unsurpassed b)^ any, and much superior to many Pipes in the market. In manufacturing our goods, we use only the fire clays best adapted for the [mrpose, and burn to a uniform vitrified body, that will withstand for ages the action of acids, sewage gases, etc., etc. Our glazing is thoroughly burned to and becomes a part of the body of the pipe, and cannot be removed nor destroyed by acids or by any other means. Our pipe is uniformly straight and true, with suf- ficient room in the socket for cement. We are careful at all times in selecting out all imperfect pipe, and- reject seconds all so/i burned or irregular shai)ed pieces. Soft burned pipe will not last long in the ground, nor withstand action of frost if exposed to the weather. There is no economy in using a cheats pipe that will soon require to be replaced, nor will it improve a dealer’s reputation to handle an inferior article. Our pipe is made under a heavy steam pressure, giving them great strength and solidity, the socket and pipe are pressed at the same time, and in one piece, making them less liable to breakage and more desirable for shipping, than those made by other manufacturers, many of whom employ hand labor to put on the^socket. We do not claim that ours is the only good pipe ; but assert that there are many inferior pipes offered, and we know that ours is one of the VERY BEST in the market. VVe also manufacture Round and Oval FLUE PIPE, for hot air and ventilating purposes. We make an excellent FIRE BRICK, and can furnish Fire Cement in any quantity. 4 The Engineer for Construction of Sewers, New York City, reports February, 1873, that the cost of cleaning and keeping in repair Brick Sewers in no year has been less than ten times the cost of cleaning and keeping in repair Pipe Sewers. Some years the difference has been much greater — this be- ing for equal lengths of each sewer. We quote from “ Economic Geology as applied to the Arts and Sciences,” David Page, Edinburgh: “Sewage pipes of fire clay, when thoroughly glazed and carefully laid, afford by far the best material for the purpose which science has invented. Indeed, so far as experience goes, there is nothing so durable^ so clean and sweet, so easily flushed, as well tnade, well glazed fire ^lay pipes, and thus, for sanitary purposes, they stand unrivaled. The stone built drain re- quires a large amount of water To flush it, decays in course of time, leaks, becomes a refuge for rats; while the pipe drain is flushed with a mere trickle of water, endures for several generations, and gives no harbor for vermin.” Beckwith’s “ Reports, Pottery, &c.. International Exhibi- tion, London, 1871,” says, “ 'berra Cotta, when properly made, is one of the most durable materials that can be used for architectural purposes. Specimens made in Lon- don over 100 years ago, exposed to the weather ever since, are still perfect. The strength of well made Terra Cotta is surprising ; a piece of a 4 inch column, tested at the World’s Exhibition, 1851, required a pressure of 400 tons to the square foot to crush it, or as much as granite.” In a paper read by Mr. C. Barry at the Architectural Con- ference held in London, he gave the result of experiments on Terra Cotta, showing the crushing strength of this material to be 7| times that of brick. Vitrified pipes in good condition have been found among the ruins of ancient cities, and pieces laid by the Romans over 2,000 years ago haveTecently been dug up, still perfect. Our Pipe has been in actual use a little over 30 years, and has in no instance failed to stand the test, so that we have good reason to be confident as to its durability. 6 SLIP GLAZE versus SALT GLAZE Certain manufacturers who Salt Glaze their Pipe, have en- deavored to create an impression that it is more durable than' Slip Glaze, though all concede that Slip Glaze is smoother. The object of glazing a pipe is not to make it more dur- able, but to make a smooth surface. Vitrified pipes that never n'ere glazed have been dug up in good condition, after being buried centuries. The smoother the surface of a pipe, the more readily Mull it discharge the contents of a sewer, and there will be less possibility of obstruction, grease and solid substances finding less to adhere to. As a matter of fact, Salt Glaze is not more durable than Slip Glaze. Chemical tests have shown that neither are easily acted upon, yet after long contact with acid the Salt Glaze was destroyed, while the Slip Glaze was unin- jured. 7 It is certain that a Slip Glaze can only be formed on a clay strong, enough to resist the intense heat required to melt the Slip. It requires an equal heat to make the best speci- mens of Salt Glaze, but that half Glaze, which has the ap- pearance of steam on the pipe, is the result of an attempt to Salt Glaze a loeak clay. A Slip Glaze is made by dissolving “ Albany ('lay ” in water, and dipping each pipe in the solution prior to burn- ing. The “Albany Clay” will not melt to form a glaze except at a heat that will run “ brick clay” into a fluid — a heat which even an inferior “fire clay” cannot resist. A Salt Glaze is made by throwing common salt into the kiln at certain stages of heat, M'hich, by vaporizing, pro duces the dull glazed appearance. 'I'he material is equally chea]) in either case. 'I'he extra handling makes the Slip Glaze cost somewhat more, but we believe it to be the most durable ; we kno^v it makes a more desirable surface. 8 VITRIFIED versus CEIEH'T PIPE. The Opinions of Engineers throughout the Country, relative to the practical utility of Vitrified Glazed Stoneware and Cement Eipe, obtained by J. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer, St. Louis, Mo. [TAKEN FROM THE ST. LOUIS DEMOCRAT OF MARCH 28, 1872,] Engineer’s Department, ) St. I.ouis, March 27, 18 y 3. f To the Editor of the Democrat : The question as to the coniijarative merits of cement pipe and clay or stoneware pipe, for sewerage purposes, has been so thoroughly agitated of late, perhaps it is no more than is due to the public, the Sewer Committee, and myself that the correspondence which has been had with eminent civil engineers throughout the United States, for the purpose of getting the best attainable information on the subject, should be published in full; and I furnish you herewith the whole of said correspondence, and request you to publish it all, pro and con, so that our citizens may be able to judge for themselves whether or not the Sewer Committee acted wisely in excluding the cement pipe from the city sewers. Yours respectfully. J. B. MOUl.TON. 9 Southern Hotel, ) St. Louis, August 26, 1872. j Col. J. B. Moulton. City Engineer : Sir : I am in -receipt of )'our letter of this date, in which you state that there is now a controversi’ going on as to the relative value of cement and glazed, or stoneware, sewer pipe in this city, and asking my opinion as to the matter. I reply by saying I have never used the cement pipe for the pur- pose of sewerage, and have no personal knowledge of its value in that connection. While I had charge of the sewerage works of Cincinnati, none but the vitrified pipe was used, nor has any other been used in that city so far as I know. Only vitrified pipe is used in Washington at pre- sent, and I am not certain that cement has ever been used there. As to whether there was or was not any scientific test made of the cement pipe in Washington, I cannot sat’ until my return. But it is not used there at all. I regard the Scotch pipe as the best for the purpose ; and the American, when well made, as almost equal to it I am of opinion that cement pipe might be made to answer well, but it is open to the objection of jiorousness. As a rule, it has less strength, and is lia- ble to great variation in quality, growing out of the dilference in material and the proportions used, and, finally, from the manner of making. As to the action of the acids and alkalies upon it, I should not regard this as a serious objection, since my observation upon the mortars used in brick sewers satisfies me that there is little danger from this cause. I should prefer the vitrified pipe by all means. On my return to Washington I will reply to the other interroga- tories you propound. Veiy respectfully, etc., R. C. Phillips, Chief Engineer Board of Public Works, Washington, D. C. Board of Public Work, I Chicago, August 27, 1872. j ,/. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer ; Dear Sir : In conformity with }'our request of 26th, I send you 10 the accompanying copy of a report I made on the i6th of July to our Board, on the subject of cement sewers. Since then I have received a letter from the City Engineer of Cleveland, O., who speaks very decidedly in favor of cement sewers, after an experience of three 3'ears with them in that city. I have also conversed with Mr. Wesson, who had charge of the sewerage department of the Croton Aqueduct Board for a number of years, and he speaks ver)" decidedly against them. Me told me that he dug down to quite a number in Jersey City, and found every one more or less disintegrated on the outside. Yours ver)' respectfully, E. S. Chesbkough. Chicago, July 16, 1872. Board of Public IVorks : Gentlemen: The secretary’s letter of the 13th, informing me that you desire a report from me of “the value,” in m3' opinion, “of cement pipes for sewerage purposes,” has been received. I take it for granted that the Board meant cement pipe as compared with hard-burnt or vitrified clay, as no other kinds are used to any con- siderable extent in this coflntry, though ivood, asphalt, and iron are in particular localities used for special reasons. I have given personal attention to this subject for about twenty 3'ears, and have both conversed and corresponded with other en- gineers relative to it. Cement pipe sewers have their advocates, and are used to a con- siderable extent in Brooklyn, Buffalo, Jersey City, and New Haven, and other cities. Some have been laid twenty years, and are in good condition yet. Others have failed in less than three years. Similar failures occurred with hard-burnt pipes in England, where, for years alter their introduction, there was strongopposition to them, until their manufacture was brought to comparative perfection. Now the use of these pipes in that countr3- is ver3' general, especially for house drains. Either kind of pipe requires skill and faithfulness on the part of those in charge of the laying of the sewers. The ease, however, of judging of the suitableness of a burnt pipe for a sewer is much greater than in the case of a cement pipe ; in fact, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be certain with regard to the cement pipe, while it is not so with regard to hard-burnt clav. 11 Cement pipes have been slowly disintegrated by certain gases and acids emptied into them. Some very striking instances of this kind occurred in San Francisco, where urine from privies was discharged into the cement pipes. Nothing of this kind has ever occurred, so far as I can learn, with well burnt pipes. My opinion is that hard-burnt or vitrified clay pipe should be pre- ferred for sewerage purposes to cement pipe, because of the much greater certainty of getting a good article of the former than of the latter ; and in this respect I have the concurrence of several distin- guished members of my profession, who have come to their conclu- sions on the subject after years of observation and experience. Respectfull}'’ submitted, (Signed) E. S. Ciiesurough, City Engineer. Okfice of the Commissioners of Sewers, 1 Cincinnati, August 28, 1872. \ J. B. Moulton^ Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir : Yours of the 26th, making inquiries in regard to the use in this city of cement pipe for public sewers is just received. Our Commissioners of Sewers, as well as myself, are not in favor of using cement pipe, for sewerage purposes, confining ourselves entirely to the use of glazed stoneware or vitrified pipe. We do not think the cement pipe for durability and its capacity to resist the action of acids and other deleterious substances which are commit- ted to public sewers, hfis been sufficiently tested b)' time. And we have high authority for believing pipe made of burnt clay, glazed and vitrified, will last for centuries. In matters of this kind, we do not care to experiment. Very truly yours, A. W. Gii.dkrt. Louisville, Kv., August 28, 1872. J. B. Moulton, City Engineer, St. Louis : Dear Sir : I am in receipt of 3'ours of the 26th inst , asking m3' opinion of cement pipe for sewerage purposes. I have to reply that the cement drain pipe, as made here, is good ; the3' are carefull3' made, and are more uniform and in better shape than the stoneware, and average about 15 per cent, cheaper. We are using them in almost all cases. Until recently, however, the stoneware was pre- ferrecl ; but, as a great many of them were shattered by burning, and the supply becoming short, a trial was made of cement, which gave perfect satisfaction. 1 am of the opinion that the cement drain will answer every purpose. Would request your writing to the Engineer of Brooklyn, who, I understand, is using large quanties, and we are using the same “ patent process” that he is. Will cheerfully give further information if desired. Ver)' respectfull}', Tjios. P. Shanks, City Engineer. Phii.adf.i.phia, August 29, 1872. J . B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir : The branch sewers in this city are generall}’ built of brick, and vitrified clay pipes are used for attachments and house- drainings, and occasionally for short distances in streets. Cement pipes are manufactured here on a limited scale, but, so far as my observation goes, have not given satisfaction, so much care is required iu obtaining good material, and having them properly made, that the quality cannot he depended on. Although somewhat cheaper than the vitrified pipe, there is so much uncertainty in them that I should not he willing to risk their general introduction. Cases have been reported to me of cement pipes where they have all had to be taken up, on account of their deterioration. Brick are cheaper here, and of such excellent quality that they have the pre- ference for large size drain. Yours truly, Sam’i, L. Smedi.ev, Chief Engineer. BoS'fon, August 29, 1872. J. B. Moulton : Dear Sir : Your note of the 26th inst. was received this morning,, and in answer to your inquiries relative to cement pipe for drainage purposes, I beg leave to sa)' that the duty of prescribing or even recommending the style or material for drain pipes in this city, does not devolve upon me, but upon an officer styled the “ Superintendent of Sewers,” who is a professional civil engineer, and has made drainage engineering a specialty. I have frequent intercourse with him, and our views generally coincide on matters relative to his de- partment. He informs me that he has laid several thousand feet of 13 it, and has had no trouble from sewer acids, but that it frequentl)^ breaks or cracks longitudinal!}', when laid in clay or heavy soils ; but in sandy soils, where care is taken to pack the sand well around the pipe, it stands very well. He also says that he has frequently to reject a portion of the pipe when delivered on the ground, on ac- count of imperfections. The cement pipe in use in this vicinity is made from the best of Newark new cement and sea-washed gravel, screened to a size considerably coarser than the coarsest of bank sand, and in some cases Portland Cement is used. The article man- ufactured here by Messrs. Day & Collins is as good a cement pipe as I have ever seen, but the best, I have no hesitation in saying, is inferior to good vitrified clay pipe. If I had charge of the sewerage works of this or any other city, I should recommend the use of the vitrified clay pipes in preference to cement, notwithstanding the difierence in cost. I regard cement pipe as worthless unless made of the best materials, and even then it is not as good as the other. Yours truly, N. HENRY CRAFTS, ^ City Engineer. Chikk Engineer’s Office, I Brooki.yn, August 29, 1872. i My Dear Sir: Your note of the 26th inst., in relation to cement pipe, is received. I have so much correspondence in answer to in- quiries as to cement pipe that I had the enclosed copied by the dozen to save the trouble of writing special answers, and usually confine myself to sending one ; but in your case will break through my custom for, if I mistake not, we are “old fellows together.’’ In the first place, the only stoneware pipe which is approved here is the imported “Scotch” pipe. It is -truer in shape — a most im- portant feature — more uniformly burnt, less brittle, and with a better glaze. All these merits, with the additional cost of transportation, and consequent loss by breakage, makes them more expensive than the American pipe, and it is with this expense that we compare the cement pipe. The latter, when well made, as Knight’s pipe is, and well seasoned, say eight or nine months, is, so far as we can judge> equally good with the “ Scotch” pipe. You know we are beginning to 14 import Portland Cement, as some two or three times the strength of our best cements. A small addition of this adds great strength to the cement pipe. The economy in first cost of the best cement pipe is still so much cheaper than the “Scotch” as to render it popular with the taxpayers, even if an occasional failure was the result. The possible difference in your clay, and the additional cost and infer- iority of your cements, may render 3'our stoneware pipes even bet- ter than your cement pipe. I am free to confess that, in my opinion, the value of the pipe is very largely due to the careful and faithful method of making and seasoning pursued by Knight in his manu- facture, and I would be very cautious about using much pipe merel}" because it was made of cement. Trulv3’Ours, J. W. Adain. J. B. Moulton, City Engineer, St. Louis. (Statement inclosed in foregoing.) Brooklyn, N. Y. Sir : In repl3' to your note of this date, I would beg leave to say that we have laid the cement pipe of Knight to a large extent in this cit3’, as the following statement will show : Year. To 1862 1862 . . . 1863 1864. . . 1865 . . . 1866 . . . 1867 . . 1868 ... 1869 ... 1870 ... Feet. 28,987 24.235 15.156 13.475 45,840 34.990 18,033 78,457 73,856 108,513 And the last year some eight miles under contract. I would remark that the method of manufacturing the pipe has much to do with the durability. Atiy pipe of cement and gravel will not answer ; but with good cement and clean gravel, well rammed, we hav'e found the pipe to answer every purpose of a drain pipe, and no case to my knowledge lias transpired where it has given out from the action ot any acids in the sewerage. The “ Scotch ” pipe is equal to it in dur- ability, but costs from 25 to 40 per cent, more, and the difference in cost renders the cement pipe the cheaper, even with the defects which have appeared in some cases, attributable to the want of sea- soning in the pipe after it was made, and before laying. This is im- portant to look to. It is better than the American stoneware pjpe, and, when made with the precautions 1 liave named, is sufficiently reliable. Respectfull}', J. W. Adain, Chief Engineer. BtiFi'At.o, August 30, 1872. J. B. Moulton : Sir ; On receipt of your letter of August 26th, I referred it to Mr. Rathbun, whose answer I inclose and fully indorse. All the pipe- laid here has been done under my personal supervision. I have never heard of an}- failure in any sewer where it has been used. The value of the pipe depends entirely on the quality of the cement and the sand, and the materials used here are perfectly sat- isfactory. Mr. R. thinks that yours is made from Louisville cement, an arti- cle that he would not use. The Rosendale cement is brought from near New York City, although a good quality of cement is made within twenty miles of Mr. R.’s works. Yours respectfully, John M. Ditta, Engineer. [Letter inclosed in the foregoing.] Buffalo, N. Y., August 29, 1872. John A. Ditta, Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir; In looking over the St. Louis letter again, I observe that Mr. Moulton yoiir opinion, and if you send him the opin- ion of some one else, he may think you dodge the question. I should say to him tliat cement pipes have been in use, both for public and private sewers, in this city for seven years, and that no IG failures are reported ; that large quantities arc being continually used, and further, th^t the parties engaged in their manufacture in this city use only the very best of Rosendale cement and clean, sharp lake gravel, and manufacture a pipe that has been univers- ally adopted, etc., etc. I think that if you give him something like the above, with per- haps something else that you may think of, that it is all that will be necessary. Truly yours, etc., etc., C. H. Ramibun. [From the card enclosed with this letter, it appears that Mr. Rath- bun is a cement pipe manufacturer.] Oi'i'iCE OF Cfi'Y Engineers, } Pittsburg, Septembi-r 2, 1872. [ y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir : Your favor of the 26th just received, and contents noted. There has been a prejudice existing here relative to cement pipes, caused, parti}’, by disinclination to use an3'thing that had not been thoroughly tested. That prejudice was strengthened by the poor quality of pipe offered by the party who began to manufacture here. The ignorance of workmen as to the proper treatment of cement, together with the poor quality of cement used, and the desire to pro- duce as cheap an article as possible all led to confirm the existing antipathy toward it ; but that has given, or, rather, is giving way, at present, to a more favorable impression ; but our Councils have not yet authorized the use of it for sewers. We are putting in two short pieces of it to drain surface water across two streets. My own opinion is that pipe made out of a good quality of Portland Cement, “ English ” or “German,” not too much reduced by a disproportion of sand, will stand the test required. In this opinion I am confirmed by the success with which it has been used in London, and a single test that has been made here, where cement has not been injuriously affected b}’ the action of urine; but the liability to get poor cement' even of the best brands, and the difficulty to get careful workmen to manufacture the materials, and the difficulty to discern any flaws that may be in the pipe, have been deemed sufficient reasons not to allow 17 its introduction here to any great extent. The manufacturer liere is one of the most extensive contractors, and he is endeavoring hard to introduce his pipe wlierever he can do so, guaranteeing it for a length of time. He lias now come to the use of “ Portland Cement” in making sewer pipe. We have a company here making “ artificial stone” with the same quality of cement, and I have paid close atten- tion to their work, examining the cement closely, and the conclusion to which I have come is that too much care cannot be exercised in the choice and manipulation of the material, and if care is not exer- cised the most unsatisfactory results will be produced, but, as I have said, there has not been time enough given here to tell from any ex- tended experiments whether pipe properly made will withstand the action of the acids to which tliey are exposed in sewers, and there- fore a positive opinion based on actual experiment and observation cannot be given. I think that pipe properly made of the cement I have mentioned may stand, but I would not like to risk it in an)' extensive work ; but I do not think it will stand if made of any other than that quality of cement. Regretting that I cannot give you any more definite information relative thereto, and hoping that if any instances throwing light on the subject fall under your observation, you will communicate to Yours respectfully. A. Dempster. Baltimore, September 2, 1872. J. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer ; Sir ; Your communnication of the 29th is at hand, and I must say in reply that we have used the cement pipe manufactured in this city in two instances onh'. Our sewers, for city purposes, are large — from four to seven feet in diameter — for which we use hard burnt brick in their con- struction. Our experience with the cement pipe has been such as to compel us to report unfavorably upon its future use. Two years ago we laid about too feet of the pipe, six-inch diam- eter, for the purpose of drawing a spring ; about six months ago we 18 were obliged to open it for repairs, it liaving failed to drain, when we found it had softened or yielded to the action r)f water to such an extent as to render two sections useless. In regard to the “ stoneware,” or glazed pipe, I can say nothing officially, not havdng used it for cit)' purposes. It is, however, quite extensively used for private sewers, and seems to answer very well. You will excuse haste. Should you wish further information on the subject, I will be pleased to furnish in detail all I have. Very respectfully, Jno. H. Tegmeges, City Engineer. . Toledo, September 2, 1872. J. B. Moulton, City Engineer ; Dear Sir : Here the use of cement pipe was discontinued after a short trial, and the vitrified salt-glazed pipe exclusively used in the construction of our pipe sewers, connections, etc., which I think to be quite superior to any cement pipe which I have seen tested, in evenness of texture, firmness, durability, and its qualities to resist the action of sewer acids. Yours respectfully, M. C. Tiia'iciier, Citv Engineer. Minneai'olis, Mi.nn., September 2, 1872. J . B. Moulton, Esq. ; De.ar Sir ; The experiments I have made with cement sewer pipe are, that I filled a pipe with salt and water, and find that salt acts on them so that I think it would eat a hole through in no ver}’ long time. Acids will have a greater effect on them. And 1 know of no means of ascertaining which are good and which are poor. In our city here, for the above reasons, I recommended the use of vitrified stoneware pipe, which was adopted by the City Council. I would be pleased to receive a copy of your laws relative to the pa3'ing for sewers, paving, etc. Rcspectfull)' yours, H. Carson, Citv Engineer. 19 Memi’IIIs, Tp:nn., September 2, 1872. J. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir : We have no sewerage here worth mentioning. What we have is of the vitrified “stoneware,” with the exception of cement pipe laid from a hotel to the river. I have not had an opportunity of examining the latter, but am inclined to prefer the vitrified pipe. Respectfully, J. H. Humphreys, City Engineer. Little Rock, Ark., September 2, 1872. J. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir ; Your letter, dated August 2gth, asking my opinion in regard to cement sewer pipe, and those of stoneware, has come dul)’ to hand. I have, therefore, the honor to state that, in my opinion, stoneware pipes are far preferable to those of cement. Your reason for abandoning the latter is, as far as m3' experience goes, perfectl}' correct, viz. : the want of uniform texture, the influ- ence of acids, and easier breakage. We have used in our cit}' extensive!}’ the stoneware pipes, and have found the same, when hard burned, well vitrified and glazed, to answer all reasonable demands. Respectfully yours, George Wehe, Citv Engineer. Lawrence, Kans., September 3, 1872. J. B. Moulton : Sir: In reply to your inquiries in regard to relative value of cement and stoneware pipes, I can only sa}- that I have used stone- ware pipes with entire satisfaction. Specimens of cement pipe have been left at this and other cities. They are too delicate for use, and fall to pieces with the slightest blow. We have local manufactories, which make ver3’fair stoneware and earthenware pipes at reasonable prices. I can see no good reason for abandoning them for a mere experiment. Respectfully yours, Holland Wheeler, City Engineer, 20 Hartford, Conn., September 3, 1872. y. B. MoultoHy Esq,, City Engineer : Dear Sir; \ours of the 2gth came to hand yesterday, and, in repl}', I would say that very recently our Board of Street Commis- sioners decided, on my recommendation, not to lay atiy more cement tile. I was led to give this advice from a general idea of their worth- lessne.'-s, which has been proved in several cases when we have taken up such sewers, some of quite recent construction. We found length after length entirely crumbled, and others that we succeeded in lifting out of the trench would break with a ver)' slight blow. I think your reasons all hold good, and are sufficient to condemn their use. We also object to the glazed tile, from difficult}' of entering them for side sewers, as we have not yet adopted the plan of laying side connections when we lay the main sewer. We shall, in accordance with the above decision, hereafter lay nothing but brick sewers, the smaller ones of oval form, the large circular. If our experience is worth anything to you, I am glad to be able to give it to you. Yours, very respectfully, C. H. Bunce, City Surveyor. Jersey City, September 3, 1872. y. B. Aloulton, Esq. ; Dear Sir: In transmitting to you my opinion in regard to the merits of concrete drain and sewer pipes, I would say that my ex- perience has led me to the conclusion that vitrified or glazed pipes, are superior in every particular, and I have ordinarily endeavored to use as little cement pipe as possible. There can be no real ques- tion of which is the best. I have given this subject the most thorough attention, and I am confident 1 am right, and time will prove it. Cement pipe never will answer a safe purpose until it can be manufactured so as not to become disintegrated after being laid in the trench and covered. I have known a sewer to cave in built of it, and make a most disagree- able state of affairs, from the fact of not knowing to what extent the break extended. Very respectfully, Jno. P. Culudo, Chief Engineer. 21 Richmond, Va., September 3, 1872. Mr. J. B. Moulton ; Dear Sir ; Within the last year I have passed through an exper- ience in sewer piping, with a conclusion fully in accord with your own. My mind is settled on the superiority of stoneware pipes, and the uncertainties attending those of cement. I will not hereafter use the cement pipes in our city sewerage. Very respectfully, Chari.es H. Dimmock, City Engineer. Augusta, Me., September 3, 1872. y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : , Dear Sir : Your favor of the 29th is at hand, and in reply I would say my opinion in regard to cement pipes is the same as your own. Have found the same difficulty in regard to the texture of the pipes not being equal. Any one can see at a glance that the cement pipes will absorb the acids of the sewer, which will certainly destroy them. Were the sewers under my charge, I should certainly use the vitrified pipes for their conducting power alone, the polished surface present- ing little or no resistance to the water and foreign matter. I do not know what patterns you ma)^ have, but the sleeve joint of our stone pipes is much better than that of the cement pipes. I am interested to know what the result will be. Should you have the leisure or in- clination to respond, please address Nat Abbott, City Engineer. Baltimore, September 4, 1872, J. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer : In reply to your letter of the 29th ult., directed to the “ Engineer of the City of Wheeling,” and requesting information as to our ex- perience with cement and stoneware pipes, I have to say that I be- lieve the former have not been at all used in Wheeling for sewers, unless it may have been by private parties, of which I have no knowledge. My opinion would be decidedly in favor of the glazed pipe, within range of capacity suited to its strength. 2'i Should you publisli the result of your inquiries on this subject, I beg you will favor me with a copy. Respectfully, W. C. Smith, City Surveyor, Wheeling, Va. Newark, N. J., September 4, 1872. y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir ; Your communication of the 2gth ult. is received. In this city we use for the smaller local sewers glazed stoneware pipe. No cement pipe whatever is used. I have used cement pipe in railroad drainage, and found that it breaks easily. My opinion is that the stoneware pipe is de- cidedly preferable to the cement pipe for sewer purposes The want of time is my e.KCuse for the brevity of this reply. Yours trul}', Gustav Schalbach, City Surveyor. , City Engineer’s Office / Sfringfiei.u, Ii.i,., September 5, 1872. \ y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : De.ar Sir : Yours of the 29th ult. was received, and I owe you an apology for not answering sooner. In answer to your request for my opinion on the subject of using vitrified glazed stoneware pipe, as compared to cement pipe, for sewers, I will say that, for myself, I should much prefer the stoneware pipe, as your assertion that the cement pipe is seldom of a perfectly uniform texture, and is very easily broken, is true, and I don’t consider it as safe and durable as the stone pipe. If you have laid much of the cement pipe, I think your experience has taught you that, when the cement pipe is satu- rated with water, it becomes very brittle and difficult to la)' with suc- cess ; and unless I was laying sewers of very large calibre, where I could lay it in the ground like concrete, I should much prefer the stoneware, as I am satisfied it will be as enduring as time. Will you take the trouble to give me your form of ordinance for estab- lishing the grades of your city, and such ideas as 3-011 may be will- ing to suggest? Very respectfully, W. D. Cl.ARK. k New 11a\'EN, Ct., September 6, 1872. y. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir: Your favor of tlie 29th inst. was dul)' received. As an answer to your questions concerning cement pipes for sew- ers, etc., 1 will state that the city of New Haven has used nothing but cement pipes for the pipe sewers that have been constructed here, and large quantities are still being used. Thus far we h,ave had no trouble with them, and so far as I have examined them where they have been down a number of years, to all appearances they arc better than when first laid. E. S. Chesbrough, Esq., Cit}' Engineer of Chicago, who is the author of our “ Sewerage System,” does not approve of their use here, and we consider him the best of authority. Probably the pipe made here are as good as any in the country, and appear to stand well wherever used ; still, for all that, I do not approve of their use. I believe there are other drain pipes made which can be relied on without ant’ doubt, anti to see such quantities of cement pipe used here in the construction of our sewers causes me some uneasiness^ for the time may come when we shall find that the experiment has been trietl on too large a scale. I have sent you one of our “ Year Books," containing some information concerning our sewers. Any reports relating to sewerage in your city wotdd be thankfully re- ceived. Respectfull)', CiiAS. E. Fowi.er, City Engineer. Natchez, Miss., September 6, 1872. J. B. MouUoti, City Engineer : Dear Sir ; I am unable to add my evidence in reply to your favor of August 29. Natchez has never, is not now, nor will, I think, as long as governed by negro gentlemen, be blessed with sewers beyond brick culverts. The Natchez, Columbus and Jackson Railroad, now in construc- tion, Colonel S. M. Preston, Engineer, are using vitrified piping for culverts in preference to cement pipes. What their objections are, I am not aware of. Sorry that I am not able to oblige you, I remain, Ch.vs. C. Nauck, City Engineer. 2i Paterson, N. J., September 6, 1872. y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir : Yours of August 29th, in reference to the use of cement sewer pipe, is at hand. I regret that I am unable to give you any information that will be of service. We have no experience as to cement sewer pipe in this city, never having used any but the Scotch vitrified ware, and no other can be used unless the ordinances of the city are changed. As with you, a pressure is made on our Board of Aldermen, by the manufacturers of cement pipe here, to have their pipe substi- tuted, but thus far without success. I am prejudiced against their use, except for clear water ; have examined the process of making cement pipe, and do not believe that sufficient care is taken to have them of uniform texture, and that if sufficient water be used to make the mass homogeneous, the time taken to have the pipe properly made, and the cement well set, would make the cost of cement pipe as great as vitrified ware. The question is now being agitated here, and if in your inquiries in other quarters you arrive at a conclusion, whether favorable to their use or otherwise, 1 will be under many obligations to 3'ou, if you will mail the information to me (if printed). I intend to make some investigation in this direction, as soon as I can spare the time ; until then, I do not believe any change in the character of the pipe will be made by our Board of Aldermen. Yours very truU', A. II. Fonda, City Engineer. Lynn, September 7, 1872. y. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir : I received your letter a few days ago, and have delaj'- ed answering it, thinking I might get some information from Salem, but have been disappointed. We have never used the cement pipe, though often urged to do so ; therefore, I cannot speak from experience, but have been told of instances where sewage had taken the life out of the pipe, so that it crumbled to pieces. The Committee on Drainage have examined the subject at differ- ent times, and have always used brick or stoneware for sewers. 25 A few private parties have used the pipe, and I have noticed that there was a difference in the pieces. Some were hard, and others would crumble in the hand. I have been told that in Salem and Boston they had been obliged to take up some cement pipe which had been laid only a few years. Yours respectfully, Isaac K. Harris, City Engineer. « Providence, September 6, 1872. y. B. Motilion, City Engineer ; Dear Sir : The Sewerage Department of this city have used no ce- ment pipes for the same reasons that you name, although they are made in this city,- and used for that purpose by private parties The very best imported pipes are used for sewers. I can see no reason wh)^ the cement pipes should not be used to a limited extent, where the circumstances are favorable, and where not subject to the action of acids. There seems to be some difference of opinion among prac- tical men about them, but in deference to Mr. Shedd’s opinion (the Chief Engineer of the Water Works), there are none now used by the cit}’. Yours truly, Charles E. Payne, City Engineer. Omaha, Neb., September 8, 1872. J. B. Moulton, City Engineer : Dear Sir: Yours of the 29th ult is received. In repl}' I will state that this city has made but ver)f little use of cement pipe of any kind; but the Omaha and -Northwestern Railroad Company have had in the neighborhood of 1,500 feet placed upon their road some six months ago, all of which proved a failure, owing to their want ol sufficient strength to support the requisite pressure. From my observations of the pipe, I should not recommend it for sewerage purposes : I. Because they are more or less subject to disintegration from acids. 2. Their peculiar construction requires a better class of skilled labor in the setting than is usually secured. 3. Their efficiency depends so much upon the peculiar selection of material entering their composition, that few manufacturers man- age to secure a proper cement and proportion of clean gravel or sand requisite in pipes for sewer purposes. Mr. K. C. Phillips, formerly City Engineer of Cincinnati, and now Chief Engineer of Public Works in the District of Columbia, while here lately, e.Kpressed himself to me as in favor of glazed clay pipe in prefeftnce to those of cement. With regrets that I have been unable to reply earlier to your letter of inquiry, I remain. Yours respectfully, Andrew Ro.skwater, City Engineer." Kkf.ne, N. H., September 12, 1872. y. B. Moulton, Esq., City Engineer : Dear Sir: Yours of the 29th ultimo was dul)' received in mv absence. We have as yet but little e.xperience in sewerage in this place. I have made some inquiries as to the best material, and the general opinion is that the hard burnt, well vitrified stoneware pipes would be prefer- able for sewerage tcj cement. Yours, very truly', Ceo. W. Studkvant, City Engineer. THE ("OST OF CLEANING SEWERS. E.xtract from a statement made by ihe Engineer for the construc- tion of sewers of the city of New York (published February 3, 1873) : The usual price of cleaning sewers by hand is about $2.50 per load, and while under a good sewer system solid deposits should be car- ried off with the flow, the city has been yearly paying from $27,000 to $46,000 per year to remove them. It is notorious that persons who, under the old Tammany regime, had the contracts for cleaning these sewers, finding it |)rofitable to remove the deposits at $2.50 per load, were in the habit of putting obstructions in the sewers with a view of creating solid deposits. The present Commissioner of Public Works has, however, put a stop to all this, and last year reduced the cost of cleaning the sewers to $14,412 against $44,690 for the year 1871. The following table furnished by Engineer Towle shows the comparative cost of cleaning brick and pipe sewers from 1867 to 27 1871 inclusive. The water supply having increased last year, the department has resorted to the flushing process, and two or three nights per week the water from the hydrants have been let into the sewers, reducing the expense of cleaning for the year to $14,000. Proportioilate Cost ot Cleaning Brick to Pipe Sewers. 261 46-100 to 1 241 48-100 to 1 55 46-100 to 1 32 18-100 to 1 34 61-100 to 1 Proportion of Brick to Pipe. 7 5-100 to 1 4 81-100 to 1 3 78-100 to 1 3 34-100 to 1 3 32-100 to 1 cn pa Cd > w g Cost of Re- moval. to 0 » 0 0 0 ^ to ^ *0 Tti 0 to 10 * Ph Total i Length ■ in City in Linear Feet. 150,022 222,020 288,120 335,313 346,903 s bl 0 e£ Cost of Removal. ! 1 < 5 ^ to © © iO ao © CO CO «0 1 oToo^r^c^eo eo tj’ Num- ber of Loads Re- moved. 13,073 19,858 11,002 18,518 17,374 Total Length in City in Linear Feet. 1,058,136 1,068,817 1,088,911 1,120,234 1,152,054 Years. 1 1 -* 00 © © r-t © © © © © © 00 © 28 Engineer’s Office, ) Department Public Works. >- New York, March 13, 1872. ) Dear Sir : Your letter of the iith inst., in relation to comparative value of cement and vitrified glazed pipes used for the conducting of sewage is received. This department uses the vitrified glazed pipes for small sewers. There has been no cement pipes used for this purpose in this city. Some of our brick sewers have been injured by the action of acids eating up the cement in the joints. Mr. Tracy joins with me in sa3dng that when acids and gases are carried in the sewer (and they carry very varied compounds), that the acids will disintegrate the cement pipes, or at least cause such risk as that it would be better to put in the vitrified pipes, which have been found to withstand this chemical action. Very respectfully yours, John C. Campbell, 1st Assistant Engineer. AVKY LIDP.M.Y CQI.UM«A UNI ’Y 6 TO MANUFACTURE VITRIFIED DRAIN PIPE.