COMMUNICATION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 HARBOR. 
 
 BY 
 
 MILO W. LOCKE, 
 
 BALTIMORE, MARCH 27, 1875. 
 
COMMUNICATION. 
 
 To the Joint Standing Committe on the Harbor. 
 
 Gentlemen — The most unwarranted attack which has been 
 made by a member o‘f your Committee upon the Plan for ac- 
 complishing a thorough purification of the Harbor of Balti- 
 more which I have had the honor of presenting to you, will, 
 I hope, be deemed a sufficient apology lor my thus intruding 
 upon you, for I deem it due both to your Committee and my- 
 self that I should correct some of the most important errors 
 into which Mr. Heuisler appears to have been led. 
 
 He commences his argument by stating that the Plan, ee so 
 far as the Committee know, is merely an engineering concep- 
 tion, having no where had the crucial test of practice. It is 
 proposed to launch it upon us at a cost of hundreds of thousands 
 of dollars, without any other professional assurance of its success 
 than his individual confidence and convictions. The Committee 
 lay no claim to engineering skill. P 
 
 The sweeping assertions contained in this extract cannot be 
 more fully controverted than by a plain statement of facts, 
 with which I do not doubt you are all familiar. The purity 
 of the water of all rivers and harbors, into which organic 
 matter is deposited, can be maintained by keeping the water 
 in motion, and diluting it with a sufficient quantity of uncon- 
 taminated water to prevent its becoming foul and stagnant. . 
 
 I will bring to your notice some instances in which this 
 principle of purifying water is most clearly demonstrated. 
 Take any of our large rivers, for example the Susquehanna ; 
 with its banks and those of its tributaries closely studded with 
 villages and towns for a distance of 400 miles, and receiving 
 the drainage from a district containing a population of over a 
 million and a half of people. The waters of this river, not- 
 withstanding the large amount of sewage which flows into it, 
 are discharged, at its lowest stage, clear and pure into the 
 head of the Chesapeake Bay at Havre-de-Grace. The Delaware 
 River also affords another striking illustration. It passes 
 through a densely populated country, having within its 
 water-shed the city and harbor of Philadelphia, receives the 
 
2 
 
 drainage of a district containing 1,600,000 inhabitants, and 
 delivers its waters into the Delaware Bay at New-Castle free from 
 pollution, and the same may he said, of all other rivers under 
 similar circumstances. 
 
 I will now call your attention to the late improvements in the 
 Harbor of Chicago , which was formerly in the same condition 
 that our Harbor now is , and idiichJhas had the same remedy 
 applied to it that I propose in my plan to apply to the Harbor 
 of Baltimore , except that all the sewage of Chicago flows imme- 
 diately into the harbor , while I propose to provide for the dis- 
 charge into the ten-foot conduit , there to mingle with the current , 
 tohatever sewage the city may at anytime determine to throw 
 into the intercepting sewers. 
 
 The improvements in the harbor of Chicago, which afford 
 ample evidence of entire success in this branch of engineering, 
 were made under the direction of that .eminent Engineer , Mr. 
 E. S. C heseborough, formerly of this city. He constructed a 
 conduit from the south branch of the Harbor into the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal, causing a constant flow of water from 
 the Lake through the Harbor into the Canal, carrying with it 
 all the sewage of the city, which now contains a population 
 equal to that of Baltimore. 
 
 In his report of 1812, Mr. C heseborough says that “the 
 water of Lake Michigan enters the mouth of the Harbor and 
 flows up the South Branch into the Canal, thus completely 
 deodorizing what was so offensive and unbearable a year 
 ago.” This water, containing the sewage of the entire city, 
 does not perceptibly contaminate the water of the Canal, and 
 leaves in it no appreciable deposit. The Canal discharges 
 into Illinois River and Peoria Lake, the waters of which give 
 no material evidence of contamination. 
 
 The w r ater passing from the Basin of the Harbor of Balti- 
 more into the Patapsco River as proposed, will, after the 
 pumps have run 48 hours, be entirely deodorized, and will 
 not perceptibly discolor the water of the river ; it will also 
 make no appreciable deposit, or in other words the improve- 
 ment here will act just as the similar one is noiu acting in Chi- 
 cago. 
 
 Mr. Cheseborough in his report of 1873 states that this im- 
 provement still continues to be satisfactory, but warns the 
 city, that with the increase of population an increased supply 
 of water to the Harbor will be required. 
 
 The errors in the second , third , and fourth sections of Mr. 
 Heuisler’s report, I have already explained, except the one in 
 which he states that the point of deposit cannot be “ changed 
 
3 
 
 to advantage if once fixed.” I do not suppose, with, the re- 
 sult of the Chicago improvement before me, that it will ever 
 require changing — but if it should, a sectional cast iron pipe 
 of the size of the main conduit could, with the means now at 
 command, he laid below the channel of the river so as to dis- 
 charge at any desired point, and at a less cost than a brick 
 conduit of similar size could be constructed on the shore. 
 
 There is also an other advantage in my plan, which although 
 fully explained to the Committee, Mr. Heuisler appears to 
 have forgotten, and that is, that by the simple movement of 
 reversing the engine, the machinery and all appliances will 
 work equally well, and throw the pure water of the Patapsco 
 into the Basin instead of throwing the water of the Basin 
 into the Patapsco, thus giving to the City at all times the choice 
 between the two plans of depletion and flushing — In one of 
 which one hundred and ninety-two millions of gallons of 
 water will be drawn daily from the Docks and head of the 
 Basin and discharged into the Patapsco River near Fort Cov- 
 ington, creating a constant inward current of pure water 
 from the- channel between the Lazaretto and Fort McHenry ; 
 in the other, the same quantit}^ of water will be forced from 
 the Patapsco river into the head of the Basin, and the action 
 of the current reversed ; in either case the intercepted sewage 
 is provided for , and the Docks and Jones’ Falls can be de- 
 pleted or flushed at will. The change from one of these sys- 
 tems to the other, without a moment’s delay, being made by 
 merely moving the reverse bar of the Engine. 
 
 In the fifth section Mr. Heuisler suggests that the system 
 of depletion will cause an accumulation of sediment near the 
 outfall of the conduit. It is not possible that such accumulation 
 as he describes can take place ; a small amount of sand may 
 deposit, but this will not be the case if the catch basins con- 
 nected with the Inlets of the intercepting sewer are kept in 
 proper condition. 
 
 In the Sixth Section, Mr. Heuisler pays high tribute to the 
 capacity of the propeller pump which I propose to use,, in 
 supposing that it will create such a current as to “ import ” 
 from the mouth of the Falls into the Basin a portion of the 
 discharge from the Falls and Harford Run. 
 
 He says, — “The constant working of the propeller pump 
 will create a current in. the mouth of the Basin opposite Jones’ 
 Falls which will import a large quantity of the matter held 
 in suspension discharged from the Falls and Harford Run into 
 the Basin, as far the current has velocity enough to keep it in 
 suspension, and when it gets into the wide part of the Basin 
 
4 
 
 where the current will be proportionately sluggish, it will be 
 deposited and form bars on either side of the current, which 
 bars, in the highway of commerce, will entail the presence of 
 dredging machines, and greatly obstruct navigation.” 
 
 The working of the pump will create a current at the point 
 of w r hieh he speaks of about 120 feet per hour — and in one 
 hour all sediment will be likely defin'd its way to the bottom 
 and remain there, as far as this current is concerned, within 
 this space of 120 feet. This confines the dredging machines 
 to their usual field of labor. 
 
 From the tenor of the Seventh and Eighth Sections, Mr. 
 He u isle r has evidently greatly misunderstood me. The idea 
 I intended to contey to the Committee in my statement was, 
 that if the intercepting sewer w^as connected with the main 
 conduit it would be necessary to run the pump constantly, 
 although at times the speed might be greatly reduced. 
 
 If the construction of a Brick Sewer w T as anything of a nov- 
 elty there might be some reason for the solicitude expressed 
 in Mr. Heuisler’s Ninth Section, which is as follows: 
 
 Ninth. — u Mr. Locke proposes a brick sewer. The length of 
 time necessarily to be consumed in the slow progress of build- 
 ing such a sewer along the main thoroughfares of the city 
 would make the work a most serious inconvenience, and one 
 which ought, if possible, to be avoided. Moreover, the chance 
 for injury to it from the heavy traffic on the surface, taken in 
 connection with the peculiar wet and unstable nature of the 
 ground where it must rest, will be very great. Sewage escap- 
 ing through this cracked and dislocated structure would be 
 terrible as a nursery of contagion and disease.” 
 
 I propose to build this sewer in the same manner that I 
 have always executed work entrusted to me, in a ivorhnanlike 
 manner , and with as little obstruction to the thoroughfares 
 through which it passes as possible. The difficulties Mr. 
 Heuisler anticipates are but imaginary, and I should have but 
 little respect for the authorities of the city if I supposed that they 
 would accept a “ cracked and dislocated structure ” from me, 
 and one that would prove a “ terrible nursery of contagion 
 and disease.” 
 
 In his Tenth Section, Mr. Heuisler says : “ Mr. Locke lays 
 
 great stress upon the economy of his pump, which seems to 
 have weight with the majority of the Committee. The econ- 
 omy he claims is that his screw pump will do ten times as 
 much work for a given amount of power (fuel) as the best 
 pump now in use.” 
 
 He is again in error. I did not state that the pump I de- 
 
5 
 
 signed using would do ten times as much work for a given 
 amount of power as the best pump now in use. Such a state- 
 ment would have been preposterous. What I did say was, 
 that with my plan I would do ten times as much work with 
 the same power as could be done by any of the other plans 
 that were before the Committee, all of which proposed raising 
 the water and sewage to a considerable elevation. 
 
 Mr. Heuisler, who, it will be remembered, in the Sixth Sec- 
 tion of his report, seems so fully impressed with the efficiency of 
 the pump I propose to use, as to express fears that it will create 
 so great a current in the Basin as to 4 £ import large quantities 
 of matter discharged by the Falls and Harford Kun.” Now, 
 in his tenth section, after referring to some drainage works re- 
 cently constructed in Italy with centrifugal pumps, which he 
 says discharge seven hundred millions of gallons of water in 
 twenty-four hours, without giving the power applied, or appear- 
 ing to have any evidence of the cost with which the result is pro- 
 duced , proceeds to say : “I must therefore conclude that the 
 efficiency of the screw pumps has been greatly over-estimated 
 by Mr. Locke.” This may be a logical deduction, but I must 
 confess my inability to see it. 
 
 The screio or propeller has been used as a pump from most 
 remote antiquity , and is at present esteenied the most economi- 
 cal application of power, either for creating a current in water 
 or driving a vessel through the water, both of which are, as 
 far as Hydro-dynamic laws are concerned, one and the same 
 thing. ■ 
 
 In the mode of its application to the work proposed it has 
 been greatly simplified, so as to render it most effective and 
 to prevent the possibility of derangement. This form of ap- 
 plication has been patented. 
 
 Mr. Heuisler further continues : “ Passing now from these 
 
 practical difficulties to the financial phase of his propositions, 
 I must also object in toto to the manner in ivliich it is proposed to 
 commit the City in the manner of the construction of the works 
 connected with Mr. Locke’s plan. * * * * * Why de- 
 
 part then from the safe and settled custom of the City in calling 
 for bids in open market f It will be an alarming precedent, 
 and such a step finds no warrant in the spirit of our muni- 
 cipal laws, or in the resolution referring this subject to the 
 Committee.” 
 
 I do not conceive that there has been the slightest departure 
 from u the safe and settled custom of the City in calling for 
 bids in open market,” in the course that has been pursued by 
 the Committee, which is fully described in the first paragraph 
 of the majority report, which says : 
 
6 
 
 “ The majority of the Joint Standing Committee on Har- 
 bor, to whom has been referred the various petitions and plans 
 which have from time to time been' presented to the Mayor 
 and City Council for the purification of the Basin, so as to 
 render it no longer a nuisance, injuriously affecting the com- 
 merce of the City, the health of our fellow-citizens, and a 
 continued source of well grounded apprehension of a general 
 pestilence, beg leave to report that, in addition to those before 
 received, they have invited 'plans and proposals from all availa- 
 ble sources , have had numerous and protracted meetings upon 
 the subject, have had the various propositions discussed before 
 them by their respective authors, and have finally, and after 
 patient labor and investigation, decided upon a plan which 
 they confidently believe will realize in the. shortest time, and 
 with the least possible expense for a work so extensive, the 
 permanent purification of the waters of the Basin/’ 
 
 My plan, presented at the invitation of the Committee, was 
 one of fifteen which they had before them and considered ; 
 many of which were in minute detail with estimates, and a 
 portion with bids to do the work. The whole matter was fully 
 open to competition. The plans, proposals and bids were re- 
 ceived and acted upon, as far as I am capable of judging, 
 according to ‘ ‘ the safe and settled custom of the City in calling 
 for bids in open market.” 
 
 I deem it unnecessary to go into any review of the Special 
 pleading which Mr. Heuisler has so freely woven into the fabric 
 of his report, as it is ivith facts and not fancies I propose to 
 deal, but will call your attention to a statement he makes in 
 regard to the plan presented to the Committee which appears 
 to have received his sanction. In speaking of this plan, (the 
 one presented by Mr. Hambleton) he says : 
 
 “In the first place, his plan but applies to- Baltimore the 
 principles on which London and numerous other places are 
 acting and depend for relief against a nuisance similar to our 
 Basin. It is notan experiment merely , but a tried and approved 
 system of the extent and efficiency of which, about other great 
 centres of population, the most ample testimony can be had.” 
 
 I regret that he does not attempt to show the similarity 
 between this plan and that of the drainage system of London 
 to which he compares it, or mention some other of “ the great 
 centres of population which give evidence of its success” &c. 
 As it is described in the Journal of the Second Branch of the 
 City Council for 1873 and 1874, which is referred to by Mr. 
 Heuisler, it contemplates relieving the Harbor of all sewage 
 which now flows into it from the north, down as far as the 
 
1 
 
 Lazaretto ; it is also to take from the Docks and Basin 10,- 
 000,000 of gallons of water in 24 hours, and convey the com- 
 bined water and sewage, by pumping, through a thirty-inch 
 iron pipe for a distance of four miles from the east end of the 
 City Dock to one mile below the Lazaretto. If to the 10,- 
 000,000 of gallons of water from the Basin, we add 5,000,000 
 of gallons tor the sewage of this District, Mr. Hambleton 
 will have to discharge 15,000,000 of gallons through this 
 30-inch pipe in 24 hours. 
 
 By the formulas of Hawkesley & De Buat, (Haskoll’s Engi- 
 neering Field-work, page 92,) and I believe there is no higher 
 authority, Mr. Hambleton will have to raise the sewage to a 
 height of 80 feet above tide at his pump-well, in which the water 
 will have to be kept 10 feet below tide to give sufficient fall to 
 the intercepting sewer ; it will require an engine of over 300 
 horse power to lift this 15,000,000 of gallons 90 feet high in 24 
 hours. (The power required by my plan will be less than 250 
 horse.) With the pressure upon the pipe adequate to this re- 
 sult, he will be unable to open any inlets for the reception of 
 the sewage of the Eastern Section of the City, because’ the 
 sewage and Basin water will be at once forced from the pipe 
 out of these inlets m\o the streets and but a small portion 
 find its way to the proposed outfall. 
 
 This, Mr. Hambleton designates as his temporary plan (the 
 permanet one he leaves most undecided and obscure, and says 
 it will be influenced by the future supply of water, &c). This 
 plan is compared by Mr.. Heuisler to that of the drainage system 
 of London , and he also states that numerous other places are 
 acting upon it, that it is a “ tried and approved system, 5 ' &c. 
 1 challenge Mr. Heuisler to ■ name a single city in which any 
 such system has been, or is now , in use. 
 
 His comparing it to the magnificent works of the Metro- 
 politan Board of London, which are justly looked upon as 
 the great engineering triumph of the age, can be simply char- 
 acterized as absurd. Mr. Heuisler, in making this and many 
 other statements in his report, has evidently been imposed 
 upon by some one who professed to have information upon a 
 subject upon which they were, and are, wholly ignorant. 
 
 The London works have eight intercepting sewers which 
 flow into the outfall sewers on both sides of the Thames. A 
 portion of the sewage of the lower parts of the city is raised 
 into the outfall sewers, which discharge into huge reservoirs 
 on either bank of the river about twelve miles below London 
 Bridge. The gates from these reservoirs are opened into the 
 Biver at the commencement of ebb-tibe, and the sewage flows 
 
8 
 
 out with it to sea diluted with the water which is accumulated 
 in the River by a tide of twenty feet. No foul water what- 
 ever is drawn through the sewers from the Thames. I shall 
 not further comment upon Mr. Heuisler’s comparison. 
 
 Mr. Hambleton in his report to the Hon. Joshua Vansant, 
 Dr. James A. Stewart and Messrs. Henry James, George S. 
 Brown and George U. Porter, which report met their approval, 
 is found in their communication to the City Council dated 
 January 4th, 1874, (see page 38 Second Branch Report.) He 
 then says, “ Chicago is affected with a river nuisance similar 
 in character to ours, and has at great expense succeeded in 
 producing a flow of two hundred and fifty millions of gallons 
 a day of pure lake water through the main and South Branch 
 of the Chicago River with the following results ” : (He has 
 
 quoted from Mr. Cheseborough’s report of 1873.) u The 
 effect of deepening the Illinois and Michigan canal, on the 
 Main River and South Branch, continues to be satisfactory , 
 but observation as well as reflection shows that the purifying 
 power of the canal is limited, and it will not do to suppose 
 that any amount of filth for a city of the size to which Chi- 
 cago promises to grow, may be discharged into the river and 
 its branches for all time to come without producing injuric ■ 
 results.” 
 
 Here Mr. Hambleton, after stating and quoting Mr. Chese- 
 borough to prove that the Harbor of Chicago has been puri- 
 fied by the introduction into it of a current from the Lake of 
 250,000,000 of gallons of water per day, and that the result 
 is still satisfactory , also adds the fears entertained by Mr. 
 Cheseborough, that with the extended growth of the City, the 
 canal will not be able to furnish sufficient drainage. 
 
 He winds up his report by recommending the plan which 
 Mr. Heuisler advocates of attempting to purify the Harbor of 
 Baltimore, which City has the same numerical population as 
 Chicago, by drawing from it 10,000,000 of gallons of water 
 per day, and pumping it four miles through a 30-inch pipe. 
 
 I will here reiterate that the improvement to the Harbor of 
 Chicago, which is identical with what I have proposed for that 
 of Baltimore, except that I design to intercept the sewage 
 and to use steam power to produce the current here, which is 
 there produced by gravitation, is a success, and as Mr. Chese- 
 borough, after a trial of three years, states continues to be 
 satisfactory. It was no experiment when introduced there, 
 and has certainly had in this case, which has been brought 
 so frequently before the public for the last three years, “ the 
 crucial test of experience.” 
 
/ 
 
 9 
 
 Baltimore has great advantages over Chicago, because in 
 addition to an unlimited amount of water at our disposal 
 we have an ample channel for its discharge, by which a cur- 
 rent ©f 500,000,000 of gallons per day can he passed through 
 the Harbor in either direction by the same conduit I propose, 
 requiring only an increase in the capacity of the machinery. 
 
 I will further state that I do not propose to leave Jones’ 
 Falls, Harford Run, the City Dock, or any other portion of 
 the city without means of relief , as Mr. Heuisler intimates, 
 and as has been so widely asserted in condemnation of this 
 Plan. A full and comprehensive system of drainage for the 
 I entire city from Canton to the Spring Gardens is contemplated 
 ; and provided for ; to he executed at any time its authorities 
 may deem it proper to do so. I shall borrow, as most appro- 
 priate here, the language used by Mr. Heuisler in recommend- 
 ing Mr. Hambleton’s plan. He says : ee His plan also contem- 
 plates , hut does not necessarily involve a general system of 
 | sewage for the city east and west of the Falls alike, a most 
 material consideration, inasmuch as the idea of a comprehensive 
 drainage system must he ever present to the minds of a city 
 government charged as ours is with legislating for the health, 
 development and comfort of a great community.” This lan- 
 guage, it would seem, is more properly applicable to my Plan, 
 which has capacity to receive and discharge the entire sewage 
 of the city, than it is to one which contemplates the astounding 
 and unprecedented engineering feat of forcing the sewage of a 
 city containing 300,000 inhabitants for four miles through a 
 '30-inch pipe, and in addition to this providing for the discharge 
 through this pipe, and at the same time, of 10,000,000 of 
 gallons of water, in each 24 hours, from its polluted harbor. 
 
 I hand accompanying a Plat, showing the lines upon which 
 intercepting sewers can be readily constructed and led into the 
 main conduit, from which their contents can be discharged as 
 far down the Patapsco River as may be desired. 
 
 I must apologize to you for the length to which I have ex- 
 tended this paper, but have felt compelled to do so not only 
 on account of the attack made by Mr. Heuisler, but on account 
 ot the many erroneous statements which have been so freely 
 circulated by both informed and uninformed parties for the 
 purpose of shaking your confidence and that of the public in 
 the propriety and principles of the plan which I presented to 
 you, and which has been honored by your approval. 
 
 I have endeavored, as far as I have capacity, to state clearly 
 ,what I have had to say, and hope that I have succeeded in 
 doing so, being unwilling that you should, on my account. 
 
10 
 
 fall into any “error” which, to use Mr. Heuisler’s closing 
 remarks^ ‘ c added to delay , will leave us ivithout excuse before 
 the bar of public opinion , where interests as vital as these are 
 ultimately reviewed. 7 7 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 MILO W. LOCKE. 
 
 Baltimore, March 27th, 1875. 
 
10 
 
 fall into any u error ” which, to use Mr. Heuisler’s closing 
 remarks, “ added to delay , will leave us icithout excuse before 
 the bar of public opinion , where interests as vital as these are 
 ultimately reviewed. ’ ’ 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 MILO W. LOCKE. 
 
 Baltimore, March 27th, 1875. 
 
nniliriHl II II II lM IU'J 
 
 eDOOODQDD$0] 
 
 DDyoaoDlfflfi 
 
 Mp(]r 
 
 nnnnnwMnn M 
 
 
 mmu 
 
 BdlM 
 
 ^ □□□mm 
 
 igpD □□□□□□ 
 
 mssm 
 
 [□□□□□□□□limadto 
 !□□ □□ □□ Ill |tpp 
 IDDCDOOpEi 
 
 BDDDDDP®nilte 
 
 
 UJJJJJJJ" 
 
 pnoam 
 
 /□□□□□□\ 
 
 imcDtpi 
 
 BDDDDDl 
 
 ;□□□□!□□[ 
 
 ^mmfflcGPdoa- 
 
 e □□□□□ 
 
 pyusaONDMOD^ 
 
 rmanaamm^ 
 
 JJ JJJJJJ jj ' v / 
 
 fflODDOODQ 
 
 win 
 
 Stffila 
 
 DOPCDDOULJ 
 
 pqpQQDona 
 
 BC—J, 
 
 fimmtN 
 
 FOR PURIFYING 
 
 'HE HARBOR OF BALTIMl 
 
 AM DISPOSING OF ITS SEWAGE. 
 ED LINES show the Work now propose 
 LUE LINES show the contemplated exte 
 main conduit and intercepting sewers. |i 
 
 mwm 
 
fall into any u e 
 remarks, “ adde 
 the bar of public 
 ultimately revieu 
 
 Ve 
 
 Baltimore, Marc 
 
 
 
 
 ' HOT 
 
 
 r r 
 
 a v haw 
 
 <0 0k $WP 
 
 - 
 
 r a 
 
 f- fU 
 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 
 la