Ax. o^;\*^>^^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l.i 1.25 2.0 116 1= lA III 1.6 v] (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Las cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les d:agrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 f .--r-— w -f^ r C^ MONTREAL WATER WORKS, 24744 A REPLY TO COOKE & PLUMEH'S PAMPHLET, «T MR. McALPINE, CE. SALLE GAGNON BlBLIOTHtOUE de la VILLE de MONTREAL MONTREAL CITY LIBRARY 1210, RUE SHERBROOKE EST MONTReAU H2L1L9 MONTREAL: SCEAXA STKAM MMSSSi SI * 68 ST. jrAMKS BTBKKT. 1870. M I'Diine i.-,8(. -i.n. i(.-2L' SALLE GAGMr>Na^S^i2 Bibliotheque de la Vilie de jWontreal 24744 MONTREAL WATER WORKS. A REPLY TO COOKr. & PLUNKETT'S PAMPHLET, BY MR. McALPINE, C.E. MONTREAL : HVRALD 8TEAM PRESS, 51 ft 53 ST. JAMES STREET. 18 70. \ WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS. MR. M^ALPINE'S REPLY TO MESSRS. COOKE & FLUNKETI'S PAMPHLET. The following letter has been received by the Water Committee in reply to Couko & Plunkctt's pamphlet : — Albany, Fkb. 9th, 1870. To J. W. McGauvran, Esq., Chairman of the Water Committee. Sm, — On the 29th of January, I addressed you a letter, in part reply to a Resolution of your Committee passed on the 17th ult., and to a pamphlet which had also been for- wardbd to me, entitled " Observations upon the report of Mr. McAlpine, etc," and then stated that I would avail myself of the per- mission given by that resolution to reply to the material points contained in the pam- phlet. The resolution was in these worde: " Resolved, — That a copy of Messrs. Cooke & Plunkett's pamphlet on your report of the Water Works of this city, be transmitted to you, in order to enable you to answer state- ments therein made, if you think proper to do so." In my previous letter, I stated that I would reply to any particular points that you or any of the members of the Com- mittee desired, as I was at loss to under- stand how far you wished me to extend my examination of the pamphlet. I also stated that the pamphlet seemed to be a voluntary act, and wag not prepared in answer to any formal request of the Com- mittee, or, as I inferred, from that of any of the members thereof, and it bears upon its face none of the evidences of a public document. The chief significance which it has with me is the reference of it to me by a vote of the Committee, and in the absence of any further expression of your wishes I am com- pelled to regard it as emanating from the disappointed authrrs of a crude and ill- digestel scheme which I was forced to re- port against. My respect for your honourable body re- quires that I shall give it more attention than would otherwise be expected or re- quired from me. If this scheme had been presented to a Board of respectable hydraulic engineers yritLout any j^uan endorsement such aa your origiaal resolution gave to it, and it had to be considered in comparison with the other plans which had been suggested, it would have been summarily disposed of. At your special request, I devoted con- siderable space in my report to show why this plan was inferior to any of the others, and I then avoided any expression of my opinions in regard to its feasibility. In a general way, the pamphlet asserts that my report is one of generalities, avoid- ing figures, and, especially, estimates of the cost of the several plans ; that my cal- culations are erroneous and in conflict with each other, and with those made by other engineers ; and that my opinions in regard to the practical questions involved — io, re< gard to frazil, wheels and steam engines, are valueless,, and that I am biassed against their scheme. I pass by the use of unprofessional lan> guage, as merely indicating the taste of the writer, and not material to the subject, so fat as the Committee is concerned. In answer to these general allegations and the minor ones in the pamphlet, it may be said that they are actually contradicted by the au- thors, or by the published opinion of Messrs. Shauly, Eeefer, and Francis, or are self- evident even to unprofessional persons. After reading the pamphlet and review- ing the whole subject, 1 now deliberatiely state that I entertain the same opinions,^ upon the several subjects alluded to, pre> cisely as 1 have heretofore expressed them in my report of Oct. 21st, 1869. On page 16 of the pamphlet, the authors condemn their own scheme so effectually.' that, if their opinions have any valuej th^j have attempted to foist upon the efty ii plan involving three times the outlay that would be required " for the next twenty years." They say, "If the quality of the water at present furnished is satisfactory to the Council and citizens, then we toy that the required quantity can be supplied for the next twenty year8,/or less than one-thiri, the cost of any system of water power whatever." But the above opinion is in direct an- tagonism with that of all the engineers who have examined the subject, such as Messrs Eeefer, Shauly, Francis and Lesage. All of these gentlemen, as well as myself, have had, at leftst, equal advantages in oV taining all of thd information in Regard fb the relative cost ef water and steam power, au uaed at the Moatrual Water Works, and the most of them have been engaged in the construction of other Water Worlis, which, in some cases, demanded the use of water, and in others steam power ; and are, there> fore, far more familiar with the application of each, in its appropriate place, than the authors of the pamphlet who have no expe- rience in cither. While perusing the pamphlet, I made en- dorsements thereon, which I intend to sub- mit in reply to the minor allegations there- in made. Respectfully submitted. (S-gncd,) WM. J. McALPINE. EXTRACTS FROM, AND ENDORSEMENTS MADE ON THE PAMPHLET OF MESSRS. COOKE & PLUNKETT. Page 3 — " The chict feature of Mr. McAlpine's report,and that which will strike any one as remarkable in an engineering document, is the masterly way he contincs his observations, with n few exceptions, to general statements, and avoids committing himself to particulars, and, above all, to figures. To such an extent does he carry his caution in this respect, that although ho Btrungly advocates an open canal somewhat like that proposed by ilr. Lesage, yet he completely abstains from giving any opinion respectiny two of its most important features." "Even on the very important question of cost, Mr. Mc Alpine gives no estimate what- ever. It thus appears that the gist of the report merely consists of a general recom- mendation to build an open canal, of which the form of prism, details of the protections &\\<\form of the entrance and cost of construc- tion are still undetermined and unknown." It is not customary for consulting en- gineers to make up the details of plans and estimates unless specially requested. This course was followed by Messrs. Shanly and Francis, and, I believe, by Mr. Keefer. The committee evidently did not expect from me such details or estimates, for they requested me to report within a few weeks, knowing that the preparation of such details would have occupied the time of a staff for several months. My report was in the hands of the Com- mittee several months, without any intima- tion that they desired from me any more than it furnished. The writers of the pamphlet have, there- fore, arrogated to themselves the right to cunsuro not alone me, but also the Com- mittee. The following extracts from my report will show that even on this point they are somewhat mistaken : — " From the foregoing discussion, it would follow that the plan of an enlarged canal on a new route is the proper one to adopt. Its dimensions and particulars of construc- tion will be the next subject for examiu- ation." " The plan of Mr. Shanly or Mr. Lesage, and particularly tlie latter, is the one recom- mended, and the location (with a slight modilication at the entniuce.) and the dimensions proposed by Mr. Lesaye are proper." " In conducting this examination, I have had occasion to make estimates of the cost of the various plans, and calculations in regard thereto, which were sufficiently accurate for the purpose required, and for the comparisons made in the argument; but, as the data furnished me were not com- plete, it would not be advisable to insert these estimates in this communication." "I have, to a considerable extent, relied upon the estimates made by Messrs. Keefer, Shanly and Lesage, modifying them where my opinions, in regard to the plans or cost of the work, dift'ered from those gentlemen." " In regard to the prism of the new canal, I have followed the opinions of Messrs. Lesage and Sipple, in making the estimates of its cost and capacity. The experience of these gentlemen, on the effect of the rigourous climate upon canals, so similar to the one proposed, entitle their opinions to great weight. Before new works are com- menced, it may be bdvisable to have the question of the form of the prism again care- fully examined." " Before I could advise in regard to the details of the protections and form of the entrance to the new canal, it would be necessary to obtain more information than I now have of the action of the ice and frazil, which pass down the river at that place." " Whenever you shall have determined upon the general plans of the new works, I will be happy to furnish your engineer with tome further tuggettiont in regard to the 5 details and execution of the work which have occunt'd to mu duiiiijj tho prusLiit cxumiu- utiun." Pago 8 of tlio pamphlet — " In plnns of conduit fiirniHhcd Mr. McAlpiuo Iji/ im, t/m form and size 0/ l/ie entrance were purjioscli/ omitted, us wu iutcudod leaving tliosu oi)un qucHtiony until 8uiliciunt dutu respecting frazil had been obtained, durimj tlie iiext/ew viifiters, to enablo ua to dewigu an entrance tliut would ellectually exclude it." It will thus be seen that while my report was based upon dimensions, form and estimates, already before tho Committee ¥pon the plan which I recommended, that the form and size of entrance of tho covered conduit plan was " purposely omitted " by its authors, and hence tiiat they themselves could not have pnsfntctl even an ap- proximate estimate of the (jost of their scheme. On Page 10 they say — "He, Mr. McAlpine, now presumes to speak of our not having fully digested our project. As ho was fur- nished with ihiifuUeat particulars of the con- duit, it was a simple matter for 1 im to point out any inaccuracies in our statements, had they existed. We now beg your Com- mittee to notice that he has failed to do so." In one place, the author says that he has furnished mo with the "fullest particulars," and in another that it would require several years of more experience on his part, before he could design a proper plan of entrance for his conduit. In submitting to me what they termed their plans, tho parties distinctly stated (what was apparent,) that they wjro unly intended to exhibit the general design ol their scheme, and were very eager for me to point out any alterations that I thought necessary. I did suggest several necessary alterations, and they then expressed them- selves very grateful to me therefor. I would have pointed out to them many other necessary alterations to render the plan practicable if 1 had supposed that there was any possibility of the adoption of their scheme. While I felt it toy duty to report against their scheme ia the following words : — " It is, therefore, evident that tho plans of Messrs. Cooke and Plunkett, not only have no advantages over thai of the enlarged canal, but are decidedly inferior to it. There are also so many practical difficulties and objections to this plan, that I am constrained to recommend that it should not be adopted.'' Yet I desired, as far as possible, to avoid the expression of any opinions which would injure the authors professionally. Page 4 — "Mr. McAlpine's reserve on the question of cost will bo appreciated when the following, -acts respecting a former estimate of his are called to miud. In 1853 Mr. McAlpine stated in his report on Mont- real Water Works, that they could bo oonstructcd for |600,000. In 1857 Mr.Keefer, the engineer reported to Council that the works actually cost $1,11 1,'J-13," I st;iti:d in my previous letter that I had never visited the site of the Montreal Water Works prior to 18J4, and that 1 submitted my rei)ort, as consulting engineer in 18u3, entirely upon tho plans and infornnitions which Mr. Keefer sent me at Albany. Among other things, I endorsed his estimate of $000,000 for certain works specilied by liim, which particular works, I have bee« informed, have cost about that sum. 1 have also been informed tliat Mr. Keefer had explained tho reason why the works actually constructed have cost nearly twice as much as those originally designed by him. Mr. Keefer is fully competent to defend himself, and I have only to add that it id not true, as alleged in tho pamphlet, that the works which he estimated at $000,000 and which I endorsed, have (;ost nearly twice that sura. Pago 4 — '' Now in regard to tho formula (Eytleweins'), wo beg to say it is not ap- plicable to our covered conduit, and even for open channels it is intended to give tho approximate supertuial velocity, not tho mean velocity from which tiie discharge should be calculated. What induced Mr. McAlpine to parade it in his report, instead of using some one of tho simple practicable tables such a.s Neville, Beardmore, Ac, we cannot imajine." It is well known to the profession that Eytleweins' formula is the basis of a num- ber which have been given by subsequent hydraulicians. In Beardinore's tables, page 13, this Evtle\ifeins' formula is stated to be ''the rule on which this table is constructed." It was stated in my report that it "was not strictly correct," but sufiiciently so for the purposes for which it wad used, viz : — that of comparison merely. Applied to tho covered conduit it gives a discharge of about four per cent, more than the results given on page 28 of the pamphlet, which is stated to be " according to the best authorities." Iji fact, however, one of these parties asserted to me that this formula,or rather its equivalent, was strictly applicable to the conduit. This approximate formula was sufficiently accurate for all the purposes for which I used it, and I stated it merely to prevent any person from supposing that it could be used when greater accuracy was desired. As the " simple practical tables of Neville and Beardmore " are referred to, it is proper to remark that such tables are made up from well known formula, and are only used by young beginners, or for rough cal- culations. In all cases when great accuracy is required, these formula: have to be modi- fied to suit the circumstjincesof each case. To make these modifications correctly re- quires study, experience and judgment. Page 5. ♦' We will now proceed to show that the table (in McAl pine's Report) i* entirely unrcliabk and erroneous." " Wc pro- poBO to conlino uiirHulves to a few biinpio illiistviitioiis of its inaccurttcicn." " It will lliiis L)u sttu tiuit Mr. Mc'AIj)ino iiuilvuH 11. lioitio-powL'i' c(niiil in tlif lir.t cusu to [JS c. ft. of watur pur minute; ; iu tlio 8ccomi,18 ; in lliu tliircl,JJ;aiul in tiiu fourtli 40. Ah tlu; full of the water uh applied to Breast Wheels, proposed to bj used by Mr. McAlplne, will be the Kaine in all cases, ii ia of course an utkr abtsurdity to say that u horse-power requires 20 to 25 per cent, luoro water in one case than it does in another ; yet that ia practically what Mr. iVlcAliiine's calculations tell us." Amony honorable men, the sujjpression of the truth is regarded nearly in the same light as the utterance of a falsehood, and as one-fourth of the "observations" are de- voted to these ailcged " errors, (k'Heiencies and absurdities,'' an cxaniiruition of their truthfulness will serve to show the general character of the whole pamphlet. In ordinary conversation with a modera- tely intelligent per.son, not even an en- gineer, it would not be neces.sary to state that tlie power of any water fall depends, not only upon the quantity of the water, but upon its falls. Yet the whole criticism of the above quotation from the pamphlet depends upon the " absurd ' omission of the fall of the water, in each case stated in the table. The table states four distinct conditions of the water at the wheel-house, viz : — its elevation (and consequently the height of its fall) when the river is 36 and again 38 feet above the datum line, and then again when it is at these two elevations, but obstructed by ice three feet thick. These elevations and obstructions give different falls to the water of 14, 16, 11 and 13 feet, and these falls multiplied respect- ively into the quantities of water flowing at those times produce the different theoretic horse-power stated in the table. It is therefore a mere arithmetical ques- tion to determine whether the table is cor- rect or " erroneous." Thus with the water at 36 ftdigcharging 111,375 c.ft.with J4ftfiiU=2,9.'i3 n.p. as ft •• 100,77:; •' " IG " =1,.',U!) •• at)ft»&3ftof Ice" b4,U72 >' " 11 " =-l,7(Jt «' B8ft '• "ri2,7tiO " •' 13 '• -3,023 " These amounts (with two trifling discrep- ancies of a tenth of one per cent., chargeable to the copyist or printer,)correspond exactly with those stated in the table. The pamphlet occupies the remainder of page 6, in repeating this blunder of com- puting the horse power, under these varying conditions of head, by again using only one of the elements necessary to determine the power, and then adds on page 1 : — " The foregoing example shows the incon- tialency and consequent worthlessneis of the table as judged by itself." Page 1 — " We will now compare the calculations given in table with those found in another portion of the report." And then follows a statement of Mr. Sipple, that the Lachinu Canal tn the worst times had an area of 50) sciuare leet, and n velocity of 50 feut per minute, giving with 14 feet fall, 663 horse-power," ami then is added — " Tluit is, the proposed enlarged aqueduct will iiave 2 1 times as much power as the Lachiiie Canal, under the same fall." " As the enlarged a(pie(luet will be, at most, (Mily 10 to 20 ()er cent more capacious than the Lachine Canal, it is evidently absurd to calculate upon getting 225 per cent more power from it, under the same fall, as stateil in table." 'I'ho qiiestion at issue in this case ib again simply an arithmetical ouo. 500 square feet area of water, moving at the rate of 50 feet per minute and tailing 14 feet, will produce 663 theoretic liorse-power ; ami 672 S(iuar,' feet moving 22'J feet per Second and falling 11 feet, will produce 1,76 1 theoretic horse-power. Mr. Sip|)le stated tliat his canal had 500 square feet of water way, under the ice, ''in the worst times," whieli were, when the ice may Imve been upwards of four feet thick. Tile talde is calculated upon a ditfertntsize antl formed canal with an ice sumed at three feet tliick. The Lachine Canal had two inches, and the enlarged canal was calculated with ten inches fall per mile. Tiie deception practised iu the pamphlet is thus rendered Hpparent. I'age 7 — "We will now test Mr. McAlpine's calculations with some of those maile by others." And then follows an assertion that Mr. Shanly has stated " the discharge from a canal almost identical in size, Ac, with the one recommended by Mr. McAlpine, at 450 millions of gallons in 24 hours," wliile the latter estimates " the discharge at 760 millions or 70 per cent, greater," and it also states that Mr. Lesage calculates the dis- charge of the canal proposed by him in January, 1869, at 805 millions or 38 per cent, different from Mr. McAlpine." I do not have the supplemental report of Mr. Shanly to refer to, but I find on page 14 of his first report, that ho estimates on the general proportions (of a canal,) on a scale to insuio the passage of at least 600 waVZr ' respectable engineers, are turniHlad with tho (lata ({iveii in my table, it is iiiiposHibht that any one of them would report calcula- tions, materially diilerent from thoso in my report, and yet this pamphlet assiTts : — Pago 8 — " The above considerations ur think fully warrant us in sa>/iiir/, that the •to called table is altor/ether unreliable ami erroneous and consequently that the deductions and con' elusions based on it are worthless and under- serving of attention." As tho above examination has fhown the table in my report to be reliable and correct, the converse of the above quoted statement must be true ; viz : " that tlie deductions and conclusions based on if are worthy and deserving of attention. Two pages of the pamphlet arc duvotod to a review of my statements in regard to frazil. In my intercourse with tho committee, I stated that I hud lind almost no experience on this subject, and in my report, I u-ed the theories and arguments of Mr. Keefur, the Detroit Water Commissioners and some gentlemen of Montreal, whose nanus I did not give. The authors of the pamphlet claim to be better informed than these gentlemen, but as they state on page 8 (alri ady quoted; that they intended to experinKiit " during tiie next few winters to enable them to design an entrance (to their conduit) that would effectually exclude it," it is evidt nt that they themselves think that subject also is beyond their present comprehension. Page 11 — " Had Mr. Mc Alpine shewn that the difficulties to be encountered in (the; proposed conduit, could not be met at the estimated cost, his statement would /ncrit al/rn- lion. • • • We beg to say what we fully appreciate all the practicable dij/iculiies to be anticipated in the construction of the work proposed by us and have amply allowed for them in our estimate • * • We uew^wre tosay the Council will have no difficulty in get- ting responsible parties to imdertake and complete ^the work, even below our esti- mate." A letter from Mr. Shanly is attached to this pamphlet. This distinguished engineer, and now extensive contractor, remarks in regard to the details of their plans and their estimate as follows : " of the correctness of your estimates of quantities and their clas- sification, I have no mean of judging. In respect of cost, your prices appear to me to be all somewhat slender, and on the items of culverts, entrance and lands are in my judg- ment quite too low." And then he adds that for their item for contingencies twice the sum " would be none too much.'' In my report I stated as follows : " These several projects Lave been so thoroughly discussed in the reports of Messrs. Keefer and Shanly, that I shall often be compeUe4 to use their arguments in the pxpression of my own opluionfl, and can therefore bo more concise." 'I he above portion of tho letter from Mr. Shanly, written on nearly the same day as niy report, expresses my opinion so nearly, that 1 would have been glad to have incor- porated it in my report, as I have done in respect to many of his other opinions, in regard to the Water Works. Mr. Siianly and myself would probably ngrei! that tho authors of the pamphlet had not " fully a|)preciated all of the practical difficulties," nor that they had "amply al- lowed for them in their estimate," nor that any " responsible parties wou'd undertake and coniplrto the work " at even much luKher liyures than their estimate. Pago 13 — " A practical test of the relativ merits of the Breast Wheels and those of llie Turbine class is that no miller or ma- chinist in the country ever uses the former in preference to the latter ; moreover, tho experience of your own works siievvs the superiority of the Turbine. We think the above facts prove, that in recommending Breast Wheels, Mr. McAIpine has given an unsound opinion." Mr. Shanly, whom the complainants so unfortunately attempt to brintr in as a wit- ness against some of the opinions expressed in my report, testifies on this subject as fol- lows : " ^s'ulhiny can be better than the plan, construction and arrangement of the wheels and pumping generally. The Turbine has proved ft most efficient auxiliary at all sea- sons, • * • but for steady, regular action, for simplicity of construction, and for perfect adaptation to the winter conditions of our climate, the Breast Wheel is tho best motor for your pumps. Compared to it tho Turbine is a complex and delicate piece of mechanism, liable to cause trouble and detention at any moment, if deranged by tho accidental ad- mission of some stray piece of float wood, or other obstructive substtmce. Give the Breast Wheel plenty of water, and it will always do its work well." Mr. Keefer has expressed his opinions in favor of Breast Wheels over those of the Turbine class quite as strongly as Mr. Shan- ly. The master mechanic and Mr. Lesage informed me that they also preferred them. The authors of the pamphlet differ in opi- nion with all of these gentlemen, and their remark of an " unsound opinion," if worth any attention would apply with still more force to others than to me ; and their opi- nions in preference of the Turbines are en- titled to just so much weight as their know- ledge, experience and judgment compares with that of the gentlemen who have ex- pressed tho opposite opinion. For ordinary purposes the Turbine is gen- erally preferable to Breast Wheels, but after further consideration of the subject, I am constrained to repeat from my report that " The experience obtained by your works, enables you to determine the relative marita 8 of Breast Wheels and Turbines. For your works, and especially after they have been enlarged as proposed, I am of the opinion that Breast Wheels will be the most suit- able." Page 13 — " The question of the purity of the water to be supplied, has not received from Mr. Mc Alpine the particular atten- tion, such an impovtiint matter ouRht to command. On this point he merely says page 10, and then four lines are quoted^ from my report, and there is added : " We consider the statement that defilement may be prevented by strict supervision, un- worthy the reputation of a' practical engineer." Accuracy of statement is not a character- istic of this pamphlet. In addition to the four lines quoted, more than a page (21) of my report was duvoted to this subject. The authors of the pamphlet consume more than two pages, with the discussion of the question of preventing " defilement " on five miles, when tiicre is more than a thou- sand miles above the Water Works, along which are cities, villages, houses and manu- factories, discluirging their filth and sewage into the stream. The "defilement" is alluded to in the pamphlet as follows, page 14: "This fact was abundantly proved to His Worship the Mayor, many of the Water Committee and Mr. Mc Alpine himself on the occasion of the latter's visit to this city, when the most dis- gusting causes of defilement were to be seen on all sides of the entrance bridge." The writer of the pamphlet omitted to add, that 'the same gentlemen witnessed on the same day, much worse cases of the same kind of defilement all along the river shore for a mile above tne Water Works ; and that tlie Superintendent assured the Committee that he would take measures to prevent any similar dcfilemcmt in future, at and above the canal entrance ; but all of the gentlemen present agreed in the opinion that there was no legal authority to prevent defilement along the river shore above the entrance to the Water Works. In almost every American and in many of the European cities the supply of water is obtained from runnintr streams into which must necessarily drain the filth from what- ever population occupies its borders. In most cases, as at Montreal, the length of the conduit or canal is small compared with that of tlie open and unprotected channel above. Even the New York Crofon Aque- duct is but half as long as the open channel above, from which tiie whole of the water is obtained, and at Philadelphia they have used water directly from the Schuylkill, for half a century, with a drainage of two himdred miles of densely populated country, and nu- merous manufactories.' The line of argument on this question adojited in the pamphlet is rarely resorted to, except by some demagogue in pandering to some local and vulgar prejudice and is unworthy of any one who hopes for the re- putation of a practical and sensible man. to on line iore ^hat ttee my jve len ras lent to my iter lich liat- In ■the fith nel ue- nel r is sed lalf red tiu- lon ted ing is re-