Sa etsaiy tienes ects Reoereceereceneeerene = SRS ee Tad Lik iT} = ~ = = = me 3 5 = fomd hr 3 B tal a = o 5 Ss Cornell University Library KFM2758.A88 ler HAT JOHN -M. TYLER e¢ ai, Prrrrioners, vs. _ JOHN P. SQUIRE ef al, Rusronpenrs. ALDERMAN JAMES H. COLLINS, With compliments of J.P. SQUIRE & CO. OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING BY GEORGE C. BURPEE anp W. O. ROBSON. CAMBRIDGE: WELCH, BIGELOW, AND COMPANY, GAniversity Press. 1874. JOHN -M. TYLER et ai, Perrtionzrs, vs. ‘JOHN P. SQUIRE ef ai, Responpents. THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, OF MASSACHUSETTS ; TOGETHER -WITH A PHONOGRAPHIC REPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING, BY GEORGE C. BURPEE anp W. O. ROBSON. CAMBRIDGE: WELCH, BIGELOW, AND COMPANY, Anibersity Press. 1874. LI 03 CONTENTS. Page Orricrau RECORD OF THE STATE BOARD oF HEALTH . . Z x 3 Communication of Board to Respondents . . . + «+ - 3 Protest of Respondents. . . so . wg 6 Letter of Board to Mayor, ete., of Somerville’ Se CED Aes ce 12 CasE FOR PETITIONERS nn > a cae eae STE Mr. MclIntire’s “Opening Argument for Petitioners . A aX ‘ 18 Testimony of Samuel Slounb. . . . 21 Memorial of Cunard "Steamehip Company ee a innit) 33 Testimony of Charles O. Welch . . . ij : , . - 385 i Dr. C. H. Farnsworth . - ‘ j 3 : : 38 a Henry 8. Hills. 5 . . i . . - 42 ss - Jonas Woodard : : 5 7 . ‘ ; 44 Asa Tyler . : : . é % . r : - 50 «6 William S. Soule. . 7 ‘ : é , ‘ 54 “ Joseph Burdakin . . . 5 - : . . - 58 & Grove H. Loomis. . . 7 - e ‘ ‘ 62 " Prof. Charles E. Munroe. ‘ A "i e - 65 Stephen P. Sharples. . . . «© 2 «© + 94 te Dr. Samuel L. Abbot . 4 ‘ : . ) 5 » 11 ue Miss Jennie Arms . ; e. RE wo Oe OR 117 « James Hunter. 3 : . i - . ‘ - 118 sf Charles E.Meyer . . «© «| . so . 120 i William G. Russell, Esq. . Bd 6 6 124 ues -Joseph Magoun F oe . > GD we 125 ss James Lee, Jr. . P i ‘ < . é < « 134 a Mrs. Lydia T. Rooney . eo ae ‘i 136 « Mrs. Jane Binney oe oo oe + « 188 a Mrs. Mary W. Clark j 2 z * 7 5 ci 140 ec Miss Maria Spare eG . a - 141 “ Mrs. Charlotte Fogg em ee A ae ae 142 ‘ Testimony of Dr. Samuel A. Durgin. i Hon. Alonzo W. Boardman . e Dr. Benjamin S. Shaw. . . sf Dr. John B. Taylor . ‘i : i ss Dr. Anson P. Hooker . : : . Cask FoR RESPONDENTS . . : Mr. Derby’s Opening Argument for Bpouidente Report of Committee of Boston Board of Trade Testimony of John P. Squire. Testimony and Report of Professor Eben N. Horsford F Testimony and Report of Charles E. Avery . Testimony of Charles A.Goodrich.. . ss . Everett L. Colson. z ‘ = John M. Graves ss Edward Burnham . : . ‘ Record of Winds at East Cambridge Testimony of Joseph S. Pike ie Dr. Hezekiah C. Bickford af John 8. Lyon « Obadiah George : fe Samuel W. Burpee. . ; . i Gen. Samuel E. Chamberlain . a Hon. Jonathan Stone . . Oliver Ayers . . .« . “ Zimri H. Cobleigh Sis ie, CR oe ee Jacob Abbott . ‘ ; 7 < i JohnH. Rapp . . . .) . Letter from E. H. Janes : os om é ‘ “ Dr. Barnard . ‘ ‘ ° 3 ‘ Testimony of Michael B. Crowe Cut showing Turner’s Tank-Gas Consumer ‘ A Testimony of William G. Carson. . ., , “ Hon. George O. Brastow “ Hon. Estes Howe . j ‘ i “ Hon. Isaac Bradford . ‘ . ‘ sf John M. Merrick. 5 - “ Charles W. H. Martin . “ Harvey George. . .« . . “ Alderman Curtis Davis : _ 144 147 151 153 154 157 158 183 186 211 256 269 279 281 283 285 292 — 295 297 300 303 304 308 313 316 320 821 323 324 827 329 337 344 350 354 361 362 363 866 Testimony of Hon. James D. Greene. Table showing Growth in Population and Valuation of East iat ni Somerville . . . . Table regarding Slaughtering ait Rendering i in New York Testimony of Edward K. Richards . . . .- € Capt. CharlesJ: Adams . . . f James Alexander . > oh G “ Hon. J. Warren Merrill . ‘ ‘ . Dr.Eben Jackson. . «. «©. “ Brad. R. Throckmorton “ Hon. Henry O. Houghton ; ee Patrick McCabe. : ‘ . . Record of Cambridge Board of Health . . . Testimony of Henry C.Lincoln ». . . . . ee David M. Oliver . a : , ‘ . “ Luther P. Wiggin. . wt, te Columbus Tyler... St e 4 . James Gould . . . . te Hon. Horatio G. Parker . . George Upton . a E. L. Colson (recalled) ie Prof. E. N. Horsford (recalled) 7 Capt. Thomas Cunningham. . . G Hon. Hamlin R. Harding . ee Watson B. Hastings 7 Nathaniel Jackson . 2. «el William Bliss f 7 Alderman Edward Kendall 6 Hon. Knowlton S, Chaffee . sf J. G. Chase , te J. R.N. Squire, Esq... “6 John L, Porter . : us J. G. Chase (recalled) . “ William M. Richings . . we Alderman John McSorley “ Perry Clark . . < ew. Yr 2 7 John H. Stevens . ee ed “ John P. Squire (recalled) a) el Charles E. Avery (recalled) : “ Alderman Robert L. Sawin . . . 367 370 371 3871 372 375 378 385 386 388 394 396 397 399 401 403 406 408 416 419 419 421 427 432 436 437 439 444 451 458 459 460 460 462 467 468 469 470 471 vi’ Testimony of Rev. Samuel W. McDaniel British Parliamentary Report of July,1878 . . . Resurrine Testimony ror PETITIONERS Testimony of Dr. B. Joy Jeffries . . a © Alderman George R. Brine. x 6 ee 8. P. Sharples (recalled) Letter from Mr. Sharples to Professor Chandler « Professor Chandler to Mr. Sharples et Professor Winlock to Professor Horsford (putt in a iRaipocsleata) Testimony of Dr. S.‘H. Durgin (recalled). iy Isaac Sweetzer. . .« «. . e Hon. William H. Kent. . ey Thomas Dana . = . . . . fe George L. Mitchell . . . “ Dr. Robert Willard (for enna. Dr. Marcy’s Article in “ Boston Medical and Surgical Journal,” 1872 Record of Mayor and Aldermen of Cambridge, 1873 Record of Mayor and Aldermen of Somerville, 1873 . Letter from Clerk of Board of Health, and City Ordinance, of Cleveland, Ohio . ‘ : 7 1 ‘ ‘ : 7 Dr. Stewart, Comm. of Health of Baltimore a Dr. Reid, Health Officer of Chicago Letters of Dr. Chandler, President of Health Department of New York Testimony of A. Winthrop Hastings . 6 Joseph Magoun (recalled). . . “ Professor C. E. Munroe (recalled). . ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY FOR RESPONDENTS Testimony of John P. Squire (recalled) Letter from William L. Bradley to Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, Chairman of Board . : . . . . : . Mr. Muzzey’s closing Argument for Respondents . Mr, McIntire’s closing Argument for Petitioners . 474 478 486 486 489 497 498 499 500 501 505 507 509 513 515 517 519 521 523 524 525 526 526 538 539 541 541 542 543 575 OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH. A QuARTERLY Meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Wednesday, October 1, 1873, at 10.30 a. m. Present: Messrs. Bowditch, Davis, Hoadley, Webster, Frothingham, and Derby. At 11.30 a. m, by appointment previously made, the Board received the parties engaged in slaughtering and packing swine and rendering fats in the vicinity of Miller’s River, in Somer- ville and Cambridge, concerning whose establishments formal com- plaints had been. presented to the Secretary since the last meeting of the Board. The following remarks, having been drawn up in writing, and receiving the assent and approval of the Board, were read by the Secretary: — ° ~ GENTLEMEN, — The circumstances under which we have asked you to be present at our meeting to-day are as follows: Nine petitions concern- ing your establishments engaged in slaughtering and packing hogs and melting fats, in the vicinity of Miller’s River, in East Cambridge and Somerville, were presented to us on the 25th of September, 1873. The petitioners declare themselves prepared to show that these establishments are noxious and offensive, and call upon us to close them. The law of 1871, Chapter 167, General Statutes, makes it our imperative duty to or- der you to cease and desist from pursuing your business if these charges are proved. It is notorious that the portions of East Cambridge and Somerville which you occupy are regarded as offensive ; that a-public nui- 4 sance exists in that locality. It is also generally believed that acrid and nauseating vapors, coming from the boiling of fats, are a chief cause of this nuisance ; and that these vapors deprive, at certain times, thousands . of persons of their inherent right to the enjoyment of unpolluted air. These, opinions are so prevalent that we see no reason for ignoring them at this time and place. It is evident that the stoppage of your business, under the law referred to, without provision being made for its continuance in a more favorable location, where it could be conducted without offence, would entail great loss upon yourselves, great suffering on thousands of persons who are either directly or indirectly in your employment, and would seriously interfere with the commerce of the port of Boston. Under somewhat similar circumstances, two years ago, the butchers of cattle and sheep were invited to meet this Board, and the result of the conference was the building of an Abattoir where about one half of the slaughtering and rendering of Brighton is now done without offence to any one, and in which we believe will soon be concentrated all the business of that kind in the neighborhood of Boston. We have now invited you to meet us, together with the complainants, that opportunity might be given, in an informal and friendly way, for any propositions which you may desire to make concerning the important interests at stake. Should you be willing to propose that within a redsonable time the business of slaughtering hogs and rendering fats would be transferred by you from the crowded vicinity of Miller’s River to some other place where you ‘could have the benefits of ample space, railroad connections, and direct drainage to deep water with strong currents, and where, by concentration, the requirements of public health could be observed, we think a basis might be found for an arrangement satisfactory to all: parties, and of great advantage to the sanitary and commercial interests of the neigh- borhood and of the State. The present meeting will occasion no loss of time in the settlement of these important questions, as in case no con- clusion is reached satisfactory to the petitioners, a time will be fixed at once for the opening of the hearings at this place. After the reading of the above address the Board left the room for half an hour, that the parties might have opportunity for free consultation among themselves. At the expiration of the time. 5 above named, the Board returned and were ildvagpedl by Mr. Muzzey and Mr. E. H. Derby (both counsel for Mr. Squire, one of the parties complained of), and by Mr. McIntire for the petition- ers. It was then stated by the Chairman that three hearings must be had on petitions previously received before the Miller's River cases could be taken up. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House, on Wednes- day, October 22, 1873, at 10.30 a.m. Present: Messrs. Bowditch, Davis, Hoadley, Webster, Frothingham, and Derby. A petition was recejved, signed by John M. Tyler and others, asking that the pow- ers given to the Board by Chapter 167, Acts of 1871, General Stat- utes, be exercised to cause John P. Squire & Co. to cease and desist from keeping and slaughtering hogs, and melting and rendering in their establishment in the cities of Cambridge and Somerville. Whereupon it was Ordered, That a hearing be had on this petition on the first day of December, 1873, at 10 o'clock A. M., at the State House in Boston, and that the above-named parties be notified by the Secre- tary of the time and place appointed for the said hearing, three days at least before the said first day of December. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Monday, ‘December 1, 1873, at 10 a.m. Present: Messrs. Bowditch, Froth- ingham, Hoadley, Webster, Newhall, and Derby. A hearing was had, on the petition of John M. Tyler and others, concerning the establishment of John P. Squire & Co. Mr. McIntire appeared for the petitioners, Mr. Muzzey and Mr. E. H. Derby appeared for J. P. Squire & Co. Mr. J. P. Squire was present. The following wit- nessed were examined: Samuel Slocumb, Charles O. Welch, Charles Henry Farnsworth,-Henry 8. Hill. A memorial from Mr. Alexan- der, representing the Cunard Steamship Company, was presented by Mr. Muzzey, and received by the Board. Previous to the intro- duction of testimony the following protest against the proceedings of the Board was presented by Mr. Muzzey : — 6 (Copy-) In Stare Boarp or Heatry, December 1, 1873. In the matter of John P. Squire e¢ al., on complaint of John M. Tyler et al, And now come the respondents, and object that this Board cannot law- fully proceed to hear the complaint against said respondents, because all of said Board are not in attendance. By their Attorney, (Signed) H. W. Muzzey. At 1.30 p.m. the Board adjourned till December 2, 1873, at-9 A. M. A meeting of the Board was held pursuant to adjournment on Tuesday, December 2, 1873, at 9 a. M., at the State House. Present : Messrs. Bowditch, Frothingham, Hoadley, Newhall, Webster, Davis, and Derby. The hearing on complaint against John P. Squire & Co. was resumed. The following witnesses were examined: Jonas Woodard, Asa Tyler, W. 8. Soule, Joseph Burdakin, Grove H. Loomis, Charles E. Munroe. At 14 p.m. the Board adjourned till December 3, 1873, at 9 A. M. . At the request of Mr. E. H. Derby, counsel for J. P. Squire & Co., the following additional record, concerning the attendance of members of the Board on the 2d of December, 1873, is herewith made : — There were present at the opening of the proceedings, Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Hoadley, Webster, Frothingham, and Derby. Dr. Davis arrived at 10 a.m. Mr. Hoadley was absent from 10 till 11.45. Mz. Frothingham left at 1 P. m A meeting of the Board was held by adjournment on Wednesday, December 3, 1873, at 9 o'clock A. ., at the State House. Pres- ent at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Webster, Frothing- ham, and Derby. Mr. Hoadley arrived at 9.14 4. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.07 a.m. At different times during the session of the Board, Messrs. Newhall, Derby, and Hoadley left the room for peri- ods varying from one to five minutes. The hearing on complaint 7 against John P. Squire & Co. was resumed. The testimony of Charles E. Munroe, which was not finished at the previous meet- ing, was continued. Mr. 8. P. Sharples was then examined as a witness. At 1 p.m. the Board adjourned till Thursday, December 4, 1873, at 9 A.M. A meeting of the Board was held by adjournment on Thursday, . December 4, 1873, at 9 o’clock a. m., at the State House. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Frothingham, Webster, and Derby. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.02 o’clock. Dr. Derby left the room for three minutes between the hours of eleven and twelve. The hearing on complaint against John P. Squire & Co. was re- sumed. Mr. E. H. Derby, counsel for Mr. Squire, desired that the protest against proceeding without the presence of every member of the Board should be regarded as renewed from day to day. The examination of Mr. 8. P. Sharples was continued The following witnesses were then examined: Dr. Samuel L. Abbot, Miss Jennie M. Arms, James Hunter, and Charles E. Meyer. At 1 Pp. m. the Board adjourned to meet on Friday, December 5, 1873, at 9 a. M. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Friday, December 5, 1873, at 9 a.m. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bow- ditch, Newhall, Webster, and Derby. Mr. Frothingham arrived at 9.10 o'clock. Mr. Hoadley arrived at 11.34 o’clock. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.03 o’clock. The following witnesses were exam- ined: William G. Russell, Joseph Magoun, James Lee, Jr., Lydia T. Rooney, Jane Binney, Mary W. Clark, Maria Spare, Charlotte Fogg, Dr. Samuel H. Durgin, Alonzo W. Boardman, Dr. B. 8S. Shaw, Dr. Jobn B. Taylor, Dr. Anson P. Hooker. A letter from Dr. 8S. L. Abbot was received, giving certain dates which had been asked for by the counsel for Mr. Squire. The letter was read by the Secretary. The Chairman announced — after consultation with the members of the Board, during a recess of ten minutes — that the hearing would be continued on Monday December 8, 1873, at 9 A. M. 8 A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Monday, December 8, 1873, at 9 a. M. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bow- ditch, Webster, Frothingham, Newhall, and Derby. Mr. Hoadley arrived at 9.14 o’clock. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.07 o'clock, The Secretary presented a letter from Dr. §.L. Abbot. Edwin F. Bowker presented a plan of the Miller’s River District. Mr. E. H. Derby - opened the defence of J. P. Squire & Co. The following witnesses were examined: John P. Squire, Eben N. Horsford. Mr. Frothing- ham, a member of the Board, was not present from 2 o’clock till 2.30 o'clock P.M. A recess was taken by the Board from 1 o’clock until 2 o’clock p.m. At 5 o'clock P. M. the Board adjourned until Tues- day, December 9, 1873, at 9 A. M. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Tuesday, December 9, 1873, at 9 o’clock a.m. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Webster, Frothingham and Derby. Mr. Hoadley arrived at 9.14 4.M. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.10 a.m. The Chair- man announced that the session of the Board would be closed at 2p. M. this day, and that the next session would be on Friday, December 12, 1873; at 9 A.M. The examination of Eben N. Hors- ford was continued. The following witnesses were then examined: Charles E. Avery, Charles A. Goodrich, Everett L. Colson, Edward Burnham, John M. Graves. At 2p. M. the Board adjourned. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Friday, December 12, 1873, at 9 A. M. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Webster, Hoadley, Frothingham, Newhall, and Derby.. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.104.m. The following witnesses were ex- amined: John M. Graves, Joseph 8. Pike, Hezekiah C. Bickford, John 8. Lyon, Obadiah George, Samuel W. Burpee, Samuel E. Cham- berlain, Jonathan Stone, Oliver Ayers, Zimri H. Cobleigh, Jacob Abbott, John H. Rapp. A letter was read by Mr. McIntire from Mr. Barnard, of St. Luke’s Hospital, in New York. A letter re- 9 ceived from the Sanitary Superintendent of the Board of Health of the city of New York was read by the Secretary. Adjourned at 1.30 Pp. M., until Monday, December 15, 1873, at. 9 A. M., to meet in the Green Room, by consent of all parties. A meeting of the Board was held at the Green Room of the State House on Monday, December 15, 1873, at 9 a. mM. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Webster, Newhall, Hoadley, and Derby. Mr. Frothingham arrived at 9.14 o’clock. Dr. Davis ar- rived at 10.15 o’clock. The following witnesses were examined : John H. Rapp, Michael B. Crowe, William G. Carson, George 0. Brastow, Estes Howe, Isaac Bradford, John M. Merrick. At 1 o’clock, p. M. the Board adjourned to meet in the Green Room of the State House on Friday, December 19, 1873, at 9 a. M. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Friday, December 19, 1873, at 9 a. Mm. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Hoadley, and Derby. Mr. Webster arrived at 9.07 o'clock. Mr. Frothingham arrived at 9.10 o’clock. The ‘following witnesses were examined: Charles W. H. Moulton, Harvey George, Curtis Davis, James D. Greene, Edward K. Richards, Charles J. Adams, James Alexander, J. Warren Mer- rill, Dr. Eben Jackson, Brad. K. Throckmorton, Henry O. Houghton, Patrick McCabe, Henry C. Lincoln, David M. Oliver, Luther P. Wiggin, Columbus Tyler, James Gould. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.10 o'clock. The counsel for J. P. Squire & Co. presented statistics of population and of taxable property of Cambridge and Somer- ville. The counsel’ for the petitioners presented a copy of pro- ceedings of City Councils of Cambridge in 1872. At 1 o'clock, P. M., the Board adjourned to meet at the State House on Saturday, De- ecember 20, 1873, at 9 a. M. ; A meeting of the Board was héld at the State House on Satur- 10 day, December 20, 1873, at 9.4.M. Present -at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Newhall, Webster, Hoadley, and Derby. Mr. Frothing- ham arrived at 10 o’clock. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.10 o'clock. The following witnesses were examined: Horatio G. Parker, George Upton, Everett L. Colson, Eben N. Horsford, Thomas Cun- ningham, Hamlin R. Harding, Watson B. Hastings, Nathaniel Jackson, William Bliss, Edward Kendall, Knowlton §. Chaffee. Mr. Webster of the Board read some extracts from a Report on ren- dering in the city of Providence, made by Dr. Snow of that city. At 115 p.m. the Board adjourned to meet at the State House on Monday, December 22, 1873, at 9 a. M. A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Monday, December 22, 1873, at 9 a. M. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Webster, Frothingham, Newhall, and Derby. Mr. Hoad- ley arrived at 9.15 A.M. The Secretary was absent from the room for twenty-five minutes to allow him to obey a summons from the Supreme Court. This absence was from 12.15 until 12.40 p.m. Mr. Frothingham acted as Secretary during the absence of Dr. Derby. The following witnesses were examined: J. G. Chase, J. R. N. Squire, John L. Porter, William M. Richings, John McSorley, Perry Clark, John H. Stevens, John P. Squire, Charles E. Avery, Robert L. Sawin, Samuel W. McDaniel, B. Joy Jeffries, George R. Brine, S. P. Sharples. Mr. John H. Stevens presented a plan of a new trap for drains. The counsel for J. P. Squire & Co. presented a Parliamentary Report, 1873, concerning slaughter-houses in Lon- don. Mr. 8. P. Sharples presented an analysis of dried mud from Miller’s River basin. Mr. 8. P. Sharples presented a correspondence between himself and Professor Chandler of the Board of Health of New York, in August, 1873. At 1.10 P. m the Board adjourned to meet on Tuesday, December 23, 1873, at 9 a. M. ; A meeting of the Board was held at the State House on Tuesday, December 23; 1873, at 9 4. mu. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bow- 11 Rao 94 weed wae’ ditch, Hoadley, Frothingham, Newhall, Webster, and Derby. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.10 a.m. The following witnesses were ex- amined: Samuel H. Durgin, Isaac Sweetzer, William H. Kent, Thomas Dana, George L. Mitchell, Robert Willard, A. Winthrop Hastings, Joseph Magoun, Charles E. Munroe, John P. Squire. Counsel for petitioners presented an article by Dr. Marcy, pub- lished in the “Boston Medical and Surgical Journal,’ June 12, 1873; also, a record of the Board of Health of Cambridge, July 16, 1873, and July 23, 1873; also, a record of the Board of Health of Somerville, August 25,1873; also, a letter and report from the Board of Health of Cleveland, Ohio; also, a letter from an Officer of Health of the city of Baltimore ; also, a letter from an Officer of Health of the city of Chicago ; also, a letter from Professor Chand- ler of New York, published in the “Boston Daily Advertiser,” September 1, 1873; also, a letter from Professor Chandler, dated December 16, 1873, to Mr. A. Winthrop Hastings. At 1 Pp. ww. the Board adjourned, to hear the arguments of counsel, until Monday, December 29, 1873, at 10 A. M. _A meeting of the Board was held at the Green Room of the State House, on Monday, December 29, 1873, at 10 a. Mm. Present at that hour: Messrs. Bowditch, Hoadley, Frothingham, Webster, Newhall, and Derby. Dr. Davis arrived at 10.20 a.m. The Secretary stated that he desired to place on record the presentation of the fol- lowing documents to the Board: 1. A memorial of the Board of Trade of the city of Boston, with a memorandum of the exports of provisions and grain from the port of Boston, in 1872; 2. A record of the winds at East Cambridge during the autumn and a part of the summer of 1873, kept under the direction of J. P. Squire & Co.; 3. A document relating to the sewerage of Glasgow, Scotland ; 4. A record of the winds kept by R. T. Paine. The Secretary called the attention of counsel and of all parties interested to the fact that ‘several documents (a list of which was read) had been formally offered during the progress of the hearing, but had not been placed x 12 in the actual keeping of the Board, and were not now in their pos- session. The counsel for J. P. Squire & Co. presented a letter from William L. Bradley. The counsel for the petitioners presented a letter from Professor Winlock, of the Cambridge Observatory. Mr. Muzzey then addressed the Board in behalf of J. P. Squire & Co. Mr. McIntire then addressed the Board in behalf of the petitioners. At 1.30 P. m. the Board adjourned. Boston, January 7, 1874. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the record of the State Board of Health in so far as it relates to the hearing upon the petition of J. M. Tyler, e¢ al., against J. P. Squire & Co., and I also certify that the record of the proceedings of each day was read and approved at the next meeting. Attest, GEORGE DERBY, M. D., Secretary of the State Board of Health. [From the Record of the State Board of Health.] The following letter to the Mayor‘and Board of Health of Som- erville was sent on the 17th of September, 1873. GENTLEMEN, — Your communication to the State Board of Health in relation to the establishment of John P. Squire & Co., in Cambridge and Somerville, and the establishments in Somerville of the Boynton Packing Company, the packing-house of Linéoln and Chamberlain, the slaughter- house of J. O’Brien, the rendering establishment of Charles O’Neil, and the establishment of Charles H. North & Co., was duly received on the 11th instant, and was presented on the following day, at a meeting of the Board. You request the Board to “visit and inspect those establish- ments, and to take such action as in its judgment will be most for the interest of the public.” Upon proper application and proofs, this Board will exercise its full authority over any or all of these establishments en- gaged in what are known as noxious or offensive trades, but this author- ity is derived from the Statute of 1871, Chapter 167, and is limited by t 13 the terms of the statute. By the second section of that chapter, this Board has the power, if, in their judgment, the public health or the pub- lic comfort and convenience shall require, to order any person or cqrpora- tion carrying on any noxious or offensive trade in any town or city of more than four thousand inhabitants to desist, and cease from carrying on such trades in such places; and such order, if not obeyed by the per- son or corporation against whom it is issued, may be enforced: by the ‘Supreme Judicial Court. But it is specially provided by the statute, that on any application to said Board to exercise the powers in this sec- tion conferred upon them, a time and place for hearing the parties shall be assigned by said Board, and due notice thereof given to the party against whom the application is made, and the order before provided shall only be issued after such notice and hearing. You do not ask the Board to exercise the powers conferred upon it by this statute, but say that it would seem that, by those skilled in such matters, means could be devised, of much diminishing, if not wholly abating, the evils and nuisances complained of. This Board might, as you request, visit and inspect the establishments named ; but it would have no power whatever to enforce any directions or recommendations it might give to the offending parties. The Board has no legal authority to direct in what manner or in what place parties shall carry on their business. Responsibility for the manner in which trades known as noxious or offensive are carried on does not rest with the State Board of Health. Those engaged in such trades can insure themselves against our orders by so conducting their business that it shall not interfere with the public health, comfort, or convenience. If not noxious or offensive, the State Board of Health has no power to interrupt them. If noxious or offensive, they are liable to be ordered to cease and desist. This Board is always ready to give information and advice to whoever may ask it, but they know of no apparatus or method from the use of which will ensue the absence of offensive odors. The success of all such plans depends on the intelligence and skill with which they are managed. In view of the very general complaints during the summer of 1872, and of the great importance of the business carried on at East Cambridge and Somerville, not only to its proprietors, but to the surrounding population, and to the commerce of the State, a special visit was made on the 13th of June last, by order of the Board, to the largest establishment on Miller's River, and the great importance of avoiding all offence during the present summer to the people of the neighboring cities and towns was stated by the Secretary. The Board could do no more than this at the present time. It would seem, therefore, to be useless to again visit and inspect those places with a view merely of . 14 giving directions or advice as to the manner in which the business therein shall be hereafter conducted. The unauthorized and voluntary interference of the Board would, in our judgment, be wholly unavailing toward the aecomplishment of the object you have in view ; but if you will present application for the exercise of our legitimate authority over the offending parties, we will, as in the case of all similar applications which have been received, order an early hearing, in conformity with the statute, and will take such action thereon as the evidence will justify. In behalf of the State Board of Health, Very respectfully yours, (Signed) GEORGE DERBY, Secretary. Boston, September 17, 1873, TESTIMONY FOR THE PETITIONERS. TESTIMONY FOR PETITIONERS. FIRST DAY. * December 1, 1873. THE hearing before the State Board of Health on a petition of citizens of Cambridge against the Slaughtering and Rendering Establishment of Messrs. John P. Squire & Co. was opened on Mon- day morning, December 1,1873. Charles J. McIntire, Esq., appeared for the petitioners ; and Hon. E. H. Derby and Henry W. Muzzey, Esq., for Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co. The communication of the petitioners and the notice served upon Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co. were read by the Secretary. The Chairman of the Board then asked if the petitioners were ready to be heard. Mr. McIntire. The defendants are not here personally. I do not wish to proceed against them if my brother thinks they will be here soon. Mr. Muzzey. I do not object, Mr. Chairman, for the reason that the defendants are not here personally ; but I desire to ask whether a record of the attendance of the Board is kept. The Chairman. Yes, sir, always. Mr. Muzzey. Then, sir, I desire, in order that we may lose no rights in this case, now formally to object to proceeding with this hearing except in the presence of the full Board, and ask that this objection may go upon your record. The Chairman. Will you put that in writing ? Mr. Muzzy. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I don’t know that the preparation of that document will necessarily detain us from going forward. Mr. Muzey. .I understand that my objection is overruled, and that the Board proceeds with the hearing? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Are there any witnesses here 1 2 18 Mr. McIntire. Your Honors, there is one, if there are not two, wit- nesses present. It being election day in Cambridge, I suppose that they are detained. They will undoubtedly be here soon, or perhaps we can go on with what we have. So that no objection may interfere with this hearing, if your Honors think the other members of your Board will be present, I would prefer to wait, if it is only for a short time. Mr. Derby. With regard to the objection made that the full Board is not present, your Honors said when it was first made that you would proceed 4 The Chairman. Certainly; the protest can be made, and it will be entered upon our records. Openinc ARGUMENT FOR THE Petitioners BY CHartzs J. McIntire, Esq. Mr. McIntire. Then, as we have one or two witnesses, perhaps we had better go on. Perhaps I had better state our reasons for presénting this petition, and what we propose to prove in relation to this establishment. Tt is a fact that is not denied, I believe, by the defendants themselves, that in the neighborhood that is called Miller’s River, or those basins which constitute Miller’s River Basin, there exists, and has existed for a considerable period of time, an intolerable nuisance, affecting the health, property, and comfort of the citizens who live near there; and that nuisance has been spreading and increasing from year to year, so that a year ago it became so intolerable that the citizens rose en masse in that part of Cambridge called East Cambridge, held an indignation meeting, and resolved to go before their City Board of Health against a nuisance which was within their own limits, namely, a portion of this manufactory,— the other places that we have brought before you being all in Somerville with the exception of Reardon’s, about one fifth of the Squire manufactory being in the city of Cambridge. They resolved to go before their own City Board of Health and endeavor to abate the nuisance. They went there and had a long and protracted hearing, and fully established, as the Report of the City Board of Health shows, that we made out our case. But it was so late,in the year, and the Board of Health being somewhat interested, one of the members having been convicted before your Honors of committing the same nuisance since then, that nothing was done, ex- cept some recommendations as to carrying on certain parts of the busi- ness. Thus it went on till last summer, when the smell increased. One evening, the 31st of July I think it was, about ten o’clock in the evening, there came up a most intolerable smell, and all the citizens were aroused and awakened. Meetings were called. One, held at the Ward-Room, calling upon citizens who were inclined to abate whatever nuisances ex- isted, was taken possession of by people who were employed by a certain 19 gentleman, their own chairman was elected, and nothing was done. Another meeting, called a few nights later, was held; a committee was appointed with full power to look into the cause of the nuisance, and make such a report to the citizens as they deemed proper. This com- mittee worked long and hard, and with consideration for every one. They examined these several establishments that they have presented to you, have been in them night and day, and have come to the conclusion that from them arises the nuisance of which the citizens complain. And when you asked us which one we should try first (for they could not all be tried together), we selected the petition against the defendants, be- cause we deemed it to be the largest, the wealthiest, the most powerful, and the representative of all the rest, — the only one that is spoken of when this nuisance is mentioned. We can show your Honors that great numbers of hogs are brought to this establishment every week in the year. I think during the summer months there are some 1,500 hogs daily slaughtered at this establishment. We can show that the bring- ing of these hogs in the cars in hot weather is in itself (the smell arising from the hogs so long confined in the cars) a most intolerable nuisance, These hogs are brought upon the Grand Junction Railroad and landed on Cambridge Street, in the rear or by the side of Mr. Squire’s factory, in car-loads. When they come in, and when they are driven out, the scent from these hogs will permeate the atmosphere for half a mile.’ And al- though the defendants say that they can remedy most of their evils, we do not know that they have as yet shown, or can show, that they can be remedied. We can show you that large quantities of fat are tried out in open kettles, and that the bad stench and foul gases arising from these open kettles, — and we will have perhaps some chemical testimony which will show it, — that the gases arising from these open kettles will color test papers. . We can and will endeavor to show that in large close tanks dead hogs and refuse matter of hogs that have been killed are placed and boiled up, and the grease or oil extracted, and that the stench which comes from it is thrown off into the atmosphere, although there are pretensions that it is run off into the water. Since then I think an apparatus has been put in by which they claim to burn this smell. But singularly enough, the same apparatus was put in operation on the 31st of July. The Board of Aldermen of Cambridge as a Board of Health were invited to visit it, and did so. They retired about half an hour before this terri- ble smell came up that colored the houses for an area of half a mile, — colored them deeply and darkly. Whether it was from the effect of the machine with which they claim to do away with those gases or not we cannot say. We simply present these facts. We can show you that 20 quantities of dead matter are thrown into the water there; the wash- ings from the hogs and the water from the “scalding-tank,” as it is called, bearing with it all the scurf and hair that falls from fifteen hun- dred hogs when they are scalded, has been thrown into the stream, and that it has been done since the establishment has been running. We will show you that the stench from what is called the gut-room, where the intestines are cleansed, is most intolerable, and that there is no rem- edy hardly for that. We can think of no remedy. In fact, we can show that the whole establishment, although it is kept as clean as such an establishment can be kept, is such a nuisance that it ought not to be tolerated in the midst of a thickly settled community such as that is. Now the defence always has been, when anything has been said in re- gard to this nuisance, that it comes from the river and the basins, — all these odors and gases arise from the basius, and not from this establish- ment. Admitting that in former times certain quantities of animal matter were thrown into the basins, and claiming that a large amount of sewage has been turned into them, they say that filling the basins will remedy all these evils. We will endeavor to show you that it will not ; that the basin and the nuisance which arises from the basin itself is simply one of the effects of the nuisance itself, and not a cause, — simply one of the effects; and the other effects we will show you to be the discom- fort of citizens, and the serious retarding of sick and convalescent patients. T do not know that I need make any very extended opening. I think the whole that we can prove is embodied in what I have said. I think we can make out a perfect case; and I will say that what we ask is not, as your power asa Board enables you to do, to put your strong hand upon this establishment immediately, and tell them to close up right away, for we can stand the nuisance for a short time to accommodate them in seeking another and more fitting place to carry on this business. All we ask is, that, after hearing our testimony, if we establish our case as we claim we can, you tell them that within a certain time, which your Honors can of course come to a conclusion upon, that they will have sufficient time to remove in, and that they may remove to some more fitting place if they choose, where they may carry on their establishment. I have a few witnesses here, whom I will call now if your Honors are ready to hear them. Your Honors requested me to have a map here, showing the situation of these slaughter-houses. I will say that we have received a map used by the Joint Commission, prepared by Mr. Phineas Ball, and it is here for your examination. After the map had been examined, the Chairman said, You may now proceed with your witnesses. 21 TrsTIMONY oF SAMUEL SLOCUMB. Question (by Mr. McIntire). Do you reside in Cambridge? Answer. Yes, sir. Q. In what part of Cambridge do you live? A. At No. 73 Otis Street. : @. You have been agent of the Boston Glass Company for some thir- teen years, and are now treasurer of the Savings Bank?’ 4. Yes, sir. @. How near do you live to the establishment of Messrs. J. P. Squire & Cot A. J should think about a third of a mile. Q@. Have you ever detected any of the different odors which arise from the locality where the Squire establishment is situated? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you describe these odors, or that odor as nearly as you can, and if there are different descriptions of odors, give them? A. Nearly all the odors that I smell have been sometimes of the scalding of hogs and sometimes of the live hogs themselves, also of fat. Q. You say that you smelt something like hogs themselves, and some- thing like the scalding of hogs. Was there any other smell that you de- tected? A. Yes, the trying of fat mixed with it. The odors come a great deal stronger at some times than at others. @. Are those all of the different smells that you detect? Do you de- tect this dock smell that they talk of! A. I have when I have been near the dock. Q. These smells that you have just described you smell at your house, if I understand you? A. Yes, and in that vicinity. Q. How far away from the establishment of Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co. have you detected them? A.*I have detected the smells on Prospect Street and Cambridge Street, and near Main Street in Cambridgeport, nearly as far as Harvard Street. The Chairman. How far is that? Mr. McIntire. About three quarters of a mile. Mr. Slocum. I have lived in Cambridge ever since I was a boy. Q. How long since Mr. Squire established himself on the basin? A. I should think about eighteen years. @. At that time what was that basin and what was this whole estuary called Miller's River? What was its condition at the time that he estab- lished himself there? A. It was clean, and I never smelt anything very bad there for years. Q. Were there any other establishments on it when he established himself there? A. I do not know whether there was or not. If there were, they did not smell. Q@. At any time when you detected these smells did you trace them up to their source? .A. I got this fall, or perhaps the last of the sum- mer, a very severe smell one night, and I went with some other gentle- men to see if we could find what establishment it came from. @. Who were with you? A. Mr. Magoun, Mr. Hastings, and I don’t know whether there was anybody else or not. Q. At what time? A. I should say that we started out at about seven or half past. The strong odor we found occurred from six to half ast six. : é Q. What was the odor you detected that evening? 4. The smell of dead hogs and melting lard mixed. 22 Q. Well, you say that you traced it. Will you explain where you went, what you did, and what you saw? A. I think we went down Fourth Street ‘as far as Gore Street, and then walked up Gore Street. Well, in going down Fourth Street, when we got near Broad Street, we seemed to pass out of the current of the smell. We walked up on Gore Street, and after we had walked up there a piece we came again into the current. We passed up by Mr. Squire’s, and went in between the blocks and the Grand Junction Railroad. As we went by Mr. Squire’s, or after we passed his place, the smell was not nearly.as strong. There was some little smell coming from North & Merriam’s. .Q. If I understand you, you say that you commenced to go towards Mr. Squire’s in the smell. As you proceeded you passed out of the cur- rent. A. Yes. ‘ Q. And then got into it again? A. Yes. Q. Did you go into Mr. Squire’s establishment that evening? A. We did. Q@. What did you see there? A. They were trying lard, I think, in five open kettles, and I believe there was one close tank in operation. I forget whether they were running it or not. I think they were. Q. In these five kettles, in which they were trying lard, did you de- tect any odor? A. The odor of lard; and one kettle, I thought, smelt a little stronger than the rest. Q. What else did you see there at that time? A. I went into the slaughtering-house, and there were some little entrails of hogs lying upon the floor. There was some smell, as there would be in a slaughtering- house, similar to what we found out of doors. It smelt considerably ; not a very agreeable smell to me. We went to where his scalding-tank was, and found that it had been emptied. We inquired of the men at what time it was run off, and one of them said it was run off into the river at half past six. It was the time, as near as I could judge, that we received the very severe smell that evening, and which obliged us to shut’ our windows down at once. I have been waked up several times by the same smell. Q. What did these smells that you have been waked up by in the middle of the night produce? Did they produce any effect upon your house, or your ware in your house? A. They discolored the house. I think my honse has never been much discolored. I live in a double house. There are two houses on my side, and one on the other side, that we have charge of, that have been discolored. Q. That is how far away? A. Certainly a third of a mile. Perhaps a little more. @. Do you know whether that house was discolored before the night of the 31st of July last? A. It was; a year before. Mrs. Hudson’s house was also discolored. Q. Have you had occasion to pass up and down Medford Street, which is on the other side of the basin, towards Somerville? A. Yes, sir. Q@. Did you detect any odor there? and if so, what was it? Describe it. A. You mean this year ? Q@. I mean at any time, as late as you please. A. The odor of the principal basin, where they used to have a gut through Medford Street, has, for several.years, smelled considerably as you passed it. The Chairman. What odors do you find there? A. A portion of it ig 23 a dock smell, and appears to be rather the smell of hogs and pork, and such kind of things mixed together. Q. Will you please describe that building in which the hogs are kept? A. It was a building from forty to fifty feet wide, and three hundred fect long, and is some fifty feet or more from the railroad. @. How many stories high? A. Three, I think. Q. Have you ever been in that building? A. I have been in it. .Q. Do you know whether hogs are kept in each story? A. I have seen hogs kept in two stories, and I think in three. Q@. Whether there are any windows opening out into the open air? A. I think there are some windows on one side. @. When you were over there, on Medford Street, did you detect any of the smells from this establishment that you have spoken of before? I think you spoke of smelling the basin from the direction of this estab- lishment. Did you detect any other smells? A. When I went up Med- ford Street, getting along against Mr. Squire’s, I commenced to smell a new one, stronger than before, some distance off. Then, passing down on the ‘railroad, between North & Merriam’s, there was less smell. Then, as we got up to Mr. Squire’s, some little distance, the smell was stronger, and as you got up near his buildings, it was not quite so strong, — not nearly so strong. Q@. Then between these places you smelt at times what you call the hog smell, as though hogs had been near there. Have you ever been present at the landing of hogs there? ‘4. I don’t recollect being there but once, when there was a landing of them for North & Merriam. There was considerable smell from the cars, and also from the hogs as they landed. @. Have you ever detected the scent of hogs at any other time, when you knew that hogs were landed at Squire’s place? A. I have detected the scent of hogs often. I haven’t been up there, so I could not tell at what place they were landed. You can smell them before they get there when the wind is southwest. You can smell them as they go over the railroad. @. When did you last detect that scent? A. One Sunday night I smelt it very strongly, perhaps six or eight weeks ago. @. You were a member of the committee appointed by the citizens, I believe, to inquire into the several causes of nuisances. Did you act upon that committee? A. I did, sir. Q@. What did you do in relation to this establishment as a member of this committee? Where did you go, and what did you see? A. We went nearly all over the establishment. We went into nearly all of the upper rooms, where they were slaughtering and scalding hogs. Q. Did you detect any odors, arising from any of the different meth- ods there? A. We detected odors of the scalding of hogs, which would always be smelt if you scalded but one. Q. How far from the establishment, before you enter it, can you detect that odor when they are scalding them? A. You can smell it stronger when you are twenty or thirty feet off than when you are in the estab- lishment. Q. How far away can you smell it? A. I should think a mile, sir. Q. Have you detected that smell and then immediately proceeded to the establishment and found them killing or scalding? A. No, sir; I have not. I was never in the establishment but a few times. 24 Q. Well, when you went through the establishment as a member of the committee, tell us if you detected any odors, and if you know their origin, or what they were. A. We smelt some odors in the slaughtering establishment ‘and in the hog-room. The odor of chloride of lime was very strong; we could not smell anything else. It was very thick about the floor as though it had been newly sprinkled. Mr. Derby. You detected the smell of the lime, did you, sir? A. Yes, sir. . Q. What kind of tanks were those in operation? A. I think all his open tanks were not running. There were two or three of the open tanks and one or two of the close tanks in operation. We went in to see what was said to be the burning of the gases from these tight tanks, under the boiler. Q@. Was there any scent from these tight tanks that you detected? A. There was some smell all over the buildings in different parts. Q. How many times have you passed near the buildings during the past year? A. I should think a dozen or fifteen times. Q. Whether you have detected any of these smells, each of these times? A. Sometimes I have been by there, and would not know that I was going by the building. At other times it would smell pretty strong. Q. Was there any explanation made to you by Mr. Squire or any of his partners in relation to these tanks and what was put into them? A. He made an explanation, but I don’t think that I paid attention. There was considerable said about dead hogs that camé in on the cars. They were put into the ice and then put into the tanks. But I did not pay much attention to it at the time. Mr. Muzeey. If he don’t know what was said to him, I object. Q. Did you hear Mr. Squire testify before the City of Cambridge Board of Health in relation to this matter? A. I did; but I cannot tell what he said, more than a portion of it. Q@. Do you remember anything that he said in relation to dead hogs brought in on the cars? A. I don’t remember distinctly enough to tell what he did say. I noticed that in going through the buildings you smelt a certain smell in a certain department, and in another department you would find a smell a little different. I remember when I was in there with the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Mr. Whitney, one of the Aldermen, requested a man to take up a scuttle in the floor. But he soon requested him to put it down again. There was a very strong smell came up from that scuttle. That was in that building on the side towards his building on Gore Street, next the slaughtering-house. Q. What does this scuttle lead into? A. It leads into the water below. Mr. Derby. The smell came up from the mud? A. Yes, sir; and stronger than I ever smelt it anywhere else. _ Q. Was that the same kind of smell that you call the scalding of hogs, or hog-smell? A. That was a more sickening smell. Q. These different smells that you perceive at your house, do you know that they have affected individuals? A. I know of other people. As far as my daughter is concerned, she has got up unwell in the. morn- ing from the effects of the smell. Mrs. Hudson, in the next house, told me that she vomited and that her daughter vomited.. 20 Mr. Derby. That is certainly irregular evidence. He did not fix any time about his daughter’s getting up with the effects of the smell. Mr. Slocumb. That was not this last year. It was summer before last. Q. This last year did you have any of these night smells? 4A. We have sometimes, but not so bad. The girl that lives with me sleeps in a chamber on the back side of the house, and she gets the smell a great deal stronger than I do. *Q. Do you know anything in relation to the effect of these gases on door-plates and silver-ware? 4. They turn silver black, Mr. Derby. Fix a place will you, sir? Mr. McIntire. State an instance that you know of. A. I have for- gotten whether it was the 31st of July that we had the stink that they. talked about so much, that turned things perfectly black. Y. What things? A. All silver articles. @. In your house? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the 31st of July? A. Yes, sir. Ihave a water-pitcher that was striped very much like the outside of a house that has been made black by the gases there. Q. Has your silver been discolored at any other time, when you have detected these smells? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times perhaps? A. Well, a good many.times, of course, in the last year or two. Mr. Derby. Tf you will be kind enough to fix the night. Mr. McIntire. He says a preat many times within the past two years. Q. How many times within the last summer months? A. Well,.I could not tell, because when there is a night comes that the door-plate or ware is discolored, the girl immediately cleans it up. @. Did you see it more than once within the past year? A. Yes, more than a dozen times within a year. Q. In regard to unloading of these hogs, you say that you have passed between Mr. Squire’s and North & Merriam’s when they have landed their hogs there. A. They run their cars up beside the platform, and drive the hogs out on the platform and then into the buildings. I have seen the hogs driven into Mr. Squire’s. I don’t recollect that I have seen them come out of the cars. I have seen them driven into his passage- way. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). How about the basins of Miller’s River? You state that when Mr. Squire came and established himself on the basin, there was nothing of this kind there. At that time were there any slaugh- tering-houses in the city? d. There had been the Winchester slaughter- ing-house before, but I ‘think they did not do anything after Mr. Squire came there. Q. Up to nearly the time when Mr. Squire established himself, what had been the Winchester slaughtering-house in extent for several years ? On a large scale? Was it a large establishment? A. They never killed in the summer, never after the Ist of June. Q. Will you please answer my question? Was this an extensive es- tablishment that Colonel Winchester had there? 4. The establishment his father had there was extensive. The old Winchester place had been established for sixty years before Mr. Squire came and commenced the business of slaughtering on a large scale. 26 @. You say there had been slaughtering of cattle there for sixty years? A. No, sir. Q. How many years? A. I should think it was built about 1818, and was carried on until they gave it up, which was perhaps forty years. Q. Well, you go back with it to about 18187 A. Yes, sir. I can- not tell just when they stopped. I know they did not slaughter during the summer. Q. Well, before Mr. Squire came there the sewers of Cambridge were not emptied into the basin, were they? A. The sewers along the borders there with some drains ran into the basin. Q. These were private drains, were they? 4A. Some of them. @. Do you remember any public sewers that discharged into the basin at the time Mr. Squire settled there? A. I don’t know that there were any sewers. Q. There have been many since that have discharged into it from Cam- bridge and Somerville? A. Shall I confine my answer to above Third Street, or shall I come down as far as Miller’s River runs ? Mr. Muzzey. I want you to treat the entire river from its upper basin down to its mouth or estuary. Q. Now, a great deal of sewerage has been poured into this basin, has there not, from Cambridge and Somerville sewers? A. I don’t know a great deal about Somerville, but I should not think there was much from Cambridge sewers. Q. Do you know that one half of the area of East Cambridge drains into Miller’s River? .A. I know it doesn’t. I know that where I live in Cambridge it drains into the Charles River. Q. I mean the part of East Cambridge which inclines the other way. A. "Well, if you take that, of course it does. It was drained on to the marshes ; it was drained into Cambridge Street, under where Mr. Squire was. Q. (by a member of the Board). Do you mean covered or open sewers 4 Mr. Muzzey. I mean covered. Mr. Slocumb. There was one through Cambridge and Gore Streets that discharged upon the marshes into a tank at low water, and then afterwards they built a new one down towards East Cambridge. Q. (by a member of the Board). Do you mean into the Squire basin? A. No, sir. The sewer was built only a few years, and then it was open between Gore Street and Cambridge Street, and came to be rather a nuisance. Then we filled it up, and put a sewer through there ten or twelve years ago. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Now, for ten or twelve years past, has not one of the city sewers of Cambridge emptied itself into the Squire basin, under his very establishment? A. There is one that must empty very nearly under his buildings. Q. What do you call that sewer, Mr. Slocumb? A. I don’t know what it is called. Q. Is it called the Gore Street sewer, do you think, or the Cambridge Street sewer? A. I don’t know that there is any “Gore Street sewer there. @. The Gore Street or Cambridge Street sewer, is n’t that what it is called? Is that the, popular way of designating it? We speak of the Sixth Street sewer, the Medford Street sewer, etc. This is known as the Gore or Cambridge Street sewer, is it not? A. I don’t know. 27 Q. When did you first visit the establishment of Mr. Squire, in your life? A. Well, that would be pretty hard to tell you. I recollect going there some years ago to get some oil, when I was at the Glass Works. That was perhaps some ten or fifteen years ago. @. When next were you there? A. It is impossible for me to tell. Q@. You mentioned an occasion about a year and*a half ago. Do you refer to the time when the hearing was taking place before the Board of Aldermen in Cambridge? A. It took place after that. @. Was the visit you spoke of, in answer to Mr. McIntire’s question, the visit you made at that time? A. Yes, sir. @. Mr. Magoun and Mr. Hastings were with you? A. Yes, sir. I will state the circumstances, so that you can understand my position. While I did not smell these establishments, I did not trouble them at all. I never smelt them at my house, until year before last. Q@. What part of the season? A. The whole summer. Q. You mean the summer of 187212 A. Yes, sir. @. Previous to the visit you made a year ago last fall, had you been, in recent years, inside of the establishment? 4. I don’t recollect going there much. I attend to my own business and let other folks alone. I have been there but little. Q. Did you ever make any inspection of the premises, and go through the establishment, before your visit with Mr. Magoun and Mr. Hastings? A. No, sir. I had never been there before to see them killing, though I had seen them kill in Cincinnati. Q. Since that time have you been within the establishment? dA. I have, once. @. And that is the time you speak of? A. We went with the com- mittee appointed by the gentlemen who signed this complaint. Q. When was that visit made? A. Well, I have forgotten. I should think some time in September or October of this year. @. Who accompanied you? A. Mr. Hastings, Mr. Magoun, Mr. Mun- roe, and Mr. Sharples. Q. How about the place at the time you visited it this year, in com- parison with the condition in which it was when you visited it a year ago? A. I should not think that there was any great change. Perhaps it was fully as clean as it was the year before. Q@. Was n’t it cleaner? A. Well, it was about as clean as you could keep this kind of a place. You inquired about Mr. Winchester. I worked in his establishment some time. Mr. Muzzey. I am putting questions to you that I want answered. Don’t volunteer. You may say all you please after you have answered my questions. @. You say it was fully as clean if not cleaner. In any other respect, did you notice any difference or improvement, at the time of your last visit? A. I don’t think there was any. Q. Did you go into the same places and departments that you visited before? A. Yes, sir; and more. Q. Mr. Squire made no objection to your going through the establish- ment? A. Not at all. Q. You saw all at the second visit that you saw at your first, all and more? 4, I should think I did. I think I went into more apart- ments, 28 Q. You were courteously received, shown through the establishment by Mr. Squire, and he knew what you had come for, didn’t he?— He knew that you were a committee to prosecute him before the State Board of Health?— He made no objection, and furnished you with all the facilities you desired for examination of his place? A. Yes, sir. Q. You speak of a’ smell that you detected once at Medford Street, which you thought traceable to Mr. Squire’s establishment. How far off from his establishment could you perceive the smell? A. At Prospect Street, I guess. I think I said before as far as Harvard Street. Q. Well, then, take the corner of Prospect and Harvard Streets. Do you mean to say that you traced back the smell to Mr. Squire’s estab- lishment? A. I did not trace it. I knew it came from these slaught- ering establishments. . Q. Do you know that it did not come from Reardon’s, or O’Neil’s, that were nearer to you than Mr. Squire's? A. Reardon makes a very different smell when he makes it. It is a:more severe stink. Q. How is it at O’Neil’s? A. I don’t know that I ever smelt O’Neil’s except when I was passing the premises. Q. Well, where have you smelt the smell at Reardon’s? A. I have smelt it on Cambridge Street, going by there ; that is, I suppose it came from there. I do not know that it did. Taking your idea of it, I could not know because I did not go and trace it. Q. You say that it is a worse stink than’ you smell anywhere else?) A. I smelt it when I went into his building, and also when I went on to . the street. Q. Well, he tries in open kettles, doesn’t he? A. He did not when I went there. Q. What was he doing? A. His kettle was not running, but he had a tight tank. Q. Has he got a tight tank? 4. Yes sir, he had one when I was there. Q. How does O’Neil try 1— With open kettles or with close tanks ? A. I was never in his place but once, and that was last September or October. Q. When you and the others were in company? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you speak of perceiving the hog smell on the street. Do ‘you know that the hogs that went to the Boynton establishment were driven through the streets until about a month ago? A. Yes, sir. Q@. Those received by North & Merriam were not, and those received by Mr. Squire were not. You know that to be a fact, don’t you? A. Yes, sir. When I speak about the hog smell I mean on the railroad, between North & Merriam’s and Squire’s. i Q. You say you have never been there when the hogs were driven into Mr. Squire’s establishment? .4. I have seen hogs driven there : but I was over on the other side, near Milk Street, when I saw them. Q. Which way were they being driven? A. Around the platform. I saw them going through that passageway where he drives them in. Q. When you were present in the establishment, and Alderman Whitney had the trap lifted, was the tide out?’ A. I think it was nearly out. Q. And the basin was exposed? A. Under Mr. Squire’s it was, but } robably not the whole basin. 29 Q. The trouble which your daughter had, of headache in the morning, has not made its appearance again? That was a year ago last summer. A, Well, she has not been troubled any, as far as I know, this summer. That was a year ago. Q@. You say that the night smells are not so bad as they formerly were. When did yon first notice any improvement in that respect ? A. I say that I have not noticed them so much this year as I did last year ; that is, I refer to this summer last past, and the summer and fall before. I have not smelt them badly ; but I have smelt them this ear. e Q. In the winter, when the basin is frozen over, the people of East Cambridge get along pretty comfortably, don’t they? -4. When it is very cold weather they keep their windows shut, and they get along pretty comfortably ; but as soon as they open the windows in the sum- mer they get their houses filled with an odor not very agreeable. When the tide is out I have smelt the water itself. Q. Is not the smell worse when the tide is out? A. I should think it was somewhat. Q. When the basin is covered, the smell is not so bad as when the dock is exposed? A. It depends upon whether the sun is lying on it. I get the same smell by standing on Milk Street from that basin when it . is half full, — precisely the same smell I would get if I were standing over his scalding-tank where he is scalding the hogs. There is so much of that runs in that it taints the whole water. Q@. How do you tell whether the gases you experience proceed from the basins or from the slaughtering of hogs ?— How do you know what it is that blackens the houses and tarnishes the silver, when you only know this, that you get up in the morning and find that the effect has been produced during the night? A. I know that the smell which I perceive at my house, when I have been out and traced it, is not the smell of the basin, because when I go there at the same hour in the daytime I never get it. Jt is when something is let off from these establishments that we get it. I have no doubt about it. Mr. Derby. Is it a matter of knowledge or observation? 4. It is pretty near knowledge. Mr. Derby. We don’t want that; we want the fact. Mr. Slocumb. When these tanks are blown off, or when the water is run off from the scalding-tanks, it creates a great deal more smell than at other times, and then is the time that the sulphur has colored the silver-ware. Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). In what direction from Mr. Squire’s establish- ment is your house? A. Northerly or northwesterly. @. At what time on the night of the 31st of July did you perceive the offensive odor? A. I cannot tell you. I was woke up that night, and it was the only night that I have been woke up on that account this year. I got up and closed my windows. I did not notice what time it was. @. You had been asleep, had you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember ut what time you retired? -A. Nine o’clock or half past. Q. Then you went to sleep and were awakened by the smell? A. Yes, sir. 30 ‘ Q. How long were you kept awake by it? .A. Perhaps three or four ours. Q. Was that on the night of the 31st of July? A. It was the night there was so much talk about the coloring of the houses. Q. That is the only night that you have been waked up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, last year you were waked up frequently by it, were you? A. Yes, sir; a great many times in the course of the year. Q. Do you know when the city changed the direction of one of the sewers from Miller’s River to Broad Canal? Was the change made last fall or not? A. I should think they began to take it across there in June. I saw it as I passed up Cambridge Street. Q. So that part of the sewage that previous to last fall was turned into Miller’s River is now diverted to Broad Canal. That is the Ninth Street sewer? A. Yes, but the object of that sewer was to take the sewage that had run on to the marshes. Q. Whatever went into the basin previously, from this direction, was last year diverted into Broad Canal? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you among those citizens that have no faith in the filling in of the basin, the building of the great sewer? Do you believe that they are going to do the work or not? A. I have no doubt that it would be for the benefit of Cambridge and Somerville to have these basins filled, and if the land is good building-land it will be better for us than the low: places. ‘ Q. Well, do you approve of the sewer which the Legislature has ordered to be built there? Haven't you expressed yourself pretty strongly in condemnation of that sewer? 4. I have said that they would not need it, except for the slaughtering establishments. Q. Have you said it was a foolish thing to have it discharge at Crai- gie Bridge? .A. I don’t know that I have. ‘ Q. Have you said anything like that about it? A. I don’t think I have without some other connection with it. Q. You don’t think that you have condemned that as an imprudent piece of public work, do you? A. I think it may just as well go down the other way, where it would not cost half so much money, and I have said 80. Q. Exactly. You have expressed yourself pretty strongly in condem- nation of the building of the sewer? A. If I have said anything, I have said that it was a pretty ridiculous matter to drain what is just the same as one part of the Charles River into another, and I think so now. Q. Well, haven’t you said another thing, that you did not want the sewer built ; for if the land were filled and the sewer built, you would never get rid of the slaughtering-houses? 4. I never made any such remark. Q. Nothing in substance like that?- A. No, sir. Q. Have n’t you said that, in substance, to Rev. Mr. McDaniel, of East Cambridge? A. No, sir. Q. Nor anything like it? dA. No, sir. I will tell you what I did say. I told Mr. McDaniel when he came to my house last winter and asked about the sewer, that I had"not investigated the matter. Whether it was about the Gore Street sewer, or the Bridge Street sewer, or some other, I don’t know. But I did say, if they would fill Miller’s River, we should a great deal quicker get rid of the slaughtering-houses. That is what I told him. 31 Q. You did not say that you did not want the sewer built, because, if it were, you would not get rid of the slaughter-houses? A. No, sir. Q@. Have you ever held that opinion? A. No, sir. I don’t hold it now. : Q. This you are certain of? A. Yes, sir. @. You have been very active in this matter of opposition to Mr. Squire? A. I have not. @. Have you not, sirt A. No, sir. Q. Have n’t you proposed other measures against Mr. Squire? A. No, sir. I have said it was only a matter of time in regard to these slaughter-houses being removed. I have n’t said anything in regard to Mr. Squire’s. I say it now and here, before all these gentlemen, that I have no doubt that it is a question of time, when you cannot slaughter there as they have been carrying it on. Q. You haven't said much about this subject, Mr. Slocumb? Did not you testify at Cambridge against him last fall? .A. I did. Q. And presided over a meeting against him? 4. Yes, sir; and I should do it again. Q. There were two meetings, were there? A. Yes, sir. The chair- man of one was the chairman of the other, and therefore I was chairman of both. Q. You are a member of the committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are the first witness called? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go before the grand jury as a witness? A. Yes, sir. I was summoned before them, and was of course obliged to go. Q. Have you also been before the government of the city of Cam- bridge, this year? .A. I went there one evening. Q. Did you make some remarks against this establishment there? A, I shall not say that I did against the establishment or against Mr. Squire. Iam satisfied now where he got his information. I don’t know what Mr. Squire said, but I can prove that the information was incorrect. What was said was said in my entry, all in about half a minute. Q. Well, then something was said to Mr. McDaniel? A. J admit that I have said something to Mr. McDaniel. Q. It was not anything of the kind that I suggested to you; that you did not want the sewer built and the land filled, etc. A. I have told you what I said to Mr.-McDaniel. Q. I haven’t asked you anything about that. Do you wish to go back and correct yourself? A. No, 1 don’t. But ‘I don’t want you to say things that I have not said. Q. Give me a little account of that meeting in East Cambridge. There was a public call, was there? A. Yes. Q. And the people came in answer to it? A. Yes. Q. You were candidate for chairman, and were elected? A. I don’t know that. Q. Was n't it so? Don’t you know it? A. No, sir. Q. Was Mr. McIntire — Mr. McIntire. You are mistaken. Mr. Slocumb was not present. Mr. Muzzey. That is all, then. I will show the facts otherwise. Q@. On coming away from the meeting, last summer, did you detect the odors, and find that they did not proceed from Mr. Squire’s es- tablishment? A. When we came out, we found a very severe smell 32 - on the street. It was proposed, by fifteen or twenty, to walk up. and go around Mr. Squire’s. My judgment was, that on that night more of the odor came from North & Merriam’s than from Squire's. I have said 60, and say so now. Q. Did n't you attribute it at that time to Reardon’s place, and say that it did not come from Squire's? A. I never heard Reardon’s place spoken of at that time. The wind was not in the direction to bring it from Reardon’s, to begin with. Q. You thought that the smell came from North & Merriam’s, more than it did from Squire’s? 4. There was’some smell from Squire's that night. , Q. How much? A. Perhaps two thirds from North & Merriam’s, and one third from Squire’s. They smelt very badly. Q. Was the smell from Squire's offensive? A. Yes, sir. It was offensive to me. Q. Do you object to the frying of doughnuts in the kitchen? A. No, sir; for I like them very well. Q. Do you object to the smell of cabbage in your kitchen? A. I should in my chamber, but I do not object to it in my kitchen, because it is necessary to have it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You were asked about the grand jury. You say that you were summoned before it. Did you have anything to do in bringing the case before the grand jury? A. No, sir. I never heard of it, until last night. Q@. You have been asked if you believed that, if the basin were filled, you could not get rid of these establishments. Mr. Muzey. That is irregular. I asked him the question in order to quicken his memory. Mr. McIntire. The opinion of a witness being asked on a certain sub- ject, I think that I have a right fo follow that up, and ask his full opin- ion on that matter. Mr. Muzzey. 1 will not object. °Q. (by Mr. McIntire). 1 ask you what your opinion is in regard to the getting away of these smells by the filling up of these basins. A. My idea is, that if the basins are filled, the smells will be located so that there will be no question where they come from, and then we shall get rid of the slaughtering establishments very soon. Mr. Muzzey. If you will allow us to say it, that is exactly the test which we wish to apply. Let us alone, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, until the sewer is built and the basin is filled, and they cannot detect any smell. _ Q. You were employed at Winchester’s. What did he kill there? A. Neat-cattle. Q. How much waste is there in killing cattle as compared with killing hogs? A. I don’t know, but I know that cattle are cleaner of them- selves. Q. Do you know whether they put anything into the river at that time. A. Nothing except their soap-kettles. Q. What was done with the blood? A. The blood was run into tight wagons, under his slaughter-house. It stood ona very sandy, gravelly ground, and, in the spring, he would dig out about six or seven feet of the ground under the slaughtering establishment, and fill it in with clean sand and gravel. 33 Q. You say nothing was thrown into the river? A. They used to throw bones into the river. Q. How long since the Ninth Street sewer, that runs into Broad Canal, was built? .4. It was commenced last June, and finished in the fall. Q. Then the greater portion, indicated by the map, of the water-shed formerly running on to the marshes is now turned into Broad Canal? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well now, what I wish to ask you is simply this: Have you ever smelt the drainage that runs on to the marshes south of Cambridge Street? A, J never have, but I have on the north. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). What became of the offal at Wincbester’s 4 A. It was all carted to his farm in Newton. He had wagons of his own, and carted it away. Q. (by a member of the Board). Do we understand you that the sewers which discharge into the Broad Canal formerly discharged upon the marshes? A. They formerly ran down Otis, Thorndike, and Spring Streets, and ran upon the marshes, and then into a big ditch. The sewer was stagnant when it came to the marshes. MEMORIAL OF THE CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY. - Mr. Muzey. Mr. James Alexander, agent of the Cunard Steamship Company, is present, and desires to present a communication to the Board. Would you, Mr. McIntire, with the leave of the Board, delay the examination for a moment ? ; Mr. McIntire. I do not object. The Chairman. Does he represent himself, or ae Cunard Steamship Company? If the communication is in relation to property, the Board has heretofore decided that it cannot listen to anything of that nature in such a case as this. The whole question before us is one of public com- fort and convenience. If the communication has any reference to this particular question, of course it can be received. Mr. Derby. t he wishes to introduce here is the importance of the business coming “from this establishment to commerce and trade. It is simply a memorial to that effect. It has already been presented to the Boston Board of Trade, and will now be presented to your Board. It is to show that if this establishment is broken up, it will break up to a great extent the export trade of the city of Boston. I wish to file the memorial and discuss it hereafter without interrupting the evidence. The Chairman. I suppose the Board would be willing to have it filed. The Board is fully willing to admit the importance of this establishment, and of all the establishments on Miller’s River ; but they don’t consider that it is within their province to consider the subject of property. - The memorial was then received and placed on file. It read as follows :— 8 34 Cunarp STEAMSHIP OFFIcE, 80 STATE STREET, Boston, November, 1878. To tHe Honorasie State BoarD oF HEALTH oF MASSACHUSETTS. The Memorial of the Cunard Steamship Company, relative to a Pending Official Inquiry concerning the Pork-Packing Establishments of the City of Boston, showeth, I. That five years ago (in 1868), your memorialists were compelled, for lack of trade from Boston, to abandon the sailing of their steamers from the port. II. That in April, 1871, your memorialists were induced to attempt the experiment of resuming direct sailings from Boston for Liverpool. III. That the exports from Boston were at that time so inadequate to load the steamers, that your memorialists were compelled to ballast them with grain, purchased and shipped on memorialists’ own account, by which means the steamers were kept upon the line, while the export trade of the port was developing. IV. The chief articles of export from Boston for Liverpool by these steamers are provisions, and your memorialists furnish, herewith, statistics, showing the progressive increase of these exports during the years 1870, 1871, 1872, and nine months of 1873. ; V. Your memorialists call attention, in particular, to the remarkable growth of the exports of Messrs. John P. Squire & Co. during the periods mentioned ; the following being a summary of them, namely, — ‘ Year. . Tons. 1870 : : ; : : ; : : : 798 1871. ev) 4 : ; : ; : : 4,586 ‘1872 : ‘ : : : F : 5 . 12,118 1873 (for nine months only). : : 5 : 16,969 Total . : : ; : ; ‘ . 984,471° explaining that during the whole of 1870, and the first three months of 1871, your memorialists merely loaded the steamers partially at Boston, and that they completed their cargoes at, and sailed direct from New York for Liverpool. i VI. The shipments of Messrs. John P. Squire & Co.*alone furnish one third of the cargoes of your memorialists’ steamers, presently sailing once a week from Boston for Lnverpool. VII. The rapid growth and remarkable extent of the exports of this single firm, and the simultaneous growth of the export trade of the other pork-packing establishments of Boston, have encouraged your memorial- ists to comtemplate increasing their steamship service between Boston and Liverpool from one to two steamers per week, on and after the Ist of April, 1874, as per copies of the company’s published advertisements in Liver- pool and Boston, which are furnished herewith. VIII. Your memorialists respectfully urge, on commercial grounds,. the importance of this proposed increased transatlantic connection to the city of Boston, and the State of Massachusetts, and pray that it may re- ceive due consideration from your honorable Board. The interruption of the trade of these establishments in Boston would 85 | of course check the enterprise which your memorialists have in view, in proposing to sail two steamers per week from Boston for Liverpool on and after Ist April, 1874. (Signed) James ALEXANDER, Agent Cunard Steamship Company. Relative Documents sent herewith. I. Abstract of shipments by Messrs. Squire, North, and Boynton, per Cunard steamers from Boston, during year 1870. II. Abstract of shipment during year 1871. Til. Abstract of shipment during year 1872. IV. Abstract of shipment during year (nine months of) 1873. V. Copy of Cunard Company’s Liverpool advertisement, — VI. Copy of Cunard Company’s Boston advertisement, — that early in the spring of 1874 steamers of this line will sail twice a week from Boston. (Signed) JAMES ALEXANDER. Evipence oF CHarLes O. WE tca. To Mr. McIntire. J reside at the corner of- Sixth and Cambridge Streets. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Sixth Street runs down very near to Mr. Squire’s factory? .4. Very near. Iam on the south side of the street, and have lived there over five years. I live about four hundred feet from Squire’s establishment. Q. Have you detected any of these various odors that arise from Squire’s establishment? 4. I have. Q. Can you describe any of them? A. I will, to the best of my ability; but it is very hard work. The worst is the rendering smell. It is so bad in summer that we can’t have our windows open at all. Q. How often do you detect that rendering smell that you speak of? A. I think within the last two years I have detected it perhaps twenty times. Q. Do you detect the hog smell? -A. Yes, sir, very often; pretty nearly all the time. Q. That is, the smell from the live hogs? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you detect other smells besides the rendering and hog smells? A. Yes, sir. Q. These rendering smells, when do you detect them most? 4. At night ; after eleven o’clock, mostly. Q. Has your house been affected? .A. It has. The outside has been spoiled. Most of it was done on the night of the 31st of July. It dis- colored the paint on the inside and outside of the house. The side of the house on Sixth Street is spoiled. The original color was a light brown, and after that night it looked blue-black. Q. Did you detect any smell on that night? 4. Yes, sir. During the evening I detected it so much that we had to leave the shed on the back part of the house, where we were sitting, and go in. When I got ready to go to bed, it was worse. Q. Have you been in or near Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I have n’t been in Mr. Squire’s establishment, but have been in some others. 36 Q. Have you passed by or near it, within a year? A. I have, per- haps half a dozen times within a year, passed Mr. Squire’s establishment. Three or four times, I am sure, I detected the hog smell in passing. Q. Which way did you go? A. I -vent down Sixth Street, into Gore Street, toward Somerville. I detected the hog smell each time. Q. Was there any other smell from that establishment? A. Yes, sir. Q. What other smells did you detect at that time? A. I should call it something like boiled lard, or something of that kind. Q. Were these smells distinct? A. Yes,.sir; very. Q. This rendering smell, — has it had any peculiar effect upon you, or do you know of its having any peculiar effect upon any of your neigh- bors? A. It has had a bad effect upon both myself and wife. We felt as if something was pressing very strongly upon the chest and throat, — so much so that we could hardly sleep. We also had soreness of the throat. Q. In your observations, how far did these discolorations of paint, on the night of the 31st, extend? A. I never noticed it to any extent, ex- cept on the outside of the houses, before, and it had never affectéd the inside of the house before. Q. What distance from the factory did this discoloration extend, if you took notice? A. I should hardly like to undertake to answer that question. Q. What was the farthest discoloration that you saw? -A. Down on Sixth Street. Q. Will you point it out on the map, the house you noticed discol- ored? A, Mr, Jones’s house and Mr. Riley’s, a double house, was dis- colored as much as any I saw, except some ‘down in the basin. I also noticed some houses discolored on the same side of the street that my house is on. They were discolored most on the same side of the street that my house is on, between Cambridge and Gore Streets and also be- tween Cambridge and Otis Streets. Q. Did you notice any discolorations before that night? .A. I did not notice any discolorations on the houses on the night before the 31st, and I did notice them afterward. Q. Did you notice how far along it extended toward Boston? -A. Most of it was right along there. Q. Did you notice which way the wind blew that night? A. I did not. Q. What kind of a night was it? A. It was a very pleasant night. The atmosphere was very comfortable ; we were all sitting out on the shed on the back part of the house. I had a coat on and found it very comfortable. Q. You haven’t been in Mr. Squire’s establishment lately? A. I have n’t been there for some time. ‘ Q. Do you ever, at your house, detect the smell arising from the basin? A. Yes, sir. ; Q. It is called the dock smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there any difference between it and the other odors? A. Yes, sir; we can distinguish it very easily from the others. \ 4 Cross-Examination. Q. (by Ur. Muzzey). At what hour on the 31st of July did you ‘first perceive the bad smells? A. I think it was in the vicinity of half past eight. 87 Q. How long did they continue? A. I think almost all the evening, say from half past eight to half past ten. Q. Did you distinguish them afterward? .A. I was awakened in the night, — think about half past ten. ” Q. Your house is nearly south of Mr. Squire’s factory? .A. Yes, sir. Q. How late in the night did you notice the smell? 4. It must have been later than half past ten. I had been sound asleep, and I could n’t say exactly. I should judge I kept awake an hour and then fell asleep, -after closing the windows. I did n’t wake up before morning again that night. In the morning I traced the smell all over the house. @. What did you do first, after getting up? A. When I got up I filled my house pretty full of tobacco smoke. Q. Were there any traces of it outside? A. There were no traces of it outside. Q@. Was this smell on this particular occasion more offensive than any other you remember? 4. I think not. At one time afterward I think it affected me more than that. @. What time was that,—about the second week in August? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it an odor at night? A. It was. Q. Were you ever affected by the dock smell? A. I have been. @. Excepting the occasion on the 31st of July, have you noticed much trouble this last year? A. I have, more or less, during the summer. Q. How has it been, as compared with the summer of 18722? A. I think it has increased. : Q@. Which particular smell has been the worst? 4A. I mean the ren- dering smell, late at night. Q. (by the Chairman). How did you say the odor affected you? A. I had a bad pressure on the lungs. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Did it injure your lungs? A. I don’t know that it affected them seriously. Q: (by the Chairman). What was the effect upon you the next morn- ing? A. In the morning I felt as if I had been up all the night. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What is your general health? A. I gener- ally feel pretty well, unless I get that smell. Q@. How many times do you attribute your bad feelings to these smells? A. We have had it at least six times, and I attribute it entirely to those smells. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). Have you ever had any trouble with your lungs or chest? A. No, sir. Ihave no predisposition to diseases of this kind. Q. (by a member of the Board). Do I understand you to say that you did not trace the putrid smell to the Squire establishment? A. No, sir. Q. Have you at any other time traced it to that establishment? A. I have been by there when I have smelt that smell, but not to anything like that great extent. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Did you ever trace the rendering smell to Mr. Squire’s establishment? .A. I never smelt the rendering smell while going by there. Q. Can you describe the odor you refer to? A. It is what I call the lard smell, that is very disagreeable. It is a sort of lard smell and smell of hogs. I noticed it as I was going by. 38 Testimony OF Dr. Cuartes Henry Farnsworta. To Mr. McIntire. I am a practising physician in East Cambridge; have resided there fifteen years last June. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Are you familiar with the neighborhood about there? .4. I am well acquainted with the localities there and with Mr. Squire’s establishment. Q. Have you detected any of these smells? A. I have detected all the various smells arising from this district. Q. Will you describe them? A. We have the smell coming from the hogs, — the hog-pen smell, — and we have the smell of the rendering and trying of lard; also the dock smell. Q. Can you distinguish these different odors? A. I think I can fully distinguish between these different odors. Q. You have been by Mr. Squire’s establishment ; will you please state whether in your opinion the smells come from there? A. The nature of my practice carries me by this establishment nearly every day. Some of ‘these odors I detected as arising from the establishment of John P. Squire & Co. I have passed it both in the night and day time, and I have taken pains to trace them to their source. I have traced the smell of the hogs to the archway which goes to Mr. Squire’s place. I have taken the smell of the rendering and trying of grease and traced that to the front of the building. I have also taken the dock smell and traced it to the dock at his building. -@. Have you ever smelt the hog smell on the other side of the basin ? A. I don’t think I have smelt the hog smell on the other side of the basin. Q. How often did you trace these smells right to this establishment ? A. I have n’t kept any account, but I should think I might have traced them there tifty times in the course of the present summer. Q. Do you mean Mr. Squire’s establishment ? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Squire’s establishment. @. Where do you live, Dr. Farnsworth? A. On Cambridge Street, between Fifth and Sixth Streets, about two hundred feet from Mr. Welch’s, and about six hundred feet from the Squire establishment. Q. What is the direction of the establishment from your house? A. It is about north-northwest from me. I live directly back of the school- house. Q. How often have you had these smells at your house? A. I should . think we have had those odors nearly every day during the past season. We have the hog smell very frequently, even “during cold weather. In the summer, one Sabbath afternoon, the hog smell was very offensive. Several friends were calling upon me out of this city, and they spoke of the offensive smell which “filled the house, and particularly of the hog smell. Q. Your practice is right about there, and extends from there to Cam- bridgeport and Somerville. Do you know whether these smells ever affected the health of citizens about there or not? A. They do tem- porarily, but I don’t know that they permanently affect the health of the people. While the wind is in the direction to take the smells to the houses, many persons are nauseated by them. Q@. How are they affected? A. They complained of soreness of the 389 throat, and then of being nauseated. I know of one lady who has suf- fered very considerably until the wind would change and carry the odors in an opposite direction. A lady on Fifth Street was very much nause- ated by them ; it continued three days. In my own house my wife was frequently nauseated by them. I think that as late as within a fortnight the smell was so strong that it wakened us both, and we closed the win- dows. In some few cases it has been severe enough to produce vomiting. I would n’t recommend a sick person to be within range of those smells for comfort. Q@. Have you noticed any discolorations of the houses? .4. On the 31st of July I noticed the effect of the gases on the houses. They af- fected my house considerably, though not so much as some other houses in the vicinity. My house was painted white, and it didn’t seem to be affected as much as some others. The worst effect J have seen was near the corner of Sixth and Cambridge Streets. Q. How far from Mr. Squire’s is the farthest house affected on that night? A, I didn’t take particular notice on the other street, and can’t tell how far it extended on Cambridge Street. Q. Have these gases ever affected your silver-ware? A. It has black- ened it very much ; the silver on the table is blackened. ee Q. Have you been into Mr. Squire’s establishment lately? .A. I have not been in there this season. Last season I went over the whole of it. I can’t state exactly the time. . Mr. Derby. This inquiry relates to the present time and the present year. We hold that it is incompetent to extend beyond the present year. Mr, McIntire. It is an argument of the petitioners that there has been a decision against the respondents rendered by the Joint Commission. Mr. Muzzey. J don’t care what the argument is. You asked_the Board to suppress us, and they did n’t do it. I claim that there is a ver- dict in our favor, and I submit it to the discretion of the Board. Mr. McIntire. I wish to put in a copy of the verdict into this case. Q. (by the Chairman). How far can you smell this odor from the establishment ? Witness. I have smelt it two thousand feet I should think. People living there smell it very frequently. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How do you know they smell it? A. They tell me so, and I have been there and smelt it myself. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you know of any sick persons being an- noyed by the squealing of the hogs when killed? A. I visit a lady now who tells me the squealing of the pigs annoys her very mucb. Q. What is the number of people coming within range of this odor? A. Several thousand, or I should think ten thousand people in all. Q. Should you think all the people of East Cambridge could detect the odors, and whether it is disagreeable to them at any time? A. I don’t think all the odors come from Squire’s establishment, but I think at certain times the odors which come from there can be detected by all the people of East Cambridge, and that they are disagreeable to them. I think it also affects people on the other side of the basin in Somerville. The smell is very distinct in that direction, but it would be fair to pro- sume that the other establishments contribute to that smell. We smell it up as far as Sacramento Street. The other establishments are in that direction more than Squire’s. The others are nearer East Cambridge. x 40 , @. Did you observe the wind on the 31st of July? A. There was but very little wind. I took the direction of the wind that evening by hold- ing up my finger. Q@. Did you notice any unusual odor that evening? A. Yes, sir; I was out most all of the first part of the night, and had the benefit of all the smells. Q. What was the greatest distance from the establishment that you could detect the smell? A. I did n’t get it any farther from the establishment than my house. Above the car stables the smell was hardly perceptible. Q. You would n't perceive it from the westerly side of the establishment ? A, Ithink not. I went by it on Cambridge Street, and not on Gore Street. Q. You stated that you went in Squire’s establishment a year ago, and also last summer. Did you notice any alteration in the method of rendering? A. I should think it was about the same. I didn’t go in the slaughtering part. * Q. Did you detect any smells there? A. I detected only the smell of grease. . Q. Please state whether you have noticed any discolorations previous to the 3lst of July. A. The buildings last year were discolored, but not on both sides of the basin before this year. Q. Did you ever before notice any such sudden discoloration as on that night? A. No, sir. The discoloration of the buildings is not so important as the discomfort arising from bad odors, and the want of fresh air that we have experienced all through the season. We feel it more upon ourselves than we do upon the buildings. Whenever the wind is blowing the air-has been very offensive in our dwellings. Q. Do I understand you to say that you have seen any unloading of hogs? A. I have seen them being unloaded, and driven into the estab- lishment. I have been to where the hogs are changed from the cars into the yard, and I detected the odor of hogs while they were coming out of the cars. Q. How far did that odor extend? A. It extended as far as my house, and I don’t know how much farther. It was very offensive. Q. Did you see any dead hogs in the cars? A. I didn’t notice whether there were any dead hogs on the cars then, but I have noticed the car- casses on the platform after they had been taken out. Q. What is done with those dead hogs? A. I don’t know what dis- position is made of them. Q. I should like to ask if gases passing into water are absorbed into the water? A. Theoretically it may be so, but practically it is not. If Miller’s River had not been open it might be so, but, Miller’s River being open, it is not. Q. (by the Chairman). Have you traced these odors to Mr. Squire’s build- ings? A. I have traced these odors to the street in front of the build- ings. On the 31st of July I-passed up and down the street. I took the direction of the air by wetting my finger and holding it up. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You did n’t feel the air blowing against you that night? A. I would n’t have been able to have told there was any wind, unless by wetting my finger and raising it above me. Q. (by Mr. Derby). With regard to parties being affected in the throat 41 or lungs, have you had many cases of serious sickness? .4. I never had any serious cases, and never had any case of loss of life. Q. This nausea, is it experienced when the wind is blowing from any particular direction? 4. When the wind is blowing in any other direc- tion than from Mr. Squire’s, we don’t notice the odors. Q. How is it in the night, — the effect of the wind? A. In the night time, if the wind is blowing strong in that direction and bringing those odors, people are nauseated by them ; sometimes they are affected by the ‘ changing from one odor to the other. ; Q. How many cases of nausea have you known during the past sum- mer? .A. I can’t remember, there are so many. I can count the indi- viduals who have complained to me in a few minutes. Q. Parties that you have actually known as a physician, or as the father of a family? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times have you known nausea produced during the past summer? A, I should think not less than a hundred times, but I have not been called to treat them; many persons told me how much they were nauseated. Q. I don’t allude to that kind of statement; I mean persons who have actually called upon you to treat them? A. After the wind changes or passes away, the nauseating effect leaves. My wife is affected thirty days in some of the months, and thirty-one days in some of the others, and almost every day during the hot weather. It did every day during the summer that those strong odors came across to our dwelling. The wind has done so every day. I don’t think the southerly wind is more prevalent in the summer. I think that nearly every day I have had some one affected by this nausea. Q. Has the health of your family been seriously affected? A. My wife is seriously affected by it, but my health is not affected by it. Q. But how do you know where the smells come from? A. Those smells are from the establishment of Mr. Squire, because I have traced them there. : Q. But do you not get the dock smell, also? A. I think we can tell that portion of the smell which comes from the basin, and there are times when we can trace the smells directly to Squire’s basin. Q. Can you particularize, — state any given time? A. Not exactly, with any certainty, because I have not kept a record of it. Q. With regard to the changes of paint, do I understand that they took place previous to the present year? .A. Yes, sir. Q. I will now ask you whether there has not been a smell of sew- age in the drains emptying into the basin? -A. I don’t think I have detected those smells which were the effect of the sewage. Q. Are these odors that you speak of more disagreeable than what comes from the flats along Cambridge Bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Is n’t it something more than the smell of dock mud? A. Yes, sir. : Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). What do you call the gases that produce the nausea and irritation that you describe? 4. I don’t know. I think it is the hog smell sometimes that makes people sick. Q. Then you trace the illness of people and nausea to the live ani- mals? A. Not always, but sometimes to the live animals. Separately they will produce that nausea, and sometimes collectively combined. 42 Mr. McIntire objected to the double.cross-examination of the witness. ° Mr. Muzzy. 1 only wished to take up one or two topics that had not ~ been touched upon. The Chairman decided that the questions could be asked. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Have you analyzed any of those gases? A, No, sir. Q. What gas do you suspect the presence of in the atmosphere when those effects are produced? A. I only suspect the disagreeable odors. Q. I am asking what chemical agent is it that gives these effects to these persons? .4. I don’t think I can give the chemical agent which produces nausea in an offensive odor of that kind. Q. What comes into the atmosphere that produces sickness in the stomach? .4; The nervous constitution of people is so different that what is disagreeable to one person will not produce nausea in another. Q. What is the source that the suffering comes from, — whether from the river-bed or the rendering? What is the agent that produces these results 4 The Chairman. I think such questions would only be taking up the time of the Board unnecessarily. Mr. Muzeey. There is only one point more. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Do not these effects proceed from the action of sulphuretted hydrogen? -A. In the odors which come from the dock I think it may be; but I don’t think it is so in the odors which come from the hogs. Q. Now, you spoke of being somewhere on the 31st of July, and wet- ting your finger. Where was that? A. I came down Cambridge Street, and did it at 8th Street. , TrstiMoNY oF Henry S. HILtzs. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You live in East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you lived there? .A. For thirty-one years. Q. You are in business here in Boston? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How far from this place do you live? A. About three hundred feet from Mr. Slocumb’s. I am on Thorndike Street, and he is on Otis Street. I am about two thousand five hundred feet from Mr. Squire’s establishment. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you been affected by the smells that arise from this quarter? -4. We have at our house. Q. Do you distinguish between the different odors? .4. The princi- pal odor we have had occurs in the night time, and is very severe. Being in the city.during the day, I don’t notice the smell at that time ; but I have frequently heard my family speak of it. Mr. Derby. That is not evidence. Q. What was that smell? .A. It was the same that has been de scribed by others here. It produces a sort of sickening feeling and nausea. The-Chairman. Does it produce actual vomitings? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Your wife is an invalid? .A. Yes, sir; my wife has been an invalid for six or eight months, and has suffered a great deal in consequence of this smell, whenever the windows are open. Q. Have you traced any of these smells? A. Never otherwise than when the wind is in a certain direction we have the smell in our house. 48 Q. Do you distinguish between the dock smell and the rendering? a I have never smelt any dock smells in Cambridge when I have been there. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Never? A. Never, to my knowledge. Q. (by Mr. McIntire.) How do you describe the odor that you smell ? A. I don’t know as I can describe it otherwise than as a very sickening and disagreeable smell which we get that affects the throat. Q. What does it smell like? A. I know when I smell it. It is the same old smell. . Q. Have you ever smelt the live-hog smell? A. No, sir, I don’t think we have ever smelt anything directly from the live hogs. Q. You are on the other side? .A. On the south side. Q. How often would you get it during the last summer season? A. T could hardly say how many times. Quite frequently ; almost any time when the wind has been in the right direction. Q. Whether it affected any one besides your wife? A. I have been affected myself more or less. Q. In what manner? A. In this same manner; with a disagreeable feeling in the throat. My wife usually shuts the windows and tries to avoid it as much as possible. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Is not this smell worse when the tide is out? A. I don’t know that I ever noticed any difference whether the tide was in or out. I don’t know that we have smelt any different odors. Q. How long have you smelt this? .A. For some two years. Q. gWere there any smells before that? .4. There was some years ago a bon factory on the dike that we used to be troubled about. Q. Do you remember the putting up of the dam in 1871? A. I don’t remember anything about it. Q. You recollect the bad smells began then? A. I don’t know of any bad smells only those which came from this trouble about two years ago. Q. It is one and the same smell? A. Yes, sir; I'don’t know that it is any different. Q. Are you quite as near to Mr. Squire’s establishment as Mr. Slocumb 3 A. No, sir, not by three hundred feet. Mr. McIntire. I would like to put in a copy of the records of the Cambridge Board of Health, showing the result of the hearing before them in regard to this matter. Mr. Muzzey. J will not object if you will allow the whole matter to go in, including the fact that there was never any action taken whatsoever against Squire & Co. as a result of that hearing. Mr. McIntire. I will agree that that Board went out doing nothing except passing that order. Mr. Muzzey. And that no Board has come in that has done anything ? Mr. McIntire. I will agree to that. The copy was then put in. Adjourned. 44 SECOND DAY. Tuesday, December 2. Mr. Derby. I suppose that the protest which we offer applies to this day as well as to all. . The Chairman. Certainly. TESTIMONY OF Jonas Wooparp. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). How long have you lived in Cambridge? A. I have lived in East Cambridge nineteen years. Q. What is your‘occupation? A. Dealer in hay, straw, and charcoal. Q. How near do you live to the establishment of Mr. Squire? -4. With- in fifteen rods. Q. On what street? .A. On Sixth Street, between Cambridge and Gore Streets ; about half-way between Cambridge and Gore, on the east side, a little nearer to Gore than to Cambridge. There are two houses between me and Gore Street. J am within two hundred and fifty feet of Mr. Squire’s place. Q. Will you state whether you have been troubled with any of these odors that have been testified to? 4. I have been. Q. For how longa time? A. Well, for the last four years, more or less, ever since I lived in that place. @ Q. ‘What odors do you detect? A. I detect the hog smell, the live hog, and another, that of the rendering or trying of meat. Q. Any more? A. I do sometimes smell the smell from the dock, oc- casionally. Q. How often do you get these live-hog and rendering and trying smells? A. Well, the rendering and trying smell is almost every day ; not every day, but two or three times a week. It varies one or two a week along. Q. At what time do you get it? A. We generally get it more in the night time than we do in the day. Q. Is there any difference in the tide when you get these smells? A. No, not in regard to this rendering smell. The tide does not make any difference. Q. How often do you get the hog smell? A. As often as they unload’ the hogs, or whenever the wind is in a northwesterly direction. Some- times the wind is not so, but we get it every time. Q. Do you mean to say that you only get the hog smell when they are unloading the hogs? A. We get it more then, but we get it at all times. When we get it worst is when they are unloading. Q. Do these smells affect you any, or your family? A. They do. Q. How? A. On account of this sickening smell from the trying, sometimes we have to close our windows in the night. Q. Has it affected your family? A. It has. Q. Can you give me any particularinstance? A. On the night of the 31st of July we were waked up out of sleep by a smell. The Chairman. What was its effect upon your family when they 45 woke up? A. We perceived a sickening smell, and my wife complained of a smarting in the throat. Q. Did she vomit? A. Not at that time. Q. At any time did it cause vomiting to you? A. It did, some two years ago. ; Q@. Where were you? A. I had been to South Boston to meeting in ie going home, something past twelve o’clock. I know I had to walk it. Mr. Derby. Tt seems to me that that is rather a long distance to go back. Mr. McIntire. I wish to show that a similar smell to what made him vomit two years ago, would now. Mr. Derby. JI make the objection. You can proceed. Mr. McIntire. I will leave it out. Q. Do you know of any nausea or vomiting caused to yourself by these smells? A. I know of being sick, but not so as to vomit. Q. When? A. On the night that I speak of, the night of the 31st of July, I experienced a sickening sensation. Q. Well, how? Describe it. A. It was a sickening smell to myself and also to my wife. We were woke up from sleep by it. The Chairman. How long did the trouble continue upon yourself and wife? A. Perhaps half an hour or so. I got up and went to get a drink of water. The smell lasted for about twenty minutes or half an hour. Q. Did it produce vomiting? A. No, sir, only a nauseated feeling. Q. Well, at any other time, and how many times during the last sum- mer, has the smell produced nausea? .A. A good many felt it the same night at about half past two o'clock, the night of the 31st. We had two gusts of it that night. They came and lasted from twenty min- utes to half an hour each time. The Chairman. It had a similar effect? -A. Yes, sir. That is the night on which the houses were turned. Q. (by Mr. McIntire).. Have you ever attempted to trace any of these bad smells? .A. I did on that night that I spoke of, that I had been out, some two years ago. Q. Since then have you been by there, or have you traced any of these smells?. A. I have been up by there in the evening. Q. When? A. In August, soon after we had so much talk in regard to the coloring of the houses. Q. What did you find? A. I found that I smelt this smell from the rendering and trying coming very strong from the doors, as I passed up and down the street. 2 : ; Q. (by Mr. Derby). From what doors? A. From the front doors of Mr. Squire’s building. _ Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did you get the live-hog smell? A. Not that night. The worst that I smelt then was what I supposed to come from the rendering. Q. What day of the week — what particular day, if any — do you smell the hog the worst? dA. The most I have ever smelt it, and the strongest, was the last Sunday before August. I was down at my barn, near the bridge on Cambridge Street, and smelt it very strong that day, the wind being in the right direction. : : . Q. You smelt it at your barn. That is where? A. At 26 Cambridge Street, near Craigie Bridge. 46 Q.. How far from Mr. Squire’s factory? A. Half a mile from Mr. Squire’s factory I should think. Q. That was the live-hog smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. What part of the day was that? A. I should judge it was from ten to eleven o'clock. It might have been from nine to eleven in the morning. Q. Do you know what that was caused by? -A. It was the smell of live hogs unloading from the cars. Q. Do you know who they were unloaded for? A. I went up there and saw them unloading, and they told me that they unloaded forty-five car-loads that day. Q. That was on Sunday? A. Yes, sir. I was told that thirty-five car-loads were for Mr. Squire, and the others for Mr. North. Q. You found them unloading at that time? A. I did. How long it was before they got through I could not say. I left them unloading. Q. At what time of day? A. It was past twelve o'clock, I think. I think it was the last Sunday but one in August. Q. Did you, when you went up there, detect that scent of the live hog 3 A, I did. : Q. How strong was it? .4. I don’t know as I could describe the strength. ” Q. How much did it affect you? .A. I don’t know that it made me sick. It was a disagreeable smell ; such as would arise from hogs. Q. Was there any partitular day of the week that you smelt the live- hog smell more than any other? A. I think Sundays it comes stronger and more often than on other days. It may be because I am at home more on that day. @. Do you know on what days, as a general thing, the hogs are brought in and unloaded? A. Ido not. I could not testify in regard to that. Q. Do you know of their being brought in’mare than once on Sunday ? A, Oyes. I know of their being brought many times. Q. How many. times in the past summer? A. A great many. I could not say the number. Q. Do you know anything with regard to running these works on Sun- day? A. I do not, Q. Do you know anything of their running them last Sunday? A, I heard the squealing of hogs last Sunday, along some four or five o’clock. I don’t know what they were doing with them. I heard them squeal. Q. Did you see the men about there? A. I did not. Q. Well now, in regard to blackening, You live within three hundred feet of there. How was your house before the 31st day of July last, in regard to being blackened or discolored? .A. It was discolored some on the outside of the house. Q. How long had it been so? .A. For the last year there had been some discoloration on the front side of the house. ~ / Q. Well, on this night of the 31st of July? A. There was a great deal more added to it outside, and it was also colored on the inside. . @Q. How about other houses in the vicinity? A. The houses all through that street and in that vicinity were colored that night; that is, within twenty rods of the establishment. Q. Well, how was the discoloration of that night as compared with all 47 other nights previous to that? .4. I should think there was more on that night than on previous nights. Q. To how great a degree? A. So much more, —I don’t know as I can describe it, —so much more that it was the general talk of people the next morning. They gathered about in groups and looked at their houses and complained. It was the cause of the meeting being called to discuss the matter. Q. You say you have been by there and have detected, coming from the doors, this rendering smell. Did you do it more than once? A, I did. Q. Within the past summer? A. Yes, three or four times,d have taken pains to travel by there during the month of August. Q. With the same result? A. It was always strong. Sometimes it was stronger than at others. It depends, I think, upon what they are trying ; sometimes it is more nauseating than at others. They try, I sup- pose, different meats. t Q. Do you know anything about what is called here the dock smell from the basin? .A. Ido. We have that occasionally. Q. Are you nearer to the dock than you are to Mr. Squire’s? A. Yes, sir. Q., That is, the foot of Sixth Street is a pa of the Squire -basin } A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, how is that smell as compared with what you call the rendering smell, in strength and effect upon your body? 4. The smell from the dock is a disagreeable smell, and an altogether different one. It is not so sickening to me as the other smell. Q. How often do you get that dock smell? A. I don’t know as I could say; we get it quite often. You might say we get it more or less almost every day; every day, perhaps, when the wind will fetch it to us. Q. You are within about two hundred feet of that establishment? A. I should think so. Q. Did you ever go up on the Somerville road on the other side of the basin, on Bridge Street? A. I have. Q. Did you detect any odors there? A. I did. Q. What? A. I detected the dock smell, and also the smell from ren- dering when the wind was right. Q. Did you detect the hog smell on that side? A. I don’t know whether I did or not. .Q. Have you passed between Squire's and North & Merriam’s, on the Grand Junction Railroad? A. I have passed through there. Q. Did you notice any particular scent there? A. I could smell smells, when they are at work there. The track where they unload their hogs is between Mr. Squire’s and North & Merriam’s places. When I went up the street, I passed through there by Bridge Street, on the Sun- day of which I speak. Q. (by a member of the Board). Was it any worse in that neighbor- hood than ‘near your barn? A. I don’t think it was. The wind was west or northwest that day. Q. Was there any place where that could come from? A. I don't know where the smell of live hogs could come from except from that place. I am not allowed to keep hogs in the city. * . 48 Q. Whether you know anything about whether Mr. Squire keeps his men at work on Sunday? A. I do not. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How often are these hogs landed, sir? A. I could not say how often ; they come every week. Q. Oftener than five or six times a week? .A, I don’t suppose they do. Q. You have n’t seen them any oftener than that? A. I have not seen them so often. Q. Do you know the number of cars coming in there daily? A. Ido not. Q. Was not this an unusual occurrence on Sunday? Were not the trains detained? A. J did not hear anything said in regard to that. I went up there and was told by men there that they had unloaded forty- five car-loads of hogs that day. ‘ Q. How long was the process of unloading that day? A. I could n't state how long they were at it. They were unloading in the after- noon. Q. When you first Pati: the smell of the hogs and ascertained that they were unloadin#, what time of day was that? A. About twelve o'clock. I should think it was not far from that time when I was at my barn and smelt it. Q. At what time did you walk up there? -A., Soon after that. Q. When you arrived, were they unloading, or had they finished ? A, They were unloading. ’ ‘ Q. How soon did they get through? A. Icould not say. I left them unloading. / Q. Were n’t they nearly through? A. I could not say. . Q. Your observation was confined to a period between half past ten and one o’clock. At that time there were, as you understood, for you did not count them, some forty-five cars on the track which were being discharged? A. I was told thirty-five car-loads were for Mr. Squire and ten for other parties. Q. Pass to the 31st of July. Did you go out that night? A. I did go out on the street. Q. How far? A. I went down on to Gore Street, and passed up by the establishment. Q. At what time in the night did you go there, sir? A. Between eleven and twelve o’clock, when we perceived the first smell. Q. Did you go.out before the half-hour was over? A. Yes, sir; but the smell greatly diminished within a half-hour after it came, and the air was nearly as clear as before it came. Q. When you went out of your door was the air clear then or was the smell continued? A. The smell was strong when I first went out. Q. How long did it last strong after you went out? A. Perhaps ten minutes. Q. From the time you left your door you perceived it, about ten or fifteen minutes. Was it a pungent smell, a smell of rendering? Was it stronger than you had experienced before? A. It was. Q. A more pungent smell was it? A. Yes, sir. Q. This smell of rendering which you smell is not a pungent smell? It 49 is the ordinary smell that comes from lard? A. It is different on different nights. I had supposed that when we had it the strongest and most dis- agreeable it was because they were trying meat. It was usually the ordi- nary smell of rendering leaf-lard, — the common every-day smell. __ Q. Now pass, if you please, to this night of the 31st. You speak of the smell being very sickening that night, and producing great effect. Did n’t it produce more effect upon the houses that night than all the previous smells of the year haddone? A. I should judge it did, sir. The houses were more discolored than they had been before. Q. Or afterwards, either? A. Yes, more than in any one night. Q. Well, take the rest of the season. Were they not discolored more on that night than on all the other nights of the season? A. I should think as much. I could not say decidedly. The Charman. With regard to going into the place and examining meat before it is rendered ; have you been into the establishment to find out about that? A. No, sir, I have not. Q. You have no knowledge of what was tried there? A. I have never been into the works to examine them. I have been in there. _Q. Well, recently have you been there? A. I was in there one after- noon and one night in August or September for a very short time. I went in with some man that came along, and stayed a few minutes with this gentleman, and passed down among the works. Q. Is there any rendering place between you and North’s, where ren- dering is done in open kettles? A. Not that I know of. There is nothing except Mr. Squire’s between me and North’s. Q. Do you know where Spellman keeps? A, I do not. I have heard such a name. The Chairman. You say that you went out on the 31st of July. Where did yougo? A. From my house on Sixth Street down on to Gore Street, in front of Mr. Squire’s establishment. Q. Did you trace the smell to any place yourself? A. I did. Q. To what place? A. To Mr. Squire’s establishment. Mr. Derby. How long were you walking to Mn) Squire’s? A. It was a very little time ; less than ten minutes. Q. Did you walk directly or did you smell about? A. I walked di- . rectly there. We had that smell again about half past two the same night. “@. But within the ten minutes you took to walk that distance the smell had been greatly diminished, hadn’t it? A. It was greatly dimin- ished after the time I went out of the door. Q. (by a member of the Board), To what do you attribute the disap- pearance of the smell in that way, — to the changing of the wind or the cessation of the cause? .A. To the cessation of the cause. It returned at half pastjtwo. I suppose that they were going through the same oper- ation that they were going through before. It was the same smell, but what that was I do not know. Q. (by Mr. Derby). The works were lighted up? A, There were lights in the establishment ; there are at all times of night. “a Q. There were this night in particular, and men at work ? A. There were lights in the building, but nothing more than common. Q. Did you see men moving about? A. I did see one or two men pass before the windows. I don’t know whether they were working. 4 * 50 Testimony or Asa TYLER. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You live in East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your business? A. I have been a dealer in boots, shoes, and rubbers in Boston. Now I have n’t any particular business. Q. You have had a store under the Museum, haven't you? A. Yes, sir ; for twenty-five years. Q. You have lived on Sixth Street how long? A. Nine -years next January in the same house. ; Q. Of course you are acquainted with this establishment. Will you please tell us if you have been troubled with any of these odors that have been testified to? .A. Very seriously. Q. By more than one? A. By several of them. Q. Can you describe them? .A. Well, there is the dock smell, the live-hog smell, and, as I suppose, the smell of the trying or rendering of lard. Q. Which of these smells to you seems the most severe? A. The rendering smell has affected me and my wife the worst. Q. How has it affected you? A. It has made me sick several times. It has tightened my lungs so as to affect my speech, and I could not speak without coughing or hacking at every word I spoke. Q. How has it affected your wife? A. It has caused her to have a headache and to be sick seme time. For nearly one week at once she has been prostrated by it.: The Chairman. Did you vomit? A. I have never vomited, but I have been so sick when I came down in the morning that I had no ap- petite for my breakfast, no desire for it. Q.: You mean that it produced nausea? .A. Nausea, and this sickness. Q@. How many times during the last summer has it so affected you ? A, Almost, as a general thing, all through the warm weather. Q. And your wife? A. On the night of the 31st we were both of us made sick by the smell that came into the house. Between the hours of eleven and twelve we were woke up by the smell, the windows of our sleeping-chamber being open. I was so pressed that I could hardly breathe, and I got out of bed to go down and get a drink of water. My house was filled with the gas. I closed the rooms down stairs and up stairs, and came back to my wife and said that I was going out. She could n’t hardly catch her breath. Our room appeared to be saturated with the odor that came in that night. Q. Do you know where that smell came from? A. I did not get it then. We did not get it again until somewhere past one o'clock, before I had Jain down again. Then somewhere about two o’clock it came again. I put my head out of the window and smelled it, closed the win- dows, went down stairs and remained an hour or so. I didn’t go to bed again that morning. Between four and five I came out on the street. There were quite a number of our neighbors out on the sidewalks, looking at their houses. Jt was a general question where that stench and odor came from that night. ; ” @. Do you know where that smell came from? A. I didn’t go out of doors that night. I didn’t go out until morning, I did not trace it. Q. Have you been by the establishment of Mr. Squire? A. I have, sometimes as often as once or twice a week. 61 a 2 going by it did you detect any of the odors that you speak of 1 : ave. : Q. Which one? A. I have. detected what we call the smell of the rendering of hogs, and of thie dock. When the wind is strong it brings it right straight into my house. : Q. Do you detect it as coming from the establishment? A. I have. I have had the curiosity when coming home on the street in the morn- ing to follow it. I have followed it straight to the building. After I had got past the building a certain distance it would not smell. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How far? A. Perhaps five or ten rods; enough to get past the building. That is fhe rendering smell. I can smell the dock almost any time. Q. How many times during the past summer have you traced it to the buildings? A. I think a dozen times. Q. The rendering smell? A. Yes, sir. ~ Q. Do you know anything about the unloading of hogs? A. I have been there a number of times. I have had the curiosity, particularly when I have smelt the hog smell on Sunday, to investigate its origin. Q. How many times have you seen them unloading hogs on Sundays? A. I recollect some three or four times that I have been up there this present summer or fall. Q. They unloaded at Cambridge Street, where the crossing is, did they? Q. Now, in regard to the improved machinery, if it was made, and the sewer completed, and this condensed water should run off, and the sewer filled, as it mtst be, by these several gases, would not people who live along that sewer be affected by those gases in the houses? A. I have made an investigation of this in Cincinnati, where hogs have been’ slaugh- tered ; and where the slaughtering-houses are connected directly with the sewer, the result has been that people were obliged to trap the sewer in order to prevent smelling the gases which frequently rise from the sewer. Even when the sewer is connected with deep water, unless extreme pre- caution is taken, the smell will come from the sewer. Q. Now, on the bare supposition that this condensed water should flow through the sewer, would not those gases arising from that water affect the inhabitants along the line of the sewer whose drains entered it ? A. J should think it would be preferable not to have the drains empty into the sewer for that reason. It would be dangerous. Q. The question was asked whether the hogs there are not kept cleaner than they usually are in pens. Should you say that the hogs are cleaner or dirtier than the hogs in an ordinary pen? I mean hogs which are generally carried many miles over a railroad, can they be cleaner than hogs in an ordinary pen? .A. As I saw them in the pen they were surrounded with the ordinary material in a pen: I have never examined a hog, individually, to see how clean it is. Q. The question is, Whether they would be as clean bodily as hogs kept in a pen. 91 Mr. Muzey. Do you wish to put in the fact that a hog never drops anything in the cars while travelling? That is a fact. Mr. McIntire. That may be a fact, but it is not in evidence. The Chairman. Is that so? Mr. Muzzey. There is no water, even, drépped in the cars, during the passage. Mr. McIntire. I only know we can see that the cars are very dirty. Q. If hogs are crowded together in a car in hot weather, with, say, eighty hogs to a car, would they be dirtier than hogs in an ordinary pen? A. I know nothing from my own knowledge, but I should expect that they would be dirtier. Q. Doesn’t the scent of ammonia rise from the hog? A. I never ' made any investigation of that. Q. Have you ever been down to look at the jail sewer in Kast Cam- bridge, and noticed any discolorations there? A: Have n’t been there for at least six months, or more. When I was there I never noticed any discolorations on the buildings near the sewer emptying near the jail. The building of Pettingill and Sawyer is not very far from there, I be- lieve, but I have not seen any discolorations upon it. Q. I don’t know whether you answered the question in regard to your opinion whether an establishment of this magnitude, and conducting this kind of a business, where they have to keep and slaughter live hogs, — can it be rendered so that it will not be inconvenient to citizens living near or passing by? .A. I answered that I thought it could not be conducted so that it will be free from offence. My experience covers almost as many 92 years as Mr. Squire has been there, and I take into consideration all the new appliances that might be used. Q. There is one thing that you answered in reply to a question in re- gard to hogs. I don’t know that I understand you. I want to ask you the question again. Do you think that two hogs in one pen smell as badly as two hogs in two pens? that is, do you think it is as great an in- convenience to people to have two hogs in one pen or with one in each of two pens, —if people are affected by the smell at all? A. A hog is always surrounded by this material of which I speak, and with two pens to receive it separately the smell might be less perceptible and incon- venient. I thought it would be better, if there were several thousand hogs, to separate them, and put them in different localities, than to have them all in one pen. I meant it would be better for the comfort of the people to have one hog remain in East Cambridge, and the others distrib- uted in different parts of the United States. Q. Mr. Muzzey meant in other places in that locality. Would it be better to have them in one locality? A. My opinion is, that as the slaughtering-houses are situated at present, to have them separated — one portion at Squire’s and another at North’s — would be more objec- tionable than to have them stored in one place. Re-cross-Hxamination. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). If you are ten feet away from what is called the gut-room, you can’t point it out by the smell, can you ?— there is no odor perceptible? A. The place is closed, and I have never been. on the oppo- site side where the window is. Q. Have you ever detected anything worse than the smell of a close privy? It is a little room, isn’tit? A. Yes, I should think it might be half as wide as this room, and as long. Q. Did you ever detect the location of that gut-room by the sense of smell, when you were ten feet away from it? A. No, from the fact that when I have approached it it has been closed. Q. You never, by the organ of smell, would have known it was there when you were ten feet away from it? A. It is surrounded by the hog- pens. I never knew by the organ of smell where it was located till I ap- proached within ten feet of it. Q. Now, as to the gases that might be discharged from the sewer. Take the little, insignificant amount of gas which might escape, and com- pare it with the gases from the water-closets and the sinks which are found there every day. If you make a proper connection with the sewer by putting a proper trap in, what amount of gas do you think would escape? .A. I can’t say what amount there is. I know there are several large tanks, and their contents are emptied. Q. Could n’t you obtain from any privy in town a stronger action than by this liberating of the gases? -A. I never tested one. Q. What do you think of it? -A. My idea is that the gases coming through would be saturated with the sulphide of ammonium. If I had the sulphide and tried it with this paper, it would be jet black without having passed through the condenser. If it is condensed, we get even a stronger solution. Q. My point of inquiry is this: Would these gases — supposing the sewer filled with the gases that get into it in that way —- not be avoided 93 by a trap like that by which we avoid the escape of all gases into houses} A. I said the danger would be very much lessened. Q. Take Cincinnati, where they pour blood into the sewer, — have n’t the people there secured their houses from invasion of the gases by using traps? A. I understood that parties there have complained of-them a great deal. Where a trap isin perfect order it may work all right, but there is the liability of its getting out of order. Q. Were the traps put in in consequence of complaints? A. I have a letter here from a gentleman in Cincinnati — Mr. McIntire. We will file the letter in this case, perhaps. Mr. Muzzey. We will look at it first. I don’t know that we should object, but the witness is undergoing cross-examination, and it is not a proper time to file such a document. J Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). If you could have a slaughtering-house estab- lished where you think one should be, — take Mr. Squire’s, for instance, — you would wish it fixed upon a spot not less than a mile from where there is a dwelling-house? 4A. I can say that if an establishment is carried on in the way you describe, with all the appliances for getting rid of the vapors from the rendering and scalding tanks, and carrying away the refuse material and for the utilization of the soup, so that the odors which would remain would be a general greasy odor and the odors of the hog, those odors would not contribute to the comfort of the people who live about there, and they are objectionable on the score of health, "but I don’t say that they injure the health decidedly. If men desired to live there to get employment in carrying on the business, I don’t know that there is any reason why they should n’t. Chemistry can’t tell which of the odors are more dangerous to health. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Am I right in supposing that you would n’t allow a slaughtering-house to be situated within half a mile of anybody not interested in having it carried én? A. That is my desire. Q. (by Mr. Webster, a member of the Board). You spoke in your direct testimony yesterday of having gone up the river near and under the works of Mr. Squire, — you are familiar with the character and general body of the river, — is there any considerable body of water floating there? A. There is no stream connected with the river that I know of. It has only one small brook. The flow of water iato it is the flow of the tide, the tendency of which is to float matter up stream and down stream. Q. You estimated the quantity of matter discharged from the estab- lishment. Did you estimate the power of the stream to carry off this matter? A. No, sir; I have no idea of what it is. Q. What is your opinion? A. I really could n’t make an estimate. Q. I want to know if there has been any accumulation of matter in the river? A. I have noticed that an accumulation has been going on. We used to catch minnows in the stream ; they disappeared ; then we caught eels, and now there are no eels there. Awhile ago I noticed the workmen driving piles and sticks down into the North Basin. I saw that they drove down to the depth of two feet, and when they drew it up they had just struck solid ground. It was all black. Q. You have discriminated between the odors of the dock and the basin smell. The animal matter carried into the river must be diffused into the basin, — must not a part of the dock smell come from the ani- mal matter so deposited? A. I think it must come from the animal matter. 94 Q. The pieces of hair and bristles which were taken up floating in the .Water, ~— were they or not in a greater degree of accumulation? A. The water is rarely seen covered in the way that it was that morning. These moust have accumulated within a few hours that morning. Q. I suppose that the gases from which the dock smell rises must come either from the mud or through the water. A. Water will give it off to some extent. They must be more diffused and less concentrated in the air than in the water, and that would account for the more violent action. Q. Was this spoke that you exhibited found in the mud? A. This spoke is an exhibition of what has been done by the gases on wagons. This was in a shed, exposed only to the air. It is proper to say that this was exposed for several years, and this blackening is quite intense. Houses have been blackened more intensely than this by the gases in a single night. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). What was the extent that you saw covered with these bristles? A. As I was passing up the river, —I took the boat at Fifth Street, —I don’t think I met any of these until we got near the building. They were not very numerous under the building. Then we rowed back up stream, very near to the hog-pens, and found them very thick about there. They were out in the flowing water, beyond the piles. The area was at least a hundred feet in diameter. Q. There was nothing to fix certainly the suspicion that these bristles came from Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I had examined the system of strainers that they used at North’s and Boynton’s, and the pieces of ° bristle and skin that I showed you could n't have got through those strain- ers. The tide was coming down, bringing everything to us. Q. (by Mr. Frothingham, a member of the Board). I think you stated that the most offensive odor that is carried by the winds from these estab- lishments is that generated by the rendering process, creating nausea and sickness. Have you ever made an estimate of the extent of the territory the people of which are thus affected by nausea and sickness consequent upon thisodor? A. The extent of territory varies. I know that the whole of East Cambridge is affected at times, and the side of the hill facing these establishments is affected quite often. But the people on the side of the hill away from them are affected but rarely. I have known, on some occa- sions, that this odor has extended _as far as Charlestown. And in Somer- ville, some distance beyond the point I have pointed out, I know of parties on Franklin Street and on Prospect Hill who have complained of it. Parties in Boston have also complained of it at times. But I haven't examined persons and made careful investigations into the area over which it extends. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Do I understand you to say that this odor, which created the nausea, has been observed in Charlestown? A. I have never been to the extreme limit of it myself, and I only know of it from hearsay. In Somerville I have never smelt the rendering odor, but I have smelt the odor from the hogs when alive. ; 4 TESTIMONY OF SterHEeN P. SHaRPues. To Mr. McIntire. Jaman analytical and consulting chemist and State Assayer, at 114 State Street, Boston. Ireside at Old Cambridge, and am one of the committee of citizens in this matter. As such I have visited 95 the establishment of J..P. Squire & Co. at various times. I have been in the habit of going into Boston on the Fitchburg Railroad for two years at least, and have been very much annoyed by the odors, as the cars always stop opposite the establishment, on the other side of the basin, at the “Know-Nothing” Crossing, at the Grand Junction Railroad. As I distinguished them there, they were mainly the dock smell, but occa- sionally there was the live-hog smell. The rendering smell is distin- guishable at times up as far as the Prospect Street Station and down below the Lowell Railroad Bridge. Prospect Street Station is just above the basin. The dock smell has been the worst from the upper basin, — called Boynton’s Basin. The rendering smell is experienced just as we pass the Grand Junction Railway, and coutinues from there down to just behind what is known as the Pickle Factory. That large building will shut off the smell. We get these smells, very often. We never pass there when the tide is up without getting the dock smell. It is very much complained of on the trains, and passengers are very much annoyed by it. We don’t get the’other smells so often. Could not say how often we get the hog smell; I don’t always notice it, but I have often taken pains to look out for it. Asa member of the committee I went to visit Mr. Squire’s establishment and looked over it. I have been over the building at various times with members of the committee. We were given every facility by Mr. Squire. I don’t know exactly the date of the first visit we made, as a committee, but I think it was about the middle of August. We found the building, on that visit, in comparatively good order in all parts. But on approaching the building we noticed the ren- dering smell from trying out fresh lard. This odor became more intense as we approached the building, and was most intense in the rendering- room. There were four or five open tanks where they were rendering lard, and in some of them was fresh leaf-lard ; in another, scrap; and one was devoted to the rendering of lard from the intestines. They were all in open kettles, and all simmering. In an adjoining room there were sev- eral large iron close tanks, one of which had just been discharged — I think at that visit — into a large tank situated directly under these tanks. The residuum was being discharged. These rendering-tanks are made nearly in a cigar shape ; the lower end is tapering and the upper end is nearly flat. In the upper end are apertures for the introduction of steam and apertures through which the materials are introduced. These tanks are closed up perfectly tight, and then the steam is applied and they are thoroughly heated, — I believe generally from six to ten hours, according to circumstances. The steam is about fifty pounds’ pressure. The effect of this is the thorough disintegration of all the flesh and bone, — the bone being more like chalk. The first effect of the water is to extract the gelatine from the bone, and being subjected to the pressure for a long time its power of gelatinizing is destroyed, and we have it in the form of a soup’ which will not gelatinize with tannin. It is thoroughly disorganized. It is far more liable to putrefy than glue produced directly with less pressure and less heat. Q. Did I understand you to. say that the whole contents produced soup? A. No, sir. The way of removing melted lard varies in different establishments. It may be pumped directly from the tank, or the whole contents let fall into a large tank below and then the grease skimmed off. But the after effect is the same. After the grease is removed there is left 96 a large amount of this soup and a great deal of fine scrap, which is a mix- ture of disintegrated bone and fibre of the meat and from the fat. The soup is strained off through iron strainers and allowed to run into the stream. It runs off clear, but a great deal is apt to be dark colored. That soup, as it is generally run off, contains from eight to ten per cent of this disorganized gelatine. I think water is generally put into the tank. Some heat them with steam conducted around the outside ; some by forcing hot steam into the mass, — in that case a considerable amount of the steam condenses and goes to the formation of tle soup. But I have been told that it isn’t necessary to add water to that. In this establishment the steam is introduced into the heat. The soup will not be clarified, but you can dispose of it in other ways. There are one or two patents for disposing of it. One is by a Mr. Wilson of Providence, who makes it into manure; but it must be done in the establishment where the manure is produced. When the soup is transported, — that is, in hot weather, —in the course of five hours it will decompose so as to burst any barrel in which it may be placed. From the tank-room we passed, on that day, into the slaughtering-houses. Q. (by Mr. Derby). What proportion of the contents of the tank runs. off in this liquid shape? A. I could n’t give you the proportions, but from inquiries made, I think it is about a quart and a half for each hog killed ; that is a very low estimate, I think. [ alluded to the close tanks. I gathered that from a general inquiry into the methods of rendering at this and other establishments. On my own judgment I should state that there was more than that, —not less than two quarts,—that is, when steam is introduced. The parts of the hog that go into the close tanks are the bones, chine, parts of the head and feet, and trimmings. From the rendering-room we went into the slaughter-house, where operations were going on quite actively, and we got the odors from the scalding-tub, — which are rather offensive, — and the odors when the animals are opened. The gases that escape from the interior of a hog are always more or less offensive. That odor is very distinct about the middle of the slauyhter- house. We then passed on into the hog-houses where the live hogs are kept. These had been recently covered with charcoal. In the pens where there were no hogs charcoal had apparently been put. The hog odor was quite distinct in the whole building. From there we came back and inspected the apparatus which was in use for blowing off the tanks. We made inquiries in regard to that apparatus when we first went into the building, and were told that it would be put in use and we could see how it worked. This was on the 13th of August. We then came back and went into the cellar under the lard-room, where the apparatus for condensing is situated. This apparatus is one patented by a man named Turner, of Chicago, about last May, and consists of a large iron coil made an inch and a half or two inches in diameter, passing in around the tank. This coil is kept continually surrounded by cold water, the ‘effect of which is to condense all the steam from the tanks. It is claimed that three or four tanks can be blown off into this coil at once and that the water will condense all the steam from them. The gases rising from this tank are then passed through a purifier by which most of the “sulphuret- ted hydrogen is removed and the sulphide of ammonium is removed ; but it would not remove certain other compound gases. After passing through this condenser they are passed over a fiery furnace, where the 97 benzine takes fire. At our request some of the gases which had been passed through the condenser, but not through the purifier, was blown off into the air. We smelt it, but had no very good means of testing for sulphide of hydrogen and ammonium, although they showed some signs of blackening on a card. The smell of these gases from the ren- dering-tank is a very peculiar one. It resembles the odor of mercaptan. A person who has smelt it once will always recognize it. One smell is sufficient. I speak of the gases from the closed tanks. This was not blowing out usually, but was let out on this occasion for our benefit. It geos under the fires when the apparatus is in good order, and is consumed. I should judge that the hundred-thousandth part of a grain would diffuse so that you couldn't stay near it; an extremely small amount would make this room intolerable. I recognized the smell, because I experi- mented on mercaptan several years ago and became familiar with the smell. I see no reason why it should not be destroyed by passing through the fire. We tried these gases on a silver dollar furnished by Mr. Squire, but failed to get any reaction on it, as they were not in sufficient quantity. We then went through the pork-packing rooms and found them in good order. [I should judge there was no offensive odor arising from them. The smell of meat is offensive to a great many persons, and we had to endure it there; but I don’t think any smell escaped from that building. On the 18th of September, in company with several other members of the committee, I visited a number of these establishments. ‘After visiting two or three of them, we came to Squire’s establishment, entering through the door which opens on the Grand Junction Railway, and passed on through the place where the hogs are carried. I visited it this time to satisfy myself on a single point. We found the rendering smell strong as usual in the lower room; and on the bridge, between the old slaughter-house and the main building, there was a very disagreeable odor resembling putrid animal matter. Where it came from, I don’t know. It was on the bridge between the slaughter-house and the main building. My object was to see if in the rendering of lard there was any amount of sulphuretted hydrogen given out. For that purpose I went into the room in which are the heads of these upright tanks. I opened the cock of one of the tanks and allowed it to blow upon some paper. The paper was saturated with acetate of lead. That was the effect of it (producing paper). It shows that if that was blown into the open air it would blacken the lead on anything that it came into contact with. Sulphuretted hydrogen was given off, and it was not from dead-hog mat- ter. I noticed a smell while I was on the bridge. I do not know that there is any water flowing under the bridge. The smell resembled that of putrid animal matter. I may say here that I have observed that smell at that point several times. I don’t think it was the tank smell. It was a strong smell at that time. Adjourned. 98 FOURTH DAY. December 4, 1873. Mr. Derby renewed the.protest of the respondents against any proceed- ings being had except before the full Board. f Testimony or S. P. SHARPLES.. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You said, I believe, syesterday, that the smell on the bridge was not the tank smell? .A. I.did. The smell resembled. more the dock smell. It was between the end of the. slaughter-house. and the rendering-works.. There is-a bridge across: the roadway there.- The smell was that of. putrid animal matter, and.I.should judge it was from the dock. This was on September 17th. I have since observed that smell at the same. place on September 24th, and again yesterday, December. 3d. Q. (by a member of the Board). Is this bridge in the establishment ? A. It ig over the roadway. It isin the enclosure, and is over a private driveway between the houses. It connects the slaughter-house and the rendering-house. It is in the open air: At the time of this visit I went info the: thead-room, where:the tanks are filled.. It is warm and close there; the windows were. open, and the smell was not. very. offensive. This was on. September 17, — the same day I was talking about yesterday, Every time I have been into the works and crossed that bridge, I have noticed that smell I have been in the place six or eight times. I think this smell I perceived on the bridge is the:dock smell. It isa bad smell from decaying matter, — worse than the dock smell in the city, and is such a dock smell as is found along the shores of these basins. On Sep- tember 24 the committee held a meeting at the house of Mr. Hastings,. and during that meeting they perceived the odor of hog, the sewer, and the. bad odors generally that they have down there. After the meeting was over, some of us concluded to trace the smell out. This was the same meeting that Mr. Munroe testified in regard to. It was every smell that you could put together. This. was about. eleven o'clock at. night. There was very little wind that evening, but what there was was blowing from. Hastings’s house towards Squire's, — a very gentle breeze,. hardly perceptible. I don’t recollect whether or not. it was clear, but I think it was very damp. I noticed the direction of the wind particularly, becanse I was surprised to- get the -smell at that. time.: We passed. on down towards Squire’s, and the smell kept. getting stronger and. stronger, but changing its character somewhat and becoming more distinct. We observed the smell of rendering fresh lard, or what they call fresh lard. At that time there was none of. the tank smell mingled with it. The tank smell is an entirely distinct smell. JI am not familiar with the locality, and I did n’t particularly observe which way we went. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Hastings’s house is at the corner of Fourth and Otis Streets: Don’t you remember that we went down through Third and Fourth Streets, and that we stood at the corner of Fourth and Cam- 99° bridge Streets? A. T think we stopped and talked awhile, but I would n’t be positive about the locality, for Lam not acquainted with the locality. I only know that we were continually approaching the works as we went down Gore Street. When we went into the works the smell was stronger than it was immediately outside, where it was sufficiently strong to be recognized. I think it was a little stronger from fifty to one hundred feet away than it was just outside of the building. We went in at the office door on Gore Street in front, and about the middle of the building. It opened into the room next to the rendering-room. In the large rendering- room one steam-kettle containing scrap-lard and one containing gut-lard were in full blast. I believe there were two in operation that night. I. wish to make a correction here in regard to the number of kettles. I stated yesterday that there were five kettles in that room. There are nine, — three large oblong ones being in the middle of the room, and three on each side. These two that were in operation that night were the large ones. I should judge they were five feet by ten, perhaps a little larger or smaller. As it has been denied that gut-lard would give off sulphu- retted hydrogen when being rendered, I took occasion to test {t at that time. I found’ that there was a continual emission of sulphide of am- monia. (Lxhibited papers of different discolorations.) That one was ex- posed about one minute. No chemist would have any difficulty in recog- nizing that color. It is a faint discoloration. That piece was over scrap- lard at the same time. I think it is probable, from all that I can judge, that it is sulphide of ammonia. We then went up into the head-room, where the heads of the closed tanks are. There the odor was the most vile that I ever got into. The heads of the tanks are on one floor, and they open on the lower floor. The reason of that odor, as I-think, was that the steam was ascending directly from these open kettles, and, it cooling somewhat before it gut up there, it had time to develop its full aroma. I think this bad smell came from the open tanks below. The closed tanks did not appear to be leaking at the time. Q. (by a*member of the Board). Is it your opinion that this smell grows worse after it becomes cool? A. After it becomes cool it is de- cidedly worse. All the windows were open, and this stench was passing directly out into the atmosphere. We then left the building and went into the slaughter-house. The odors from the hogs being opened and from the scalding-tanks were quite strong. The odor from the hog is as disagreeable to me as any other. They generally work all night there, stopping about six o’clock in the morning. They kill hogs all night. We then went into the yard, in’a little quadrangle between the engine-house and slaughter-house. Q. (by a member of the Board). Is this the odor that you say was per- ceptible at Hastings’s house? A. The odor at Hastings’s house was hardly open to description ; it was a little of everything. The odors are pretty = to separate when they are together. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Did it differ from what you experienced below? A, At the works you can separate and recognize thera at the time. When they are mingled it is difficult to separate them. Sometimes you will get only one, and may recognize it without trouble. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Is n’t there sometimes a prevailing odor? A, Sometimes there is; but that evening we couldn't distinguish any particular odor, except, as we approached the works, the rendering odor 100 became more distinct, and finally became the predominant odor. We stood in the quadrangle between the engine-house and slaughter-house some four or five minutes while a lantern was being procured that we might go under the building. At that point we got the full benefit of the odors in the place. We had the smell from the rendering-tank and the opening of the hogs and the scalding-tub, and a little of the dock smell besides, — something like what we got up to Hastings’s, but very much stronger and more concentrated. I never before smelt: it as bad as it was that night. When the light was brought we tested the gas from the condenser and found that it smelt as usual, — being that mercaptan smell. As the Board may not be familiar with that smell, I have some here which I have prepared (producing small vial). Dr. Derby (of the Board). I would n’t open that now; if you do it will make the room intolerable. Wait until the close of the hearing. Q. (by Mr. Derby). That did not come from Mr. Squire’s. You pre- pared it? ¢A. I prepared it myself. When we got to the apparatus that was just turned on, it was let out from the condenser, in order that we might get the smell. This article is manufactured to give the exact smell, ‘The smell from the rendering-tanks was not in the air that night. We did n’t get the mercaptan smell until we opened the pipe. This was a different smell from that we experiericed in the quadrangle. This smell. at that time made me very sick, and I did n’t stay any longer than was necessary. ‘ Q. (by Mr. Derby). Tn comparing the smells you found them different outside? A. Yes, sir. ‘ Q. (by a member of the Board). Did I understand you to say that some of the smell gets out into the street? A. I didn’t perceive it in the street that night. The close-tank smell is one of the most vile odors that was ever let loose. I recognized all the smells outside that night except the close-tank smell. The close tank was opened for our benefit, and then we got it. Q. How often does it escape into the atmosphere? A. I don’t know how often they are opened. Q. Did you ever observe it in the open atmosphere? A. Ihave. I have never been in the works since the 24th of September till yesterday morning. I then went there and passed through to see the new slaugh- tering-place, which had been entirely changed since I was there before. I went in there, but had not time to make a full examination; but, in passing through the yard on the opposite side of the slaughtering-house, on the former visit, I got that close-tank smell unmistakably. Yesterday morning was rather damp and foggy. I was in the yard on the opposite side of the slaughtering-house from which we stood that evening. That smell wasn’t noticeable but very little in the street, but a little kettle- smell was noticeable in the street. This smell I got yesterday was the mercaptan smell. I went through there first and thought there was none of the smell in the place; but, as I was going away, I got this smell. It came from that establishment, I know, because I had just come from Mr. North’s, and there wasn’t any there. If there was any wind it was from Gore Street, over the building. I experienced it only a few seconds while I was there. I passed through and beyond and did n’t 101 ‘ stop to examine it, for I was in a hurry coming into town, as I was late. In the afternoon, yesterday, [ went again to the works, in order to fully examine the new slaughtering-place. I found that the slaughtering ar- rangements had been entirely changed from what they were when I was there before. They are now up stairs, and the capacity has been doubled. They have put in two scraping-benches and two sticking-apparatus, so that two gangs of men can work at the same time. There were none of the tanks or kettles running, so that there was no odor of rendering at that time except the stale rendering odor, which is always about the place. Again this morning, coming to town on the Fitchburg Railroad, after we had passed North’s building, there was a very strong smell just after passing the Grand Junction Railroad. The wind was blowing strongly -from Squire’s place, and the smell of fresh lard rendering was quite strong, — that is, the ordinary smell that comes from these kettles. There has been some question as to the gases which fresh meats give off while they are being cooked. Our authorities are very scanty on the subject, but I have found one or two which will give a little information. In Watts’s Dictionary of Chemistry, Vol. II. page 667, under the head of “ Broth,” he says: ‘‘ When meat is boiled with water, sulphydrate of ammonium is evolved, together with odoriferous compounds, and an acid resembling acetic acid.” The point I wish to bring out here is, that sulphydrate of am- monium is recognized as being evolved from fresh boiling meat, and that it is evolved in much greater quantities from meat that is slightly tainted. Pure fat has nothing of the kind in it, I suppose, but in the trimmings and everything of that kind there is more or less of meat or muscle ; ‘ there is also considerable skin, which is notorious for its sulphur com- pounds. If the temperature is high when the animal is killed, decay may set in almost immediately. In the intestines it does set in almost immediately. It may be put down almost as a medical or chemical axiom, that almost as soon as life is out of the body decay commences. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Take it where the hog is killed or trampled to death in the cars, how long should you state it would be before it would be extremely offensive? A. I should judge it would n’t be more than ten or twelve hours. It might be a shorter time. In case the hog is killed ‘amid great excitement and the blood is left in the body, decay will commence very soon. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You are one of the citizens’ committee? A. I have acted with the committee, though I have n’t heen to all the meetings. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Is there anything else which you wish to add? A. The only thing I wish to say is in regard to the report of Professor Thompson to the Joint Commission of the Harbor Commissioners and the Board of Health. He ascribes the scents in Miller’s River to the blood in the matter. I think he is mistaken. I think it isas much from the soup ; for as much, if not more, soup runs in there, and more of that sulphide comes from soup than from blood. Blood is continually running in there from Squire’s and all the other establishments, notwithstanding the care they take, —all the washings of the houses, and the drippings from the hogs where they are hung to cool, go into the sewer, and contain a considerable amount of blood. The only difference between Squire’s new and old system is that now the soup is conducted into the gutters which open into the drain. Formerly it went through the floor. The sewer is the river. The soup is emptied into the same place and 102 will go into the drain. I have had occasion several times to analyze this soup, and found that it contains from six to ten per cent of solid matter. It has lost its power of gelatinizing, and they don’t clarify it. It is strained, but not clarified. The solid matter cannot be all taken out by any process now known. It can be purified and dried and made into an inferior quality of glue, and the matter separated from it can be easily dried. The soup cannot be dried, as it gums up the apparatus. I be- lieve they have had a full experience with that at the Abattoir. ~ Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Munroe made a comparison between com- mon sewage and this matter which runs into the scalding-tank, and some question was made whether he took a fair test of sewage to make a comparison with. Have you seen the table of the State Board of Health Report, 1873, p. 65, and if so, state whether you think it is a fair test to make? A. I should think it is an entirely fair test to make, except for one thing, — that sewage taken there is not such as very largely runs into the ordinary sewers, because it has more salt water in it than sewage generally. He took a case extremely favorable to the es- tablishment. I would like to make a little comparison here myself. This sewage from Broad Street contains alouminoid ammonia 75, of one part in a hundred thousand. The soup that we examined averages about one per cent of albuminoid ammonia, which must be all albuminoid am- monia, — that is, alouminoids capable of yielding ammonia. While the worst sewage in this table contains +%% of one part of albuminoid ammo- nia, this soup contains a thousand parts. There is little difference in the strength, — that would make that soup more than a thousand times as bad to run into a drain as ordinary sewage is. Q. (by Mr. Derby). That is to say, a thousand times more ammonia? A. A thousand times more ammonia. . Q. (by a member of the Board). Did you speak of the water or the mud? A. I spoke of the worst sewage in this table as compared with the soup.. The soup which has putrefied on the flats has a peculiar odor éntirely distinct from the odor of ordinary sewage, — it has a kind of cooked smell, if I may be allowed to use the term. There is undoubtedly sulphuretted hydrogen in it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What do you think would be the effect of these gases on the sewer? Would they be dangerous? .4. When the sewer is ‘backed up by the tide it would be kept filled with this matter from the slaughter-houses, the mouth of the sewer would be sealed up tight, and the gases from it would be apt to pass into the houses, and would affect everything along the line. The trap would not totally prevent it. The gases must have some vent when the tide backs up, else they will burst the sewer. If the sewer was perfectly tight, the tide backing up would cause the gases to keep continually generating and expanding, and the tide backing up would tend to force the gases out. It is a different prob- lem from that of a sewer running into an ordinary river. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you understand the process of purifying the scalding water carried on there? A. I do. a : Q. Tell us, if you please, about how the matter is precipitated into the bottom of the scalding-tank, and how they used to pour it off before ? A, As I understand it, they stirred it all up and run it into the river. I don’t know how much they stirred it up. I asked several persons, who said there never was much of anything left in the tank. This process 1038 depends mainly on the coagulating power of blood. It might be sup- posed that in bleeding hogs into the tanks, this blood would precipi- tate the matter in the tank; but if you will think a moment you will see that this blood is immediately coagulated as it falls into the tank. The scalding temperature is 140°. The blood forms a con- siderable part of this sediment. If they are in a hurry to purify the tank, they cool it down by putting in a quantity of ice. The serum is then run in. A small quantity of charcoal is previously sprinkled over ‘the top of the tank, then the serum of the blood is run in, about one half to three fourths of a barrel. The tank ‘is gradually raised to a boiling heat, and the serum, being thoroughly mixed through the tank, entangles the solid matter in it, and it all rises to the surface. It is then skimmed off. It will then average from two to three barrels. I am speaking merely of the method of purifying that tank. It is generally purified after a thousand hogs are killed. Some purify once or twice a day, some oftener. This process is now in use at Boynton’s, North’s, and Squire’s. Q. Do you understand that this method removes all the insoluble or- ganic matter from the water? A. I think it does. Q. How many barrels have they used? 4. From one to three. Q. What is done with this matter? A. At North’s it goes into the drier, and at Boynton’s it goes into the drier. What is done with it at Squire’s I don’t ‘know. Mr. Muzzey. It is sent away to the manure-heap. Member of the Board. There is from a half to three quarters of a bar- rel of blood put in. Is that contracted by the scalding process, so that it would measure out less than it measures in? A. The coagulum is only eight or ten percent. I speak now of the coagulated matter in the serum. Q. (by Mr. Derby). What per cent of water is there in the serum? ‘4: “I think it is between eighty and ninety per cent of water. Mr. Derby (to the Board). ‘Gentlemen will understand that eighty per cent of this is water. Witness. The blood is defibrinated in the usual way. It is stirred until it is defibrinated. If the scalding-tank is alkaline, they add a little acid. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you seen the samples taken by Mr. Mun- roe from the scalding-tub, and if you have, state whether you think they are fair samples? A. I should judge so from the color, but I should not judge they were fair samples of what is run off into the basins, because they were taken before it was settled ; in other words, it would give now a far more favorable sample. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). If the water is taken out, and the soup used three or four timés over, is n’t’the water materially diminished? If the soup is purified three or four times, would n’t the water be much less? A. I think you are mistaken in regard to what you call the soup. I don’t understand what you mean by purifying soup. Isu’t it the scalding water that you speak of? [Mr. Derby. It is.] If the scalding water is treated by this process, it would not be much worse than the ordinary sewage. Q. I wish to know if the water is used three or four times, whether the nuisance is diminished? A. Itis. I regard this process as a very great improvement. : : 104 Q. You know of no process by which the Soup can be clarified? A. I do not. I should be very glad to find out some such process. Q. When you met at Mr. Hastings’s house on the 24th of September, you went down to the works? A. Yes, sir. Q. As I understand you, you walked some distance down the street. Was the wind going with you? A. It was. Q. And you perceived a very strong smell at the house from which you started? A. We perceived a pretty strong smell. Q. Describe it? A. It would he very difficult to describe it. The smell seemed to be a compound of various things. Q. Like sulphide of hydrogen? A. It was more like the rendering smell, in which sulphide of hydrogen is not distinguishable. Q. As you walked down street did the smell grow stronger? A. It grew stronger as we got nearer the works. Q. You were no very great distance from the works? A. Yes, sir. Q. As you approached the works, on the outside you found very little smell? A. Very little. JI think we got some of the rendering. Q. As you passed along in front of the building, the smell gradually diminished? .4. That I have usually found to be the case. Q. As you passed into"the building the smell you distinguished was that of rendering? A. It was. Q. Was it the same as that you perceived to-day? A. It is the ordi- nary smell of rendering lard. Q. A little sickening, is it? A. It is very sickening. I should think it very disgusting if I had to live there all the time. Q. Isn't it like the smell of boiling beef or cabbage ? A. It isa more vile smell, — not like boiling beef or cabbage. , Q. As you walked on into the quadrangle you were out in the open air? A. Yes, sir. . Q. The air would find some admission from the basin? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Might there not be some admission of air through the windows into the yard? .A. There might be. , Q. Might not the dock smell come in there? A. I distinctly per- ceived it. Q. Is it not possible that the aggregate of smells in the building was increased by the dock smell? .A. I don’t deny that it might have been increased. It is increased according to your location. Q. Is the dock smell more perceptible in the moist atmosphere ? A. I think it is. Q. When a storm is approaching, isn’t it the case that the dock smell is more apparent? -A. I have never observed the state of the barom- eter. Q. Will not the excrements carried down in a sewer furnish sulphur ? A. They do. Q. This is due to the excrements and not - the blood? A. Yes. It can be distinctly seen in the docks here in Boston. There are vessels painted white which are badly blackened. Q. Is there not a considerable amount of animal matter carried off into these sewers? A. I don’t know. I can’t speak for the families of others. It is not in mine. : . You have observed that families, on account of carelessness of housemaids, find it necessary to have a strainer in the sink? A. I have 105 noticed that many times in Cambridge they have cesspools in which this water goes. Q. Is there not a great deal of matter turned into the sewer from dis- tilleries ; for instance, is n’t the discharge from Sortwell’s distillery equal to 50,000 gallons a day? A. I should judge there was a very large amount run down from it. Q. Is there a very large amount drained into the sewer and the Mil- ler’s River basin from Cambridge? A. I should judge there was a very large amount drained into the basin. Q. Do you know the extent of the water-shed there? A. Nothing but from the report of the members of the Commission. The worst sew- age drained into the basin is, I should judge, from the bleachery in East Cambridge. That would tend to set free the sulphide of hydrogen. Q. Is not the effect of that collision to tend to generate sulphide of hydrogen and ammonium? A. It is. I have made experiments, and was astonished at the effect. Q. It was tremendous, wasn’t it? A. I expected a very strong re- action at once, whereas I got a very slight reaction. Q. Have you the results of that experiment? A. That paper was held over it some time. I held that over the mud for about a minute. By strongly stirring it I could get a very strong reaction. Q. You are familiar with Robert A. Smith’s work on Disinfectants ? A. I should judge it is as good authority as any. Some of his state- ments have been disputed and others are admitted. Q. I will call your attention to the 92d page of it : — “T remember going with Mr. Ellerman to try his fluid, which was at that time chloride of iron only. It was poured on some very disagreeable substances in a town’s yard in Manchester; but at the moment the disinfectant touched them, the smell became overpowering. Mr. Ellerman was much disconcerted. The secret is, that strong acid substances must not be used. Sulphite of soda turns out well until this sulphurous acid begins to decompose. A similar thing occurs with all sulphates and sulphites, as well as McDougall’s powder.” Witness. I think he is perfectly correct. Any sulphide or sulphate coming in contact with decomposing avimal matter is in its turn decom- posed. Sulphides coming into contact with any acid, sulphydric acid is set free. Q. You were very much surprised at the results of that investigation ? A, I was surprised, because I thought that most of the smell came from the basin. : Q. Will you explain how it is that on one side of the quadrangle there should be so strong a smell, and on the front side, on Gore Street, there should be no smell at all? A. It is owing to various things. It may be that the windows are not open. The windows in the head-room do not open on to Gore Street. The head-room of which I speak occupies only half the width of the building. Q. Will you state whether or not a greater amount of these gases might have come from the basin and been blown through the passages into the yard, and been mainly warded off by the building? A. I think not. Gases will diffuse against the wind. They will not be blown against the wind, and will not work as fast against the wind as with the wind ; but they will diffuse in every direction. This diffusing faculty is 106 entirely independent of the wind. Diffusion may take place in spite of the wind. Q. When you walked along Gore Street, you perceived a very strong smell, and when along the front of the building, you perceived little or no smell? A. I said it was considerably diminished in front of the building. I said it was very weak just at the door. The door at the back of the building was closed. It would be protected from the basin-also. Q. But when you came into the yard where there was access from the basin and building, you found the smell that you perceived before? A. Yes, sir. Q. You perceived it at Mr. Hastings’s house, and under the shelter of the building you did n’t ; and when under the quadrangle you perceived it again? A. Yes, sir. : Q. Do you know whether there is not a great deal of manganese in Miller’s River? A. I don’t know. Q. I think manganese is mostly imported? .A. Do you not mean chloride of lime? [Mr Derby. Yes, sir.] Chlorine is made by treating black oxide of manganese with hydrochloric acid; this is passed over quicklime, which is so converted into chloride of lime. Q. What would be the effect of chloride of lime getting into contact with sulphuretted compounds? A. It immediately destroys the smell. It makes one of the most thorough and complete disinfectants. Q. If chloride of manganese was run off strongly acid, it might ‘have a different effect than if you ran off chloride of lime? A. Yes, but they don’t calculate to run off chloride of lime. Q. Which would be the most expensive? A. Chlorine would be the most expensive in this country ; but I do not know which is used most. The process of bleaching is to decompose a solution of chloride of lime with sulphuric acid, : : : » Q. Where is it that you reside? A. On Shepard Street, a short. dis- tance below Porter's Station. This is about 7,600 feet from Squire’s fac- tory. ; Q. Have you observed this odor at your house? A. At one time par- ticularly, last summer, I observed that smell at that place. It was the same hog smell. I spoke of it next morning, and observed it again about six o’clock in the evening. I think I have also recognized the rendering smell there. The dock smell I have got several times. Q. I understood that you smelt the dock smell at Boynton’s? A. It is very offensive, and we get it at any of those places. I have noticed the dock smell at Squire’s less than the others. Q. Did you notice whether you got any of these odors on the 31st of July at your house? A. I noticed nothing on that day. It is only under particularly favorable conditions of the wind that I get the smell at my house. Q. Have you ever noticed any smell from Charles River? .A. Not from the river, but I have from the gas-house, which is almost directly south from Porter’s Station, on Charles River. Q. What direction is the Brighton Abattoir from your house? A. It is, I think, almost directly south. Q. Have you perceived any smell from the Abattoir? 4. Never per- ceived that smell at my house. Q. Do you know anything of the soup made there? A. Yes, sir. 107 Q. What is done with the soup there? A. It used to be run into the river. I have been told by one of the directors that it is barrelled up and sent away. When I last saw it it was run into the river. I have spoken against the practice at that place several times. Q. How lately have you noticed it? 4. I haven’t been there for a month and a half or two.months. It was then being run into the river. Q. Have n’t you heard complaints in Cambridge of the smells from the Abattoir? A. I have heard complaints of smells that they said were from the Abattoir ; I examined into them and found that people could n’t distinguish whether they came from the Abattoir or from the bone-boiling establishmént of George Upton. _ Q. Where is Upton’s establishment? 4. It is at the end of the Brighton Bridge, just above Riverside. Q. Did you trace these smells distinctly to the bone-boiling establish- ment? A. I only mention this because we could n't establish it as being from the Abattoir; I was led to suspect this from the fact that a friend told me he was down there and they were not using the condenser, but were giving out bad odors. Q. Have you visited any of the bone-boiling establishments in Somer- ville? .A. I have visited four establishments in Somerville and found them very dirty. There is one in Cambridge, — Reardon’s, — which is just on the line. Q. Have you seen any putrid meat and grease there, and does n’t it contribute to the bad odor in the air? A. I think it does. Q. Would n’t a small amount of putrid meats contribute very largely to the bad odors in the atmosphere? A. I should think they might. Q. The gases which they evolve go directly into the atmosphere? A. At Reardon’s the gases evolved go into the atmosphere. Lately he thas made an unsuccessful attempt to burn them. 5 Q. Are you familiar with O’Neil’s business? 4. He was trying to make arrangements to burn the gases, but the city government would not allow him to do so, and he is now going on with his old business and making a nuisance. Q. How is it with Barry’s establishment? A. It is as dirty a place as I ever was in. It is just back of Lincoln & Chamberlain's. He does not slaughter, but tries out matter, some of which must be putrid. Q. Do you know any places in Boston for trying out grease? A. None except Ward & Co., whose particular business is to take off the dead horses and collect the bones from the markets. _ Q. Is n't the boiling of bones very largely done? A. I think we could find none who would acknowledge boiling out more than once a week, except Reardon. Q. If their materials are taken out there and remain a week before boiling, would n’t it add very much to the badness of the atmosphere ? A. The scraps putrefy very rapidly, and if it had been kept in the city several weeks it would be worse. Q. Would not the ptoportion of gases be greatly in excess of those from fresh lard? A. It woul: be. Q. In what proportion? .A. I can’t give the exact proportion. There is considerable difference. I should call it a large one. Q. You spoke of avimals dying in the city and being carried to Ward’s establishment ; do you know the number? A. Only so far as 108 has been stated before this Board. It has been stated here that up- wards of two thousand horses a year have died from natural and un- natural causes. Some are killed and some die from disease. Q. Were you aware of the fact that in the city of London there are 1680 slaughter-houses in the thick part of the city? A. Iam not aware of that fact, but I am aware of the fact that there is great complaint of the slaughter-houses in London. Mr. Derby (to the Board). We have a Report of the Board of Public Works of London to that effect, which we received by the.steamer “ Mara- thon,” and will file it in the case at the proper time. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you find any alcohol in thesoup? A. Ido not, but from investigations of other chemists it has been rendered slightly probable that there is a slight amount in the flesh. There is acetic acid, which is an analogous, being formed by the oxidation of alcohol. Q. Did you find any of this matter by analysis that contained more than three per cent of solid matter? A. I never found any less than seven per cent. I have n’t seen any that contained as little as three per cent. Q. State whether in the great cities — London, for instance — you did not find that the sewers are not protected by traps, and that such articles as this soup are permitted to go through them, and if they are not thus protected? -A. I suppose they are. The houses are protected by char- coal filters, but I know there has been awreat deal of complaint from the backing up of the tide and other causes. You can’t pick up a scientific journal from London without there is something in it about the pollution of the river. Q. You have exhibited some of the papers that have been tried ; sup- pose you tried the experiment in your kitchen, would n’t you, get some discoloration? A. I should think, from what I have read at this investi- gation, that it might. Fresh meat will give off sulphides of ammonium _and hydrogen. Q. Take roast beef, for instance? A. I should suppose that sulphide of ammonium would be given off from roast beef, because the meat is partially boiled. It is steamed inside, not roasted, which is about the same as being boiled. Q. (by a member of the Board). How much solid matter did you esti- mate was in the soup? A. There are 3,600 pints a day, or 450 gallons, the weight of which is 10 pounds the gallon, and, ten per cent being solid, would make the solid matter 450 pounds. , Q. (by a member of the Board). How much matter did you say there was from each hog? A. The only estimate I made was that there were three pints from each animal slaughtered. The soup weighs nearly ten pounds to the gallon, and is from eight to ten per cent solid matter. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Did you state in your direct examination in regard to the quantity of soup to each hog? .A. I did, and gave it at about three pints to each hog. : Q. You spoke of the gluey portion ; can it be separated by any chemi- cal process? A. I have made a great many experiments, but so far they are almost all complete failures. The glue can be manufactured into a very good article if not allowed to decompose. 109 Q. If it could be severed by chemical experiments, it can be made a valuable article of commerce? A. I think it can. Q. (by Dr. Derby). You don’t agree with the testimony of Mr. Munroe? You think his estimate a little large? What is your estimate of the amount of solid matter? -4. About 450 pounds per day, or 2,700 pounds per week of six days. I think that estimate is very low for this establishment. Q. (by Mr. Webster). What would be the effect of the manner in which this is poured out, — whether it would be in a position to undergo an organic change and diffuse itself in the atmosphere more decidedly than if it was poured out more in a mass? A. In Smith on Disinfectants, which has been referred to, he says that the amount of water has a large influence in inducing decay. I had always thought it was the opposite. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Organic matter when greatly diluted is more prone to decay than when concentrated. If I understand you, this soup has a greater specific gravity than water. In that case would not the soup go to the bottom? A. Yes, sir. It would go to the bottom and be exposed on the flats. JI have seen soup there upon the flats that I could recognize. It is very rarely thoroughly skimmed, and you can see the grease floating upon it. _Q. (by Mr. Derby). Don’t the chemical books inform us that water is an important agent in disinfecting substances of this kind? A.: They do to some éxtent, but you will find also that they say that water tends to induce decay in many cases. In Smith on Disinfectants you will find :— “Water, as a principal agent in disinfection, was highly appreciated by the ‘ ancients, and the most violent exertions of these late years have only put us on a level with the provincial towns of the Roman Empire.” Then he goes on to say : — “ The fine.observer on the Mediterranean had connected the departure of dis- ease with the warm and cheering influence of the sun, although it was always observed that the warmth and moisture of the south-wind tended to corruption, which was reversed by the invigorating north-wind.” Mr. Derby. J have done with your witness. Mr. Sharples subsequently asked leave to make a statement. as follows : ‘The question was asked me by one of the members of the Board as to what was the influence produced by diluting this soup. I recalled at the time that there was something in Smith on the subject, which I have since found. It is on page 123 of Smith on Disinfectants, published in 1869. It is as follows :— “ Although, therefore, water is a wonderful agent of purification, it is also an agent for the contrary, because it causes a very rapid effervescing decomposition .of organic matter, and, if in enormous quantities, it sends out impure, as well as pure, gases into the atmosphere. It is for that reason, apparently, that stagnant pools are always dreaded ; and for the same reason the engineers of the Board of Health long ago determined to remove the water of the water-closets out of town as quickly as possible, in order to prevent decomposition,” etc. Q. Is it not stated that it is only when the water becomes thoroughly saturated with these gases that it gives them out? 110 2 . Witness. The same authority also says : — “Tt seems impossible to produce absolute purity of surface in most gases. “When it is saturated, however, it begins to give off vapors into the atmosphere, and as water may be said to be equal to a porous body having an unlimited surface, its activity is great. It absorbs oxygen rapidly, helps it to oxidize or- ganic matter, sends forth carbonic acid, and along with it many vapors, into the atmosphere, and intensifies the operation to such an extent that bodies which would have lain in the mass for years undecomposed are, when mixed with air in a moving stream, completely rendered invisible in a few days.” Q. But it must be first saturated. Would it not take some time to’ saturate the whole tide that flows into the basin, some fifteen million tons of water? A. It takes but very little of some of these compounds to saturate water and produce an offensive smell. Q. (by the Committee). Do you give any distinct effect of light on the nauseous vapors that float through the air? The rendering smell, for instance ; it has been testified here by all that this smell is worse in the night, and yet the work goes on through the day. A. I think I could give a very good reason why the smell is worse in the night. The gen- eral habit is to fill these tanks about six o’clock in the evening. Then the rendering goes on continuously through the night. In the morning they commence to empty them. Sometimes they work night and day ; but generally you will find the tanks empty during the day. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). If the tanks are emptied in the morning, would not that be the time for the most intense smell? A. No, sir. It is most. intense about eleven o’clock, when the tanks get thoroughly heated and then blow off, which they do in some cases. I have known the tight tanks to have very loose safety-valves. Q. But you have not noticed it about the open kettles at Mr. Squire’s ? A, I have heard of it. , Mr. Derby. That is not evidence. 7 Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Ave you aware that they have taken the stop-cocks off? A. [know they have taken them off; so there is nothing to blow off. Mr, Muzzey. They were removed for that reason. Q. Well, is it your impression that this rendering odor would not now exist? A. I found that smell yesterday — that from the rendering-tanks —from the close tanks. It is entirely distinct. Q. (by a member of the Board). What would be your impression, tak- ing the present methods of doing this business, as to this smell which is found at a distance? Would that now exist? A. I should not think it would now exist if the water from the Turner apparatus were discharged into tide-water, where it would be diluted immediately with a large body of water. Q. Do you know how often the water is discharged from this Turner apparatus? A. I should suppose it was constantly flowing. The water is very offensive. I have had occasion to manufacture a similar article myself in trying some experiments; and I find that if it is’ diluted with ten times its volume of pure water, the mixturé is very offensive. Q. Did you ever happen to know of one of the close tanks being blown off into the atmosphere? A. No, sir. Q. Don’t you know that they are not? A. No, sir, Q. What are the contents of ‘these tanks? 4. I cannot estimate. 111 “ @Q. How much waste matter would one of them produce in a day? How many gallons? A. I cannot say. Testimony oF Dr. Samus L. Aspor. Q. (by Mr. MeIntire). You are a practising physician in Boston? A. Yes, sir. I reside at 90 Mount Vernon Street. I have practised since 1841,.and have had my office there about twenty years. Q. I would ask you whether at your house on Mount Vernon Street you have distinguished any of those odors that have been testified to by the witnesses here, if you have heard them testify, or any odors, the past season? A. Yes, sir; within the past two seasons of 1872 and 1873. Q. Did you distinguish the nature of these odors? .A. The odors which I distinguished seemed to me to come from the cooking of putrid meat. That is as near as I can describe it. They were not always equally offensive. Sometimes they were excessively nauseous, and always very disagreeable. Q. Do you know anything concerning how these odors have affected individuals, your patients, family, or yourself? 4. The way in which it has affected my family has been to wake them up summer nights, and prevent sléep till the windows were shut. Q. It has had the same effect upon yourself? A. Yes, sir. It would wake me frequently ; almost always after midnight, between that and daylight. Q. (by the Chairman). Will you describe the effect upon yourself? A, I would like the opportunity of giving a history of it. I will say that in the summer of 1872 I first began to experience this odor, and as I have already said, the bad smell almost always came after midnight. As I sleép on the south side of my house, J used to go to the front of the house when the windows were open, to see if the scent came from that di- rection, and always found that it came from the northwesterly direction or northerly. I soon came to the conclusion that East Cambridge was the source of this bad smell, and made up my mind that it was a. smell pro- duced by what is called the rendering process. But not knowing pre- cisely the nature of what was going on there, I made inquiry and found that there was the rendering: process carried on in those great establish- ments in East Cambridge. Night after night during the hot weather of the summer of 1872 my sleep was disturbed in that way. More than once, going to bed with the thermometer in my chamber at 80°, I have waked up and been obliged to close all the windows, front and back, because of this foul stench. It was impossible to sleep' with the windows open. I have had the same experience the present season. It was not confined to myself ; other members of the family have perceived the same odor. I think that on the first occasion this year Iwas woke up at about two o’clock in the morning, and was awake most of the time until nearly six. The-smell was unquestionably, as far as one can judge of a sniell, ‘one of bad meat, more or less decomposed, which was undergoing some process analogous to cooking. This summer I have had occasion very frequently to-drive over to East Cambridge on professional business, and I have passed the establishment of Mr. Squire I should certainly say forty times during the months of August and September, and I recognized, when I came near it, the same smell that had disturbed me at night, but not so 112 strong, nor was it generally so offensive. It was mixed with other odors .in the vicinity, which I could separate, I think, distinctly from this one. When the tide was out, and the bed of the Miller’s River basin was un- covered, of course that powerful stench was very noticeable that proceeds from that. But when the tide was up, and the mud was covered, I could distinguish the old smell without the admixture of the dock smell. Then again I would-sometimes simply get the smell of hogs. It was not so prom- inent as the other odors, but it was quite strong. I am satisfied that the smell which I noticed in driving by Mr. Squire’s establishment was the same in’character as that which has disturbed me at night, and I took particular pains in driving by to notice the direction of the wind, to see if I was at the leeward of Mr. Squire’s establishment. I found that when we had noticed it the wind was in the direction to bring any ill odor that might be about the establishment towards me. If the wind was in the other direction I did n't notice it. Iam satisfied in my own mind that Mr. Squire’s establishment is one of those, at any rate, that produced this odor. I don’t pretend to say he is alone. Generally at Medford Street, as I drive toward Medford, I do not notice it particularly. I have heard complaints from my neighbors of these gases. I remember last year a gentleman who lives in Louisburg Square asked me if I.had noticed a horrid smell the night before, and if I could imagine what it was. He said it smelled like cooking meat. I asked him if he had never noticed it before. He said he had not. I said that I had noticed it a great many times. I saw a gentleman who lives on Chestnut Street who told me he had frequently been obliged to shut his windows at night on account of the nauseating smell, which he described as very much like the cooking of offensive meat. In the latter part of the summer, one morn- ing, I was passing a house at the foot of Mount Vernon Street, between Charles and Brimmer, where I had a patient whom I had been attending several days, and whom I had left the day before, well as I thought. As I passed the house he was sitting at an open window of the lower story. I asked him how he did, and his mother came and told me that he had been quite sick, vomiting. I asked what he had eaten, and his mother replied, ‘Nothing but the most simple food,” and I was satisfied that nothing that he had eaten could have occasioned this nausea and vomiting. She then said that it was during the night that he vomited, and added that she was also affected in the same way. I then asked her if she were well when she retired, and she replied, “ Yes.” I could not discover any cause for the complaint, and she could not tell of any. Said IJ, “ Did you smell anything bad in the night?” “O doctor,” said she, “yes, an awful smell came into my windows. I don’t know what it could have been.” That was the night I had been waked up by this stench from East Cambridge. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Did you have the date in your mind? A. I think I could determine it by looking at my book of charges for profes- sional attendance at that house. Q. If you have it we would like to have it. .A. I am not sure that it was the very next day after I ceased my attendance to this house or the * day after ; but it was within a day or two. I had my own opinion as to the cause of this nausea. I know that the nuisance is an intolerable one. The Chairman. Did you ask her in regard’ to the time when this nausea came on in the night? .A. I don’t remember that I did. I should say that generally this bad smell has come about midnight or after. 118 Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did you satisfy yourself whether this nausea was the -consequence of the smell by the time that it happened? A. No, sir, I did not. I think I could determine that, though. I didn’t know I was to testify until this morning. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Was this the same night you had experienced it at your own house? A. Yes, sir. I know that a delicate person would be more annoyed than I would be. I know ladies of my family were dis- tressed with it. As I say, I have been obliged always, when woke up by this odor, to shut up the windows and keep them closed until morning. Then, again, I would say in passing, that Iam one of the physicians of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The superintendent of the Hospital told me that he had to close the windows of the wards of the institution in the night to keep out the stench that came from East Cambridge. This particular smell he had noticed very badly. The superintendent I refer to resigned last year. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You refer to Doctor Shaw? A. Yes, sir. I should say that once this summer I perceived it quite strong in the evening. I have often complained to a member of the Board of Health of this nuisance, and he says it is of no use unless I specify some individual as being responsible. On this occasion I noticed the smell in the evening, and I went down at nine e’clock on Cambridge Bridge and stood for some time, the tide being up so that the flats were covered. It was unmistak- able that the smell came from East Cambridge. In driving over to East Cambridge I had no personal feeling against Mr. Squire. Q. Which of the bridges did you stand upon? A. West Boston Bridge. I took particular pains to drive around the large establishment which I suspected to be Mr. Squire’s as I saw his name on the door. I satisfied myself that this establishment produced a smell identical in character with the one which disturbed me that night, and that that establishment was the one that produced the trouble. Q. You didn’t go over to it that evening? A. No, sir. In driving over Cambridge Bridge during the day, I remember noticing a very intense odor from that direction when the tide was up and covered the flats. I don’t know that I have any other facts to communicate except that Ican refer to two other persons, one living on Mount Vernon Street and the other on Charles Street, who told me they had some trouble, and had to shut their windows repeatedly on account of this very bad odor. Most of the people in my neighborhood are away in the summer season, but I am in town most of the summer; so that at the time when this is most disagree- re and obnoxious the people who would be exposed are absent. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you remember the streets you passed in going to Medford? A. In going to Medford I follow the track of the Somerville Horse Railroad. It goes to the right of the basin, and I turn off at Medford Street. Q. To the north of the basin? A. Yes, sir; the establishment is toward the south. Q. Have you always been that way? .A. Always, with the exception of this time when I went on the other side of the basin to see about this establishment. Q. When you passed on the other side you distinguished that smell A, It was not very noticeable that day ; my object in going around in 8 114 that direction was for the purpose of determining the source of the smell that day, to determine whose establishment it was. I knew the direction from which it came, but I was not sure it was from Mr. Squire’s. Q. You say the tide has been up in these basins, and that you have smelled the odors at that time? .A. Yes; but nothing like as strong as it is at night. I distinguish perfectly between the dock and the rendering smell. Q. You think it was not the dock that furnished that smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were there any other symptoms than the disagreeable feeling men- tioned by other people? A. No, sir. People have said if it were allowed to go on they would be sick. It is almost as much ofa nuisance as if you had a dead cat in the house. ; Q. Does not the loss of sleep affect the physical system? A. Well, of course it affects the system very seriously, and if not prevented it would produce very serious depression of course. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How many times, sir, during the past summer, have you been disturbed in the night by this offensive odor? A. I don’t know. Perhaps six or eight times. Q. When you passed by Squire’s establishment, you passed, as I un- derstand, on the opposite side of the basin; a distance of five or six hundred feet from the establishment? A. I should think so. Q. You passed along the shore of the basin? A. Yes, sir; where they are filling in. Q. Did you notice any bone-boiling establishments, or any odor from them as you passed along? A. The whole neighborhood is so offensive that I did n’t undertake to analyze all the ill odors,in that vicinity. I was particularly anxious to determine the source from which this one smell that troubled me came. There is only one smell that I perceive on Mount Vernon Street, and that smell I invariably noticed, when I did notice it at all, in the manner that I have stated. - Q. Well, did n’t you find, when the tide was up, that this rendering smell was very much milder or very much less, not so pungent, so acrid and disagreeable, as at low water? .A. Yes, I have said that it affected me more in the night than in the day. Q. Was it something like the simmering of meat over the fire? 4. It was like the boiling of meat and cabbage in a house, only intensified and aggravated. It suggested to me the idea of boiling meat that was putrid. It was different at different times. Q. It was an acrid smell in Boston, but over there it was a mild smell? .4. Yes, but it was of the same character. | * Q. So mild as not to be materially offensive? 4. It was positively offensive. I would not like to live in such a smell. Q. But it was very decidedly less than what you experienced in the night? A. Yes, sir. Decidedly less. Q@. Are you able to say, sir, that it came from that establishment ? You are aware that there is another establishment within one hundred and fifty feet? -A. I know there are others in the vicinity. I can only say I experienced it on the opposite side. I have spoken repeatedly to a member of the Board of Health on the subject, and always received the 115 reply that it was of no use to say anything unless I could give a specific complaint. I was very particular to notice the direction of the wind, and satisfied myself that I was directly in the line of Mr. Squire’s establish- _ ment when I perceived this odor. I noticed at other times that when the wind was towards the establishment I did n’t perceive it. Q. Well, how often was the wind blowing from this establishment when you passed it? A. I cannot say, sir. It was quite frequently, more often than now. Q. But you did taste a putrid smell, sir, while on the other side? Something that came from putrid meat? A. I did n't say that. I said it was a cooking smell, more or less offensive ; but being so much milder in character, it had n’t that intolerable smell that the night oder had. Q. As I understand you, you state in your direct testimony that the smell you experienced on the northerly side was the same as would come from the boiling of putrid meat? -A. I said it was similar to the smell which I perceived at night; but being so much milder, that par- ticular element was not so noticeable. Q. Was it at all perceptible, sir? -A. I cannot be sure that I re- member that the putrid element was marked. I don’t think I can. Q. Well, when was it in your direct testimony that you said you ex- perienced the putrid smell? .4. At my house; not always, but some- times. ; Q. Of the six or seven times, how many times? A. I cannot say. I should say that this summer I don’t think I have had so much of the putrid smell as the other. Q. Then I understand you experienced it six or seven times, this smell, and it was only a few of these times that you experienced the putrid or pungent smell? A. Yes; but at all times it was nauseous and disagreeable, and the degree of disagreeability was variable. Q. Was it at all like the smells from offensive sewers? -A. No, sir. It was entirely different. Q. Was that mingled with it? A. No, sir. Q. You thought it was an entirely different smell that you experi- enced? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times would you venture to say that you experienced this very bad smell this summer? 4. I cannot say. Q. Half the time? A. Well, I cannot say definitely. Perhaps half the time. Q. Now, can you fix the night for these disagreeable smells? Can you recollect any one night? A. No, sir. Q. Was it in July, August, or September? A. In August and Sep- tember I perceived it the most. I probably can fix the day two or three times. _ @. Was it the- Ist of August that you experienced one of them? A. I don’t pretend to say. " Q. Will you have the kindness to bring us the dates as soon as you can? A. I will. I may be able to fix the day for two or three times. Q. (by a member of the Board). You said that you had sometimes had the dock smell. You distinguished the putrid from the dock smell? A, Yes, sir, distinctly. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you recollect that at the time there was a disturbance? In the newspapers there were notices of it? A. Yes, sir. I wrote the first article myself. 116 Q. Which of the journals did you favor, sir? A. I wrote my com- munication to the Zranscript. Q. That was the day after. The next day, I think, two other com- munications were sent in? .A. Yes, sir. One was signed “Chestnut , Street,” and another was signed ‘“ Charlestown.” Q. Did you write any other article on that occasion? My impression is that I wrote an article for the Daily Advertiser, and took it there ; but it was not printed for some reason or other. Q. You can give the dates of these articles. Was it on the 31st of July? A. I think it was after that ; but I don’t distinctly remember. Q. Let me ask you whether it had any effect upon your door-plate ? A. No, sit. My door-plate is a glass one. I saw no blackening of any plates the morning afterward. Q. How recently, sir, was the last smell you detected? 'A. Well, sir, since we have begun to shut up our windows at night on the north side of the house, I should say we had not noticed it for six or eight weeks. I wish to say, in explanation of the fact, that I perceived this odor on the leeward side of the house, where I sleep. The door from my chamber opens directly into a chamber on the other side; and therefore I have been in the habit of keeping the windows open upon the front side of the house, in order to have the air. Q. Have you ever experienced any bad smells, sir, from Charles River flats and sewers? A. I think I have. Q. How often? .A. Not so often as these others. The wind was in a different direction, and the smell entirely different. Q. But you have perceived it several times the past summer? A. Yes, sir. That was almost always connected with the time of the tide. Q. When the flats are bare, or nearly bare, then on that side where the drains come in you perceive the smells? .4. Sometimes, but not so often as, this. Q. I would ask whether any one has been made seriously sick, the cause of whose illness you cvuld confidently ascribe to these smells? A, Not that I know of except those I have mentioned. I didn’t pre- scribe professionally to them. At the close of the hearing on Friday, December 6, Dr. Derby read the following communication :— , December 5, 1873. GENTLEMEN OF THE STATE Boarp or HEALTH : — I find, on consulting my memoranda, that the first occasion on which I was seriously annoyed by the East Cambridge “ rendering” smell during the present year was on the early morning of June 12. It was on that day I saw the lady and child whom I mentioned yesterday as having been effected with nausea and vomiting during the preceding night. I learn to-day from the lady in question that for three consecutive nights, namely, on the 9th, 10th, and 11th, she and her husband had been nau- seated by the smells complained of, having been awakened by it. Not knowing the source of it, they had not closed their windows to escape it. Afterwards they avoided the sickness by shutting their windows, but with very great discomfort to themselves on account of the intense heat. The vomiting occurred while the house was filled by the smell, and I 117 have no doubt was caused by it. In my evidence I stated that in the morning in question I was kept awake from two until six a.m. I find from my memoranda that I should have said from two until four a. M., with restless sleep afterwards. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. L, Apzor. 90 Mr. VERNON STREET. P.S. Iam unable to furnish any special dates of the occasions on which I suffered from the nuisance complained of, except that given above. 8. L. A. TESTIMONY OF Miss JENNIz ARMS. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Where do youreside? A. At Greenfield. Q. Where are you at present? A. I am boarding with Mr. Slocumb, on Otis Street, between Fourth and Fifth. Q. How long have you been there? A. Since the 30th of September. Q. You attend school in Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you whether you have distinguished or been affected by any odors while at Mr. Slocumb’s house? 4. I have. Q. When? A. One night between the 20th and the 25th of October. I cannot tell what night. ; Q. Will you please state the effect, and describe the odor? A. I dis- tinctly remember the odor ; it was the odor which arises from the render- ing of lard, and it was almost insufferable. The room I occupied had an east window which was open, and opened into another room where there was a north window, and that was open. I don’t know exactly what time of night it was, but I should think it was about two or half past. Q. Was this odor strong?! A. It was very strong indeed. Q. How did it affect you? A. When I woke up I was sick, had nausea, and did n’t sleep any more that night. In the morning I was quite sick. Q. Did it make you vomit? 4. Yes, sir. Q. You had n’t become acclimated to it? A. No, sir. Q. Did it cause much vomiting during the night? A. I did n't vomit during the night, but in the morning. Q. Before breakfast? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been affected since that time? .A. Not so much. I have not vomited since, nor have I been affected with nausea. Q. Have you smelled any of these odors since that time? A. Yes, sir, I have smelled them, but not so strongly. Q. How often? A. I remember one night when I smelled it quite strongly, and shut the window down. Q. (by the Chairman). Were you able to go to school the same day? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Do you know where the bad odors came from that you perceived that night? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. You had no means of knowing whence they came? A. I could judge by the smell. Q. Where do you suppose it came from? A. From any place where hogs were killed and fats rendered. 118 Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Can you fix the date? A. No nearer than be- tween the 20th and the 25th of October. Q. Do you recollect what day of the week it was? Ad. No, sir. Q. You went to school the next morning afterward? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was not Saturday? A. No, sir. Q. Nor Sunday? .A. It was some one of the first four or five days of the week. Q. Do you know which way the wind was? A. I did n’t rise to see which way the wind was. Q. You are unable to tell whether it was northwest, south, or west? Whether. the wind blew in at your window? A. I could not tell. Q. All you know is that you experienced the odor. Q. (by a member of the Board). Was this open window on the north side of the house next to the Squire establishment? -A. It was an east window in my room, and a north window in the adjoining room ; both were open. Q. Through which did the smell come mn? A. I don’t know whether it came from the east or north. TESTIMONY OF James HuntER. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). On what street in Cambridge do you live? A, On Winter Street, nine hundred feet from the rendering establish- ment. : Q. How long have you lived there? .A. Sixteen years in the same house. Q. Do you know anything of these odors? A. Yes, sir; a great deal about them. Q. What odors do you distinguish? -A. I smell the odor from the tanks and also the odor from the hogs. Q. During the past season how many times have you smelled the tanks and hogs? A. In the latter part of July I smelled it very strongly. It was very warm, and I left my windows open on the southerly side, and the odors came in very strong. I woke up about two o'clock, and felt very sick in bed. Likewise my daughter up stairs. I felt. very sick, vomited ; had a very heavy discharge in other respects, and my daughter was affected in the same way. Q. (by the Chairman). Did you have looseness of the bowels? A. Yes, sir. 'Q. You vomited as soon as you awoke? A. Yes, sir; and my daughter was affected in the same way. Q. How long did that attack last? .4. About three hours. Q. At any other time was your family affected? A. Yes, sir. Q. That night what was the smell you distinguished? A. I think it was principally from the flats. . Q. Did you distinguish any other odor that night? 4. I did n't that night, sir. In the latter part of August, one Saturday evening I was going along home about five o’clock, I distinguished a peculiar odor. The tide was up and the flats were bare, with the exception of the old channel, where there was a current running pretty strong. I perceived a small current under the piles, and it had the color of milk, and the sur- face was covered with scum. I supposed that was the origin of the \ 119 odor. That came from under Mr. Squire’s, and I thought it was the emptying of the scalding-tanks. Q. Has your family been affected by the rendering odor? A. Yes, sir. They have had sore throats, but I don’t know as they have had any- thing else. ‘ Q. How.often? A. Three or four times, to my knowledge. Q. Where you live is very near the basin, is it not? A. It is within one hundred and fifty feet of the basin. Q. And when the wind is right you get the basin odor as strongly as anybody? The basin is between you and Mr. Squire? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever send your daughter into the country? A. Yes, sir ; because of the effects of July last. Q. Do you get the hog smell at your house? A. Yes, sir. Q. How often? A. Very often, indeed. Almost every Sunday morn- ing. Q. Do you know from where you live whether the operatives are at work on Sunday or not? A. It has been the practice to work there Sundays. : Q. (by the Chairman). How do you know? A. I have heard them killing hogs, arid have seen steam come from the boilers. . Q. You speak of the squealing of the hogs? Does that annoy you ? A. Yes, sir; but not so much as it used to. Q. Can you hear distinctly the squealing of the hogs when they are slaughtering? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you mean by not noticing it so much as you used to! A. I hear it as often, but not so loud. Q. But every Sunday? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by the Chairman). You were sick one night? Whether there was anything eaten in the family that should have caused it? Had you taken impure food or engaged in any business that would have caused sickness } A. No, sir; followed my usual habits. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). You testified at the hearing at Cambridge a year ago? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, you remember, you attributed to the dock the worst smells you experienced? Do you still hold that opinion? A. Yes, sir. The dock has not been so bad since it has been filled as previously. Q. You never had in your family any vomiting from the rendering smell, did you? You trace the effects to the dock smell? A. I attribute it to the dock and rendering smells together. Q. The night your family were sick, did n’t the smell come from the dock? .A. I have no reason to say that it came through the open win- dows. My windows were open. Q. And the wind came from a northeasterly direction, from the basin ? Could not you tell by the wind coming into the windows from which direction it came? Where were your windows? On the front stde of the house, facing the dock, were they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the wind came through these windows? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, you spoke of seeing in the latter part of August a milky stream coming from under the Squire establishment? Would that come 120 from the rendering-tank? Would it be what is called soup? Was it like anything in these bottles? A. No, sir. Mr. Munroe, J have understood that when it comes in contact with the air and water, the soup-liquor becomes milky. Mr. Hunter. I think it was the same thing, like the settling in the el of the soup, or the white scrap at the bottom of the scalding- tank. TESTIMONY oF CHARLES E. MEYER. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What is your occupation? .A. I am an im- porter and manufacturer, —an importer of plate-glass, and a manufac- turer of frames and mouldings. Q. Where do you reside? A. On Third Street, opposite the Gore House. Q. You are a member of the committee of citizens, are you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whether any of your family have been troubled at your house with these odors? A. My wife and my daughter, also the servant-girls in the house, have been troubled with it. Q. Which of the smells? -A. The rendering smell. Q. How often during the past season? -A. It has been very frequent, so that I have not deemed it necessary to take an account of it. Q. How did it affect them? .A. Sometimes it produced irritation of the throat, and very often, as far as my wife and daughter are concerned, it has made them almost vomit, so that they would rather have vomited than remained in the condition in which they were. And one of the servant-girls, I believe, has been affected once or twice in the same way in consequence of these odors. Q. What part of the day do you get the smell from the rendering? A. As far as I have been able to observe, the smell commenced at six or seven o'clock in the evening, and lasted until about any time during the night. I could not tell how long or how far into the night, because we sleep always with closed windows, because it is unsafe to keep them open. We have kept them open formerly, but during the last two or three years it has been impossible to keep them open nights, because we might have these odors. / Q. Whether you have directly traced these smells to any source ; and, if so, when, where, and under what circumstances? A. After having visited a number, or almost all the other establishments with Mr. Sharples, Mr. Magoun, and another gentleman, we went one evening about six o’clock into Mr. Squire’s establishment from the Grand Junction Rail- road, and there experienced that very nauseating and sickening odor which we are subjected to so often in East Cambridge, and which has been de- scribed by Mr. Sharples. Q. Did you recognize it as what you got at your house? A. It- was precisely the same odor I got at my house, which I have experienced at the corner of Newbury and Dartmouth Streets and Charles Street at twelve o'clock, and which I have experienced at almost all points of the compass in the vicinity of East Cambridge, and Charles Street, Boston. I visited at a house at Dartmouth and Newbury Streets in June last with my wife, and there was quite a numerous party. They closed the win- “eo: ws oat 121 2 dows there, and I recognized the smell as exactly the same. I experi- enced the same smell in going through Charles Strect at twelve o’clock at night. I have recognized it numerous times in going over the bridge in the evening at any time. Also when going over West Boston Bridge I have there recognized it at night. The odor the evening Mr. Sharples, Mr.*Magoun, and myself went into Mr. Squire’s establishment was so excessively strong, and so positively the effect of putrid matter in the state of boiling or trying out, that Mr. Sharples and myself made it a point to search and learn whether they were blowing any of the tanks into the open water. There was some steam coming out of the side of the building through a small tube, but we had no means of reaching it with test-papers. Whether they were blowing off or not I cannot say. We both thought at the time that some blowing off must be done; if it had n’t, the tanks could not have been closed so tightly without any of these noxious fumes escaping. Q. Do you ever get the smell of hogs at your house? A. Very frequently. We get it especially in East Cambridge. You cannot leave East Cambridge by Cambridge Street without hearing the squealing of hogs being unloaded into Mr. Squire’s pens, and getting the pungent, noisome odor of the excrement of the hogs. They are plainly perceptible on Sunday. We have noticed them in the afternoon as well as in the morning. The whole neighborhood has heard them and smelled the odor. We have even heard them as far as my house, which is two thou- sand feet from the slaughtering-house. So much has been said that I must speak of some of the testimony that has been adduced. Mr. Sharples has spoken of the time when one evening the committee was assembled at Mr. Hastings’s house; the windows being open, we experi- enced a pretty strong smell coming into the room and filling it entirely. We immediately recognized the smell, and went into Mr. Squire’s estab- lishment. We came there, but were not so pleasantly received as in the day-time, when Mr. Squire is there himself. We went through the es- tablishment as far as we could im the dark. They were killing, I believe, and the fumes of the hogs when they were opened and the gases from the scalding-tank were escaping. We went also to a place in which the coil is kept, described by Mr. Sharples as being the apparatus by which the gases are condensed. We had been there on a former visit, and found one of the vats in a condition that we opened it and tried the effect of what escaped. This time we found them closed, and the superintendent, who was with us, did n’t allow us to open the pipe at that time. There was such an awful stench in the place that it made me so very sick that I had to leave in an instant. I could not stand there more than a min- ute at the longest. I then took my position in the middle of the yard, between the killing and the rendering rooms, and, there we perceived the same smell that we perceived at Mr. Hastings’s house. There was no dock smell at all that evening. As Mr. Sharples testified, the wind was against it ; that is the way we perceived the smell. We all spoke of it that evening. : Q. (by Mr. Derby). The wind was against you; in what way? was it moving from the factory? .A. The wind was with us, I should say ;_it was blowing toward the establishment. I have noticed we get the odors from the reudering establishment in the greatest degree when there is little air, — when it is hardly possible to say which way the wind is Bea” Liga. 3 122 blowing ftom. When the air is charged with moisture to a large degree so as to keep these gases, not allow them freely to separate, the odors are so strong that there is no oscape from them in any way what- ever. Even the closing of the windows will not prevent them from get- ting into the house. Q. (by the Commission). When you first left the house you say the wind was blowing in the direction from Mr. Hastings’s house to Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. Yes, sir. And Mr. Sharples testified that the gases would work against the wind, and they plainly did it that evening. Q. I would ask you whether you noticed that the outside of these open kettles were perfectly clean or not? .A. They were in the condition which such apparatus is naturally expected to be in. They were neither clean nor dirty. I could say, for the appearance of the whole establish- ment, that it is conducted in as good a manner as it is possible for such an establishment to be conducted. Q. Yes; but whether there was any grease on the outside of the ket- tlest? A. Yes, sir. And some of it had been burned. 'Q. Those kettles are not polished on the outside, I understand! They are of wrought-iron, I believe? .A. There is a certain degree of brightness around the edge of them, but I have not looked at the side of them. Q. Did you put your nose over the kettles at all? A. I did. Q. Well, what kind of an odor arose? A. The same odor that we re- ceived at the house, or in whatever position we may be when they are rendering. Q. Is that an agreeable odor? A. It is that of which we complain. It is noisome and disagreeable. Q. Do you know of any one else who is affected by these odors ? A. Ihave been told by Mr. Boardman — Mr. Derby. That is not, evidence. Q (by Mr. McIntire). From your own knowledge? A. I can only speak with reference to my own house. I can corroborate the testimony of Mr. Sharples and the general testimony given here. I should add, that for the last three years these smells have increased in volume and inten- sity, and also in frequency ; commensurate, I should say, with the pro- portions that the business has gradually assumed on the basin. For- merly, when the business was smaller, we did have these smells, but we had them less frequently, and less intense. Consequently, the people were more willing to put up with them. But since the business has as- sumed such vast proportions as it now has,—having doubled almost from year to year, —it is decidedly impossible for anybody to live there if he have habits of cleanliness, dress, and home. Not only that, but the people suffer physically from the effects of these gases and odors. To a larger extent they suffer also morally. I have been injured to a great extent by moving my family from there, which I was unable to do. I know there are many of my poor neighbors who cannot live here with- out being, in a moral point of view, greatly affected by dissatisfaction with their situation, because they are forced to stay in such a place under such circumstances. There is no family, I should say, that pre- tends to habits of cleanliness, that has not been more or less, in a physi- cal and moral point of view, affected by these awful odors. a 123 Q. (by Mr. Newhall). Within what radius, to your knowledge? A. There is not a family of my acquaintance in the whole place who don’t substantially express the same opinion which I now express. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). What was the date of your visit in the neighbor- hood‘of Dartmouth Street? A. It was in the latter part of June, sir. I cannot fix the date, but I should add, that the Friday afterwards we noticed exactly the same smell at home. Q. Now you are quite certain that it was the same smell? A. Iam .positively sure about it. Q. That was the opinion of your wife, also? A. Yes, sir; of my wife, sister, and brother-in-law, that were there. Q. At whose house was this? 4. At the house of my brother-in-law, Mr. Gustavus A. Jasper. Q. On which corner was this house? A. On the left corner, near Boylston Street ; the last house. Q. You say you noticed the same odor on Charles Street, Boston ? A. Yes, sir. Q@. When? A. IfI am not mistaken, it was that very 31st of July that has been so much complained of. I have noticed it on Charles Street very frequently. Q. You recognized it as the smell you have described as coming from Mr. Squire’s? A. Yes, sir, positively. It was only less in degree. Q. Well, it was not so intense at the house in the neighborhood of Dartmouth Street after you had closed the windows? .A. It was so se- vere that it was disagreeable after that. Q. How did it compare in intensity with what you experienced at your own house? .A. Well, you can hardly compute that by considering the distance from my own house to Mr. Squire’s establishment. If you will furnish me with the language I will give you the degree. Q. Was it as bad on Newbury Street as at your house? A. No, sir; decidedly not. Q. Was it half as bad? A. What is half with regard toa smell? I could not tell. It was so bad that we thought best to close the windows. Q. How long did it continue? A. We closed the windows. : Q. When you left the house you found it outside? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far along did you smell it? Until you got home?~ You started from a house that is nearly out to Boylston Street; was the wind in your face or against you that night? A. The wind was against us. Q. As you were going home the wind was blowing in your face? A. I didn’t perceive it exactly, because we were seated in the carriage. Q. It was like the other occasion when you went to Mr. Hastings’s house? A. No, sir. The wind was not against us at that time. Q. At what time? A. This time the wind was blowing towards me. I noticed the wind come in my face, but I did not know the direction. Q. Can you give the date any more ,correctly? -A. I can only tell you that it was the latter part of June, and on the Friday succeeding we had again the same smell at my house. Q. Did you fix it by any written invitation which you preserved? A, No, sir. I don’t think I received a written invitation from my sister at that time. 124 - Q. Can you give any other date? A. I think the Charlestown Street odor was on the 31st of July. Q. Any other date? .A. No, sir; because it was so frequent that we became so familiar with it that we did n’t put down the dates. Q. Well, do you agree with Mr. Sharples that the smell was worse at Mr. Hastings’s house than at the establishment? A. Undoubtedly I do. Q. You say you are annoyed by the smell from the hogs at'your house? A. Not so often. Very seldom. Q. At the time of the hearing at Cambridge, you did n’t say you were annoyed with the smell of the hogs while alive? .A. No, sir; nor do I now. But I have said that you cannot leave Cambridge by Cambridge Street without hearing the noise and smelling the stink. Q. But at your house you are not annoyed? A. I cannot say that I am. My family is. I am sometimes suffering with catarrh, and do not notice it. Adjourned to Friday, December 5. FIFTH DAY. Friday Morning, December 5. Mr. Derby. We desire to renew our protest before proceeding. The Chairman. We understand that that applies to every day and to all days. TESTIMONY OF Witi1am G. Russet. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Where do you reside? A. At 18 West Cedar Street, corner of Mt. Vernon. Q. What is your occupation? .4. Iam a lawyer. Q. At your house in West Cedar Street, do you ever distinguish any odors when the wind is blowing in a northwesterly direction? .4. When the wind is in a northwesterly direction, following the line of Charles Street or West Cedar Street, a little more to the west, we have at times experienced a peculiar odor. Q.° During the past season? A. I should say more especially sum- mer before last, but at several times during the past summer. I have left town each year about the 1st of July. Q. Can you describe this odor? A. My chief annoyance has been during the months of May and June, because I have not been there dur- ing the months of July, August, and September. : Q. Can you describe that odor, Mr. Russell? .A. It is an odor which has been perceptible in the evening or during the night, and has been noticed by me only at intervals; sometimes, perhaps, for two or three evenings, and then, perhaps, I would not notice it again for a week or ten days. But when the wind was north this odor would come during the evening or during the night. Q. Describe it. A. The odor is a close, steamy, greasy odor. Q. Is it anything like the trying of fat, or the rendering of oil? A. I have never smelled the rendering of oil. I should say there was a de- 125 cidedly fatty, greasy, oily element in jt. It gave me the impression of a close, smothered smell. Q. How did it affect you? A. I would say that it was distinct from the smell we are more frequently favored with, coming from the flats of Charles River with a westerly wind when the tide is low. That is one that I think the residents of that section are very familiar with. This was an entirely distinct odor from that ; so that, waking up in the night, I could tell whether the wind was north or west by the “kind of odor that prevailed as well as by looking at the vane. Q. Did that smell affect you? A. I cannot say that any member of my family was made sick by it. Q. You never traced it? .A. No, sir. ae Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Have you perceived this smell excepting with a northerly wind? A. No, sir. I have frequently looked to see that the wind was north when I experienced it. Q. You say it was less frequent last summer than before? A. Yes, sir. Q. When first did you notice this odor? A. I should say summer before last, — we had it before that and noticed it less; we were not so well informed as to the source of it. Q. You leave the city in July? A. Yes, sir, always. Q. When do you return? A. The first of October. I don’t sleep in the city more than three times during that time. Q. Have you noticed that odor since your return the present autumn, sir? A. No, sir, I have not. Q. How do you determine that it is only experienced on a north wind? A. I never go through the day without looking to see which way the wind is half a dozen times. Q. Is there a weathercock near your residence? .A. Charles Street Church has a vane upon it, and I notice that. Testimony oF Mr. JosepH Macovun. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You are a resident of East Cambridge? How long have you lived there? A. Forty-one years. Q. What is your occupation? A. I ama machinist by trade. I was formerly master-machinist at the New England Glass Works. Q. Now you are not employed? A. No, sir. Q. You are a member of the committee? A. Yes, sir. A, Will you please tell us, without going over the testimony sig has been given before, if you can corroborate it? -4. I would like to com- mence with my entrance at the Glass Works, and give you a history of what I know of Miller’s River, and what I know about it at the present time. Q. How long since you went into the Glass Works? A. Forty years. Mr. Muzzey asked some questions about the drainage of that basin, which I would like to say something about. At the time when IJ went to the Glass Works, forty years ago, the New England Crown Glass Works were in operation at what is now a part of Blanchard’s Wharf. There was a sewer emptying into that dock at East Street. -There were two blocks, 126 one known as the “ Glass House Blgck” and the other belonged to the New England Flint Glass Company. : Q. That sewer was there when you first went there? A. Yes, sir. At that time the sewerage was taken care of in the same way as it is now taken care of in many similar districts. Pretty much all‘the filth was thrown into the gutters. There was a large grate which took most of the sewage from these buildings and ran it into the dock there. Our vessels laid in there to discharge, and I was frequently brought in contact with this sewer. It was a common sewer ; there was nothing very objectionable about it, and it is about the same to-day. That is all I know about the sewage going into that part of the dock. There was a dock smell there. While living in that connection with the Glass House, I have always been of the opinion to keep the atmosphere as pure as God has given, and therefore, ten years ago, I advocated the building of the tall chimney. The Chairman. Will you please speak only with reference to the sub- ject before us ? Q. Well, beginning at that time, what was the state of the dock? A. It was a common salt dock, not differing from any other. Q. No filth went into it? A. No, sir. There was a little from Mr. Winchester’s. Q. (by a member of the Board). We understand that. From time to time there have been systems by which the drainage of this establishment has gone into this dock, and from time to time it has become more or less corrupt. Now, if you will come down to a comparatively recent period, and state to us, so far as you can, with fair brevity, what the effect of this establishment, particularly, has been upon the dock and upon the atmosphere, I think we shall get to a proper understanding. A. Well, my testimony will be something like this. Q. You agree with the members of the committee on what has been putin? A. Yes, sir, I do, with what they said generally. Mr. Newhall. We don’t expect you to follow the chemists in their testimony. . Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I will ask you within what period has this basin of Mr. Squire’s become foul? 4. I should think somewhere about seven- teen or eighteen years since it became so foul that people did not care to bathe in it. : Q. Are you certain in regard to that? A. I should think it was about that time that it became so contaminated that people did not care to go in and bathe. It was n’t as it is now. Q. What do you think contaminated it then? A. There was a portion of this filth going in there from the time they commenced these works and the drainage increased. Q. Suppose Mr. Squire did not start fifteen years ago? A. I don’t mean to go beyond his concern. I did not wish to put it beyond the time when he commenced business there. Then there was a guleh that passed in by the Grand Junction Railroad. That was rather a filthy place, and always has been. Q. Will you please tell us what you know, that the other members of the committee did not testify to? .A. I have been familiar with the stream clear up to the bleachery. There were originally trout in the stream, between that old farm-house and where the tube-works are. I could n’t tell at what time, but it was soon after the bleachery was started COMARE ewe ry MAY 51 hod: PAW Lissanc: that there was a time when a black substance came into that brook, and destroyed all the fish. Q. (by Mr. Derby). That came from above, that black stuff that killed the fish? A. Yes, sir. Q. I presume it was the tannery? A. Yes, sir. Q. You live on Otis Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far from Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. Eighteen hundred or nineteen hundred feet. Q. You distinguished these different odors? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you ever get them at your house? A. I do, frequently. Q. Which one? The rendering smell, or what has been termed the dock smell? .A. I don’t consider it a proper dock smell. It is a com- bination of smells —I don’t think any chemist could tell what it is— and the hog smell. I wish to distinguish the dock smell from the com- mon salt-marsh dock smell. Q. Do any of these smells affect you, or any member of your family ? A. My folks have been woke up frequently. Q. By which of these smells? A. That is a pretty hard question to answer. I should think by a combination of the whole. Q. Could you never distinguish? 4. Yes; but it comes so strong that there is a little of everything. I should judge that it was the hog, rendering, and dock smells, all combined. Q. How did it affect you? dA. It caused me to have a headache on the 31st of July, when we were at Mr. Squire’s establishment to see the experiment of the closed tanks: -I went from his works at eleven o’clock. I did not sleep a great deal. The house was full of something. Q. Were you there with the Aldermen? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see the method of doing away with these gases with the close tanks? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are a practical machinist, are you? What do you think of the apparatus? A. I think it is not as good as the apparatus he previously used. Q. How is that? A. If I understand right, he had close tanks that were only blown off when he had cooked his batch. Mr. Derby. The distinction is between its being blown off occasionally or all at once ? Mr, McIntire. His former apparatus was a pipe carried into the water, and then it was blown off into the water. He had a tank underneath the water, which received it when it was not high tide. (Zo witness.) Do you think that was better? A. I think it was better to throw it all off at once. Q. Did you watch-the operation? A. Yes. I had the description of the machine by Mr. Kendall. Q. Did you notice how it worked? Whether there was any escape of gas that night? A. It smelled very strong there. It was probably on account of constantly turning the valve in the conducting-pipe. Q. You don’t think, then, that it was with the apparatus simply? You think that it was on account of turning the gas on?’ A. The jet was about an inch in diameter by fourteen inches high. Mr. Turner, the in- ventor of the apparatus, was there. Q. Do you know where this pipe led to that night, that carried off the condensed steam? A. It went under the fire, I understood. I did not go in to see. ¥ 127 128 Q. You did n’t get any of that condensed water? A. I had no reason at all. The smell was what every one present must have smelled. Not understanding the thing, it was not properly managed. Of course it was new, and if Mr. Turner did not have the management of it, it would not work, There was gas enough to burn. There was some disarrangement about it. It did not work for some spell. Q. Did they tell you what the tanks contained that night? A. I don’t know that they did. ' Q. Have you ever traced any of these several smells to Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. Yes, sir. Q. When? A. I could n’t tell the day. Q. Was it last summer? A. I think it was in June. Q. Describe how you came to do it. A. I was at Mr.’Hastings’s house, and Mr. Slocumb, Mr. Hastings, and myself, having noticed the odor, fol- lowed it to the street, and went down Gore Street, and as we went down Gore Street we got out of the smell. Going from Mr. Hastings’s house, we went down into Gore Street. We passed up Fourth Street until we came to Ellis’s manufactory, and we began to smell it a little stronger before we got there. Q. How far was that? A. Three or four hundred feet. We passed along up by Widow Searle’s place, and it smelled very strongly there. At the corner of Gore and Sixth Streets, as we came in sight of the ventila- tors of the building, the steam'was coming out of the building. It came out near the office, a strong rendering smell. It appeared to be rancid ; but I could not say that, it would not be proper. The fat that comes from the inwards has a smell that I don’t think anybody could detect from rancid fat, so to speak. It has a disagreeable smell. Which it was I cannot say. Q. Did you goin? A. I believe I did. Q. Did you smell anything inside? A. Well, we smelled what we nat- urally smell in hot water at that time. I asked some questions, and the Mayor, and they answered me. Q. Have you ever been into those pens? A. Yes, sir, on the 31st. Mr. Squire invited me to see them after the other gentlemen had gone out. I don’t know that anybody else was invited to stop. Mr. Sawin, I believe, was invited at the same time. I went into the pens, and some one there had scattered charcoal on the moist portions of the pens, where there was any objectionable smell. There were very few hogs there. He told me how long it would take to kill them off. Q. Did you distinguish any scent? A. I did n’t distinguish but very little. I had been there previously, and on one occasion I had smelt the chloride of lime. Q. I am speaking of the live-hog smell. Was that very strong on the night of the 31st of July? The smell came up after you left? A. I can- not say. We left Squire’s at ten o'clock. Speaking of these hogs and pens, I did not smell anything very strongly until I got down where the hogs were, and then I smelt the ammonia so strong that the water ran down my cheeks, and I stopped and went back. Mir. Sawin and Mr. Squire went on. I hardly needed to get it, but I got it. There was a small quantity of hogs in. I think he said it would take until next day at eleven o’clock for them to get through with what there were. They were in a pen not larger than this room. They were packed in close. 129 Q. Did you ever witness the unloading of the cars? A. Yes, sir; but I have never taken particular notice. Q. How near have you been to an unloading train? A. I have been right past them. Q. Have you noticed any smell arising at the time of unloading hogs? A. You cannot go by without smelling it. é Q. How far can you smell it?’ A. I have smelt it as far as Charles- town. Q. When? A. The first Sunday in November of this year. I could n’t swear that it was from Mr. Squire’s establishment. I smelt it stronger than ever at my house. Q. You were at Monument Square, the wind was in the direction of Mr. Squire’s, and you smelled the live hog? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where in Monument Square were you? A. In the Methodist Church, at the southwest corner of Monument Square. Q. How long did you smell it? 4. As long as I was there, About an hour. ; Q. (by a member of the Board). At what time in the day? A. In the evening. Q. Were the windows down? A. No, sir. Q. Did you smell it after you went out? ‘A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby). You got the smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you sure you distinguished it from the rendering or dock smell? .A. O yes, decidedly. _Q. You distinguished it at that time as that smell, and no other? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were the windows in the church closed? A. I think they were. If there had been twenty hogs in the church it would not have been any stronger. Q. And you noticed it after you went out? A. Yes, sir, until after I passed Prison Point Bridge, or in that direction. Q. (by a member of the Board). What distance is it in an air-line from Monument Square to Mr. Squire’s? A. Sixteen hundred feet. Mr. McIntire. I think it is more than that ; six thousand feet. Q. Have you ever been to that church before or since? A. No, sir, not lately. I have been there before, of course. Q. Did you ever smell that smell there before? @Q. No, sir, I did n't. I was very much astonished that I could smell it. I would like to say that near the Elevator, at this end of Columbus Avenue, I was over to Mr. Pentecost’s church, one day, and I smelled the rendering smell. The church is at this end of Columbus Avenue, near the Boston and Albany Grain Elevator. Q. (by a member of thé Board). What direction of the wind was needed to bring the smell from Mr. Squire’s works? .A. North or northwest. Q. When was that? A. It might have been some time in October. Q. Of this year? A. Yes, sir. I couldn't say that it came from Mr. Squire’s on that night. Q. Did it smell very bad there? -A. I smelled the rendering smell very distinctly. It was quite different from the smell I smelled at Monu- ment Square. Q. (by Mr. Derby). What is the distance from that point to Mr. Squire’s? A. I should think it was about a mile and a quarter. 9 1380 Mr. Derby. From the corner of the bridge to the Albany Elevator is over a mile. The measure upon the scale is twenty-seven inches. That would make it in the neighborhood of two miles. Q. (by a member of the Board). How large a population should you estimate would be included within such a radius, who would be affected by this rendering smell? -A. I don’t know why we have n't reason to believe that it would extend farther than that by the smell I smelled at Monument Square. That probably goes as it comes from the hog-pen. The wind takes it and carries it in a current, right along like a flying balloon. Q. Has your experience shown you that this smell goes farther over water than it does over land? A. I don’t know. Q. Did you trace this smell to East Cambridge? .4. No more than I could trace anything to a certain place. Q. Did you smell it on your way home? Did you trace it or follow it? A. I didn’t any more than that I inhaled it. Q. Are you sure the wind was in that direction? A. Yes, sir. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Have n’t you smelled disagreeable odors from the vicinity of Broad Canal and other parts of Cambridge? -4. When I have been there I have smelled them, but I haven’t been there to examine them. Q. Is this smell of drains that you smell over there quite strong and offensive? A. Yes, sir. Q. Sufficient to trouble the people in the vicinity? A. Yes, sir. I should say more and more so for quite a number of years. Q. You have reported to the Board upon that? .4. I have not been employed as I formerly was for five years; and after I retired I liked to walk around and see, if there was any objection made, what it was about. Q. Well, you heard frequent complaints of Broad Canal? A. Yes, sir. Q. With regard to Miller’s River. You spoke of the uppér part of the river. It originates some distance above Mr. Squire’s? A. Yes, sir, about two miles. I think there was a branch of about two miles through Cambridge and Somerville. At that time it was nice spring water. Just above the bleachery, on the side next the Colleges, there is a swampy place where there is a great deal of pure spring-water. ’ Q. Was that spring-water an inducement for the bleachery? A. I think it was. . Q. Has there not been a large amount of sewage turned into the stream in that vicinity? Has it not done the draining for that section of the country? A. I suppose that the natural drainage that would come down that way would be considerable. I know that there has been a great effort to get the drainage out of Miller's River. One man told me he had spent $140,000 to get it out into the Oxford Street sewer. Q. How recently? -A. Within three or four years. Q. It was flowing down in a black stream last year, was it not? A. It has been a black stream for quite a number of years. Q. How-far up was it black? A. I think the blackness came from a small tannery above the bleachery. Q. Where is that tannery? Is it there now? A. I think it is. Q. Well then, when the stream comes down near the Fitchburg Road, 131 and comes into the basin twenty or thirty feet, it comes down a very black and turbid stream, does it not? A. Very black. Q. Ever since that road was built? .4. When the Fresh Pond Road was built. That little bridge is, I think, just exactly where it was in the original survey of the Fresh Pond branch. The other portion of the road has been altered. Q. The Fresh Pond Road was built in 1840, ’41, and 49, I went out to England to buy the iron for the Fitchburg Company. Somewhere about 1842 this bridge was built, and ever since this bridge was built there has been this black turbid stream coming down here? A. Yes, sir. It was so black that it would blacken the borders of the stream as it came down, but I never smelled any particular smell from it. I have been up the stream, and I have never smelt anything. Q. Where is that bridge? A. Right there by the Glass Works. Q. What is it for? A. It is the old Fresh Pond branch. It is just where the river comes into the upper basin, and the water from above runs through that sluiceway. Some efforts have been made to divert the drainage from that river and carry it elsewhere, by the Oxford Street sewer. There is not that harmony between the city governments of Som- erville and Cambridge that might be desiréd. One man told me that they had spent $140,000. Mr. Muzzey. Some three years ago the drainage was diverted from Miller’s River into Charles River. And the Oxford Street sewer is a sewer that crosses the College yard; it runs then through Kirkland Street until it comes to Oxford Street, and then it takes its course up Oxford Street to North Cambridge. The outlet of the sewer was for- merly into Miller’s River ; but Somerville objected to its being brought there, so it was turned in the opposite direction and carried into hanes River. : Mr. Magoun. The portion that comes from the tanneries has not been turned across. Q. Then the foul water that comes from the tannery, the bleachery, and the houses in Somerville on the east side, still continues to flow down? A. I don’t know anything to the contrary. Q. It still comes in with a black turbid stream? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whereabouts does Mr. Sortwell’s drain come into the basin? A, It is just this side of Lincoln & Chamberlain’s packing-house. Q. It goes into what is called “‘Boynton’s Basin”? A. That runs about an inch and a quarter stream. Q. Do you know what it contains? A. No, sir. It looks like mo- lasses and water, with a sort of yeast. I understand that it is the residue of the still. Q. He distils rum, and this is the residuum of the molasses? A. I “presume so. It looks red like blood as it flows out. Q. Does it carry with it any froth? ‘A. I never saw any. Q. Into the other basins above Mr. Squire’s, are there any other drains coming in, to your knowledge? .4. I presume that there are others, but I have not particularly examined them. Q. Now,. with regard to the occasion when you went to the factory 132 and perceived some smell there. Do I understand you that this, was on the 31st of July? A. Yes, sir. Q. At that time you perceived it as much as at any other time? A, I should think so. The smell on that night was uncommonly strong. Q. You walked down to the vicinity of the basin, and then went to Mr. Squire’s. You found some of it near the bridge, or first, I under- stand you that it diminished? Was n’t that it? A. I cannot say. I went in, and met Mr. Merriam, and he said: “Mr. Squire made a mis- take in inviting these gentlemen here to-night, with such a horrible smell.” That was inside the works. Mr. Merriam was formerly his foreman. Q. What night was this? .4. That of the 31st of July. Q. Didn’t you observe that as you approached the works you did not smell the odor? A. I did n’t notice anything particularly. Q. Was not that machine, that night, out of order, sir? Was not there something the matter with the pipe that carried the gas to the furnace? A. I understood it was. The parties were invited to come down and look at it, and it got out of order and would not work. They tried various experiments, turning the faucets to let on the gas. Q. Did n’t you ascribe the smells, that night, to these experiments ? A. Yes, sir. Nothing else. That was distinct above everything else. The open tanks we could n’t smell to a great extent. He had invited the Aldermen to come down there. The pipe was out of order, and they tried to fix it. Mr. Merriam said that he was surprised that he had given out his invitation at such a time. The former Mayor of Cambridge said that the machine would not work. He saidthat there was some- thing out of order. I was always familiar with Mr. Kendall. He spoke about this tank while it was building, and said that, when it was ready, he wanted me to come over and see the operation of it. Q. When you parted, was it not understood that you were to come again, when the machine was in order, and see it work? A. I don’t know of any such understanding. He has frequently invited me to come there. Q. It was well understood that the machine was not in order for the exhibition? A. Yes, sir. ' Q. Do you know whether it has worked well since? .4. I presume it has worked well. I understand he has carried a pipe into tide-water that gets rid of the water; and with regard to the gas being carried into the furnace, of course that works decently well. Mr. McIntire. Jt seems to me that he is testifying to something that he does n’t know anything about. Mr. Magoun. Mr. Kendall told me all about it. I am perfectly satis- fied that if it were’ made perfect, so that there would be no leakage, it would probably work very well. Q. Well, you speak of having seen a ventilator 6n some occasion. Was that on the 31st of July? A. No, sir. That was at the time that we traced the smell directly to the ventilators of the factory. We passed the factory, and smelled nothing, and when we got as far as where the stream crosses Gore Street, where we were in Somerville, I told some of them that I did not want to go any farther. That was about the end of that visit. Q. Well, with regard to the vapor, how far did you perceive it then? A, We did n’t smell anything against North & Merriam’s factory. But 123 \ we smelled the dock and this combination smell coming from the dock. It was warm weather. Q. Now, with regard to any smell ‘from the vapor. How much smell do you remember from the vapor? A. This vapor was a rendering smell. It was like the rendering of hog fat. : Q. How did it compare with the dock smell? A. This dock smell is a’ combination of everything. . Q. Well, in regard to the strength or pungency, how does one compare with the other? I speak of that evening. A. It smelled disagreeably, just as it would if you came into the vicinity of it anywhere. Q. I asked’ how this which came from the vapor compared with that. Which was the stronger? .A. It was an entirely different smell. Q. Which was the most pungent and the most disagreeable, the ren- dering smell? Which was the strongest, the most disagreeable? A. I should think that the rendering smell was the most disagreeable to me. Q. That was the smell of rendering that you found inside? A. You cannot get it so strong inside as out. I don’t know how it is, but it seems to become concentrated after it leaves the factory. Q. I want to ask about the smell of that odor that you perceived, how it compared with the smell of that dock. Was this rendering smell like that I perceive if I go into this establishment? Was there something much stronger than that? .4. As you pass into the establishment you smell this smell, but not so strong as you do outside. Q. Then you say, sir, that the smell from the vapor was to you more disagreeable than the other smell. Should you say it was as strong and acrid as the other? A. Either of them was strong enough for my satis- faction. . @. Can you describe which is the most so? 4. I have described it as far as I can. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Tt was not so pungent or so acrid? A. Probably different people — d ; Q. (by a member of the Board). The smell of ammonia is pungent ; the smell of assafcetida is nauseating. If I understand Mr. Muzzey, he wants to get at you in that respect. Which of the two is the more pungent, and which of the two is the more nausgating? What effect would it have: upon you? A, It depends upon the constitution of the individual how he receives it. Some organizations are more sensitive to these odors than others. So far as I am concertied, the rendering of fat and rancid fat is very disagreeable. So is that combination dock smell. I would n’t like to state which I would rather have, were I obliged to have either. Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). You fix one time when you perceived these smells as in July, and the other in June. Can you fix the date of the time in June? A. About the middle of June, I should think, but I cannot fix the date. : Q. At what hour in the day or evening was it? A. I should think about nine or ten o’clock in the evening. Q. Was it on Sunday? A. No, sir. Q. Can you fix the day of the week? A. I could not. Q. What day of the week was it that you were near the Boston and Albany Elevator? A. It was either Saturday or Sunday, that was, but 184 . T could n’t say which. I had been to meeting at Mr. Peritecost’s church. I had frequently been there on Saturdays and Sundays. Q. What was the month? A. I think it was in September. Q. At what hour? Whether it was before or after the evening ser- vice? A. If it was Saturday, it was evening; and. if it was Sunday, it was in the middle of the day. Q. You have visited the State Abattoir at Brighton? -A. Yes, sir. * Q. How does it compare with the establishment of Mr. Squire ? _A, I don’t know as I could give it unless I am obliged to answer ques- tions about the Abattoir, because it was not under consideration. One is neat-cattle and the other is hogs; and every one knows that there is a wide difference in the slaughtering of the two. I consider Mr. Squire’s establishment to be carried on as neatly as it. can be, with all the appli- ances, that he has now, for the getting rid of the smells without ex- treme expense. Q. Does it compare favorably with the Abattoir, sir, with regard to drainage? A, I don’t know about the drainage being put through, so I don’t know. I have been at the Abattoir, and have been shown through it. Q. The systems are a little different in the two, sir? .4. If you were to confine me to my opinion as to the different apparatus I have seen for the consuming of offal, I should pronounce Mr. Boynton’s the best apparatus I have seen yet. I have seen Mr. North’s, and that at the Abattoir. The Chairman. What advantage is it to the Board to make this com- parison ? Mr. Muzzey. The idea was to show that we had introduced all the appliances of modern art, and rivalled successfully the State Abattoir. The Chairman. It seems to me that that is of no sort of importance. Testimony oF James Luz, Jr. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Are you proprietor of the Middlesex Bleachery in Somerville? A. Yes, sir, I am. Q. Will you please state what, you run off from your bleachery, if anything, into the basin or into Miller's River? A. Yes, sir. We run all our goods through lime-water. That is run off when the goods are: washed. Then the goods are boiled in soda-ash water. When they are washed that is run off. Then they are run through a weak sizing, very weak sulphuric acid, no stronger than one could drink. When the goods: are washed that is run off. Then they are also run through a weak solu- tion of chloride of lime: The goods as they pass from this are squeezed, and lay in this solution for some hours. When they are washed that is run off with the water. Some of the goods sometimes go through an- other process of chloride of lime; and another process of acid, just as weak, and every time they are thus treated they are washed. They are finally washed clear. Goods that are bleached white are washed clear with clear water. During the day, when we are working, there are four hundred or five hundred thousand gallons run off, that carry away all of this weak solution. 135 Q. Daily? A, Yes, sir. Q. Then you mean to say that all that you run off is merely the rins- ings or washings of the goods that are put into these different substances? A. Yes, sir. Q. Lime-water, soda-ash water, weak sulphuric acid, and chloride of lime. Dg you mean to say that this acid is weak enough to drink when you use it, or after it is diluted? .4. When we use it with the goods it would not hurt any one to drink it. There is hardly two per cent of strength. Q. Have you any idea of how much solid matter you run off there in a day or week ; that is, the lime, the soda, and ash? A. We use, prob- ably, not exceeding six hundred pounds of lime, four hundred pounds of soda-ash, and ninety pounds of bleaching-powders or chloride of lime. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How much sulphur is used, sir? A. We use the simple acid. Q. The influence of that lime as to any solid part that goes down? A. It is all afterward emptied out. It becomes solid. The lime is dis- solved, and that has to be carted away on the land. The same is true of the soda-ash ; whatever there is of residuum is carted away. These things all dissolve. What runs away is a very thin liquid. You can ‘hardly distinguish anything in it at all. : Q. (by Mr. Newhall). How much is the residuum of six hundred pounds of lime? A. It is always carted away. Q. Well, what weight is carried away in solution? A. I am not pre- pared to say. There is always something left. Q. Was there a quarter part left? A. I could n’t say. Q. Do you use any manganese? A. No, sir. Q. That is all that you put into the stream? A. Yes, sir. There may be a little colored matter from the dye-house, perhaps, in the way of logwood-liquor. All that would run through our drains would be liq- uid, nothing solid. Q. (by Mr. Webster). Is the water polluted that comes down to you? ‘A. No, sir. I should n’t think it was. It passes through my yard. Q. Do you use it? A. No, sir. We used to, but it has gradually dried up. Q. 2 there any tan-yard above you? A. It is hardly a tan-yard. It is one of those skin-yards, where they tan skins. They are morocco dressers. It passes just into my yard, and is almost dry as it comes to me. Q. Do you use that stream for your bleaching water 1 A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you get that? A. I have a reservoir up ‘in Cambridge near Sacramento Street, and then we have also water in the yard, and we use some Mystic water. I suppose that the stream I own in Cambridge is the head-waters of Miller’s River. There used to be a large spring there. : Q. (by McIntire). You say that you do not use this water that runs in the brook. If there were quantity sufficient to use, it would be fit to use? A. No, sir, we would not use it. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Why not? A. It is not clean. It is not dirty water, though it is not clean enough for the use of the establishment. We cannot use water unless it is perfectly settled. 136 Q. Has it become more impure year by year, since you were estab- lished there? A. No, sir; I cannot see any difference. Q. How far above the basin are you situated? A. I think very nearly a mile. Q. Take the upper, or Boynton Basin? .A. Probably three are of a mile or a mile. Q. You are a mile above the head of the basin. Now at you describe the processes that are carried on in your establishment? 4. I have described the bleaching process. Q. What else do you do? You have a dye-house and bleachery? Do you do anything besides? Do you print? A. Yes, sir. @. Anything else? No, sir. Q. What quantity in all of the solution is run off ina day? 4. We run off nothing at all. We could n’t afford to. Q. What do you call water? A. I have said that we ran off at the rate of about five hundred thousand gallons of water a day. Q. You mean that you contribute to Miller’s River not less than five hundred thousand gallons a day of all these solutions. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, what amount of sulphuric acid is used in your works in the course of a year? A. About three carboys a day. Q. Do you use iron liquors? A. We use a little iron liquor. Q. You use it in connection with the logwood to make a color for the goods? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much of that do you use ina day? A. Very little. * Q. How much logwood? A. The logwood is macerated. We use the liquor and carry away the woody material. Q. Well, how much of the logwood liquor and the iron liquor do you mingle in a day and discharge into the stream? A. I hope not a great deal. Of course we have to use it, but we could n’t afford to lose any. Q. What quantity? A. I have never estimated. Q. How much do you use of logwood? A. A great many tons a year. Probably a hundred tons. Q. How much of the iron liquor? A. Probably fifty hogsheads a ear. : Q. Does n’t all the logwood fibre go into the stream? A. No, sir. What is done with it? 4. We get the liquor out and then clean the casks and carry it away. No solids go into the stream at all. Q. Well, how do you account for the black color of the water, and of the mud along the shores? A. A very little of something like logwood would color the banks and the water. : Mr. Derby. That is given you by the action of the iron and the log- wood you use. Q. (by a member of the Board). Does the logwood make the stream smell badly? A. No, sir. Q. Do any of the materials? A. No, sir. On the contrary, it would rather cleanse it. TESTIMONY OF Mrs. Lyp1a T. Rooney. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You reside at East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you lived there? -A. Twenty years. Q. You own some houses there? A. I own some and have owned more. 187 Q. Have you perceived whether they have been affected by any ofthe odors? What street do you live on? A. I live on Thorndike Street, between Fourth and Fifth. : Q. What smells have you distinguished there during the past season? . A. I think there are three or four distinct smells. Q. Please state, if you can, those odors. .A. At times there is a rendering smell, at times very offensive. The smell that comes to us about four o’clock in the morning, when the wind is northwest, is very offensive. Q. Which of these smells that you distinguish as hog, dock, and ren- dering smells would you classify that way? A. I know it is not the dock or live-hog smell. I think it is something that is cooked. Q. How does that affect you? With nausea? .A. I have been some- times affected so that I was not able to do anything. Q. By being disturbed in the morning by these smells? A. Yes, sir, at one time. On the night of the 31st of July. The northwest side of my house was turned dark purple. Whatever the substance was, it ran down on to the blind and dripped on to the window-sill. Q. What was its previous color? A. Drab. It had never been dis- colored before, nor has it been since. Q. Did it make any one else sick in your house? A. It affected my daughter's throat. It made her cough. Q. You say that this has caused nausea with you at other times? A, Yes, sir. : Q. During the past season? .A. Last year, more especially than be- fore. The smell has increased every year worse than ever. This last year the smell was worse than ever before. Q@. You say you got the smell of the live hogs? A. Yes, sir; and the squealing of the live hogs. ‘ Q. How often do you get that smell? A. As often as the wind is northwest. Q. (by Dr. Derby). You say that the most offensive smell comes to you about four in the morning? A. Yes, it is the trying smell. Q. Up to what time have you noticed them? A. I haven’t smelled them since the winter commenced as I did during the summer. Perhaps I have n’t smelled them since the middle of November. I could n’t give you any particular time. Q. Did you perceive it during the month of November? A. I could n't say. In passing the establishment of Mr. Squire last Sunday, as I reached the establishment I met the smell of the scalding hog. Near the large chimney was the ventilator, and from that I perceived the smell of.rendering. As I reached the railroad-crossing I was obliged to wait for a passing train for some minutes, and the smell of live hog was per- fectly suffocating. This was last Sunday. I haven’t felt like myself since I stood waiting for that train to pass. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Did you see the hogs on that occasion? A. I did n’t ; there were none visible in the open air. Q. Did you ever pass by the rendering establishments where they make soap and boil grease? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Have you been near enough to them to inhale the smell at all? A, I don’t think I have. i 138 Q. You don’t know the effects they produce? -.4. Ido not. I don’t think J was ever near a soap factory. Q. Nor any of the places where they try out grease? .A. No nearer than to Mr. Squire’s building: Q. But you have n’t been near the other buildings.. You were on the other side of the street? A. Yes, sir; I have passed the buildings on both sides of the street. Q. But never have been out, when the smell from the trying of grease was offensive? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the time you have most perceived this smell? .A. Well, at four o’clock in the morning. Q. How many times during the past summer, about four o’clock in the morning, have you perceived it? A. I could n’t say. Q. Could you say whether two, four, orsix.times:? A. I should think it would be nearer sixty. Q. Does it wake you up? .A. It wakes me up, so that I have been ~ obliged to call the doctor. Q. Well, the sixty times during the summer it did not always depend upon the wind? A. I didn’t say sixty. I said nearer sixty than six. I never smell it unless the wind is northwest. Q. Have you any means at all of determining which way the wind blows, except by its blowing in at the window? 4A. My house is located north and south. We have a vane at the end of the house. I judge of the wind from the window it comes-in at. My chamber is in the north- west corner of my house. Q. In any one of these cases did you get up to see a weathercock ? You mean that that guided you in the day and not in the night? A. I know by the odor coming in at the northwest window. Q. You would be unable to distinguish from which of the establish- ments it came, whether from Boynton’s, Squire’s, or the rendering-house opposite? A. No, sir. Q. You have smelled very offensive smells from the basin? -A. Sometimes very offensive. Q. Haven't they sometimes affected your house? .4. My house has never been affected but one night. That was the 3lst of July. That was the night when the vapors gave my house a purplish appearance. Q. Was that the only time, or have you ever before had any purple appearance given to your house? A. That is the only time. Q. Did you notice it that night or next morning? A. Next morning. Q. You have been uncomfortable? You have been obliged to send for ‘your physician, I understand? Have you ever vomited in consequence of .it% A. Only once. Q. When was that? A. The morning after the 31st of July. Trstimony oF Mrs. Jane Binney. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You live in East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir, at 152 Otis Street, between. Fourth and Fifth Streets. Mr. McIntire. About twelve hundred feet from Mr. Squire’s. Q. Have you been affected by any. odors at your house during the past year? A. Very much indeed. Q. Please describe them. .A, They have been very offensive. The . 139 rendering of lard was one. It occurred about four in the morning, and seemed very offensive. Q. Any other odors did you get? A. Yes, sir; but not so much. Q. What others? .A. I think they came from the factory. Q. Can you describe them? .A. Nothing very different from the ren- dering smell. Q. How often during the past season have you been affected by them? A. A great many times in the hottest weather, so that I have been obliged to close the windows. Q. How have these odors affected you? .A. They have given me a headache, and irritated my throat. Q. Can you describe the feeling in your throat? A. A sort of in- flammation. ; The Chairman. Did it make you sneeze? A. No, sir. Q. How long would this effect last after smelling it? .A. It would Jast me all next day, so that I could hardly sit up. Q. Did you ever keep your bed afterwards? A. I have had to lie down several times. Q. Do you mean to give us to understand that this sickness has been caused more than once this summer? A. Yes, sir. Cross-Examination. Q..(by Mr. Derby). Can you fix any date? There was the 31st of July. Did you notice the smell that night? -A. Yes, sir, very much. , Q. Was that in the night? 4. Yes, sir. Q. Was the paint on your house affected at that time? A. Yes, sir; the back part, which is-an L, was affected. Q. Your house fronts which way? A. Towards Miller’s River. Q. Is the back part of your house white? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the main part is brick? A. Yes, sir. Q. In which part of the house did you sleep? A. In the front part. Q. Were the windows open on the 31st of July? A. I think they were. . Q. Did you ever, on any other occasion, experience it as severely as on that night? 4. Yes, sir, I believe I have. Q. Was it not particularly severe on that night? -A. Yes, sir, worse than at any other time. Q. On how many days have you had to lie down on account of these bad smells this last season? A. Perhaps six or eight. Q. Have you ever been by the place where they render fat and soap- grease? A. Yes, sir; I have been past there. Q. You have experienced the putrid smell there? -A. I cannot say that I have. Q. But you have experienced the bad smells from these rendering works? A. Yes, sir, several times. Q. Did you recognize the smell of grease, something putrid? A. I recognized something putrid. Q. Whose works are you now speaking of! A. Mr. Squire’s. Q. I ask you if you have passed by any of the other places, such as the small soap-boiling places? .A. No, sir; I don’t know that I have. Q. Have you been by the small place near Boynton’s, kept by a man named Barry? A. No, sir. 140 Q. What you smelled near the basin or at Mr. Squire’s is the same sort of smell? A. Yes, sir. : Q. You don’t find different smells? A. It is all the same thing. Q. One and the same odor? .A. I think go, Q. Whether at your house or at Mr. Squire’s or in the neighborhood of the basin, it is one and the same smell? A. Yes, sir, I think so. Q. On this occasion that you had to lie down, did you simply lie down upon a lounge? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). This one odor that you distinguished you found to be a trying odor? A. It was like the odor of something that was not sweet. The names of several ladies were then called. Dr. Derby. What do you mean to prove by all these ladies, Mr. McIntire ? Mr. McIntire. They are parties who have been affected by these smells. The Chairman. I think it would be best to confine the examination to the effect of these smells. Mr. McIntire. That is what I intend to do. TESTIMONY OF Mary W. C1ark. To Mr. McIntire. Iam widow of Moses Clark, late of Cambridge. I live on Otis Street, at No. 168, between Third and Fourth Streets. Q. (by a member of the Board). How far from Mr. Squire’s establish- ment? A. (by Mr. McIntire and Mr. Muzey, after looking at the map). About 1,600 feet. 3 Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you ever been affected personally, or has any member of your family ever been affected, by these smells? A. Yes, sir; by nausea. I have been nauseated by them. Q. I speak now within the present year? A. No, I have n’t, because I was away all summer, from the 10th of July till nearly the Ist of Sep- tember. 4 Q. Since you returned in September? -A. Some little; but I have not suffered from them as before. Q. What smells have you distinguished this summer? A. I don’t _know that I can describe them as distinct odors. One, I should jndge, is a suffocating odor. One is from the fat,—I could distinguish the fat sometimes,— but I could n’t describe it. It is very nauseating. Some- times I feel as if I can hardly breathe. I have been awakened at night before it was time to rise. I have been unable to sleep, and have been obliged to close the windows on account of it. Q. Did it affect your throat any? A. I think it has sometimes. Q. Was the effect serious? A. Not, as I could see, particularly ; only it caused a great deal of discomfort. : Q. Have you ever passed by Mr. Squire’s place? A. I have never been in that vicinity except one morning when I went down to get a whitewasher. Q. Have you noticed the smells on-the other side of the basin? A. 141 In passing through Somerville, I have noticed odors on the other side of the basin ; have also noticed it in riding from Cambridge. Q. That is all you know, Mrs. Clark? A. Yes, sir. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You have inhaled the smell from the docks when the tide is out? A. Yes, sir; and I think there is quite a difference between the smell of the docks and the suffocating odor. 4 Q. It is something more oppressive in the night than the day time ? . It is. Q. You have perceived it about the docks? A. No, sir, I never have. Q. You have walked down round the docks, have n’t you? A. I never have. Q. Sometimes, when down near the docks, you have noticed a smell from them, haven’t you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Similar to the one from the basin? A. Yes, sir; but it is not so powerful in the day as during the night. Q. How many times have you experienced it during the night? How many times have you been disturbed? .A. I couldn't say; but more before I went away than since my return. Q. Since your return, how many nights have you been awakened 1 A. A good many times. : Q. Three or four times? A. Yes, sir, a good many more than that ; but I have n’t kept any account. Q. Your distinction, then, between the day and night smell is that the night smell is more overpowering? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Between the time of your going away in July and returning in September, after your return, did you notice any dis- coloration in the houses that you didn’t notice before? A. I did. Q. On your own house? A. No. I was told by Miss — Mr. Derby. Never mind what you were told. Testimony oF Miss Maria SPARE. To Mr. McIntire. Iam an assistant teacher in Cambridge at the Put- nam Grammar School, at the corner of Fourth and Otis Streets, at the top of the hill. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I will ask you if you have ever been affected by these odors from the dock? A. I have. I have been made sick by ‘them. ’ Q. Where? A. At the house where I boarded, on Cambridge Street, betwen Fourth and Fifth Streets. Q. Is it the next house to Mr. Munroe’s, westerly? A. It is. Q. The house you boarded in faces to the south? A. Yes, sir; my room is in the L, which is on the northerly side. Q. Will you please state how it affected you? A. It made me sick at the stomach, nauseated and vomited me. Q. How many times during the past season? A. I could n't say. Q. More than once? A. More than once ; many times. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you know where the odor came from? A. It came from the direction of Mr. Squire’s place. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Can you describe that odor? 4. It is the smell of trying lard. 142 -Q. Were you obliged to go away? A. I was.out of school two weeks. I was taken sick on the day before the 17th of June, and left-school for two weeks. I went out of town. Q. How long did you stay away? A. I returned at the end of two weeks, and remained one night, and was sick from it. I then went out and stayed till September. : es Q. Were you sick while you were away? A, No, sir, I was not. Q. Are you often sick? I mean, what is your general health? A. I had n’t been out of school for two years. Q. You had leave of absence from the committee? .A. Yes, sir. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). What was the nature of the sickness? A. It was vomiting. Q. Was it headache? A. Yes, sir. . @. Sick headache? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been subject to sick or nervous headaches? .A. I don’t have them very often. Q. There has been no trouble from these odors at the school-house ? A, IT have noticed them, but have never been made sick by them. Q. Did you teach in the Thorndike School? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you say the odor came from Mr. Squire’s, you mean it came from that neighborhood? You never traced it there? .4. When I have been riding by there I have been affected by it. Q. When you ride by Boynton’s or North’s, have you been affected in the same way? A. Have never been by there. Q. The reason you think the odor comes from Mr. Squire’s is because you think it affected you when going by there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever been affected by these odors- before? A. Never till this summer. Q.. Where did you live last summer? A. In Spring Street, between Third and Fourth Streets. ; Mr. Muzzey. That would make it about five or six hundred feet. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). How long have you lived in East Cambridge? A. Since I was a small child, — twenty-eight years. Q. Has n’t you health generally been delicate? -A. I have been sick once, but have n’t been out of school. Q. Well, now take the two years before, —hadn’t you been ill? A, Ihave n’t been out of school. Testimony oF Mrs, Cuartottse Foae. The Chairman. Do you expect to bring out anything new by this wit- ness 1 Mr. McIntire. It is simply cumulative. The Chairman. Why don’t you ask the witness whether she has been affected by the odor personally, and then let the counsel on the other side cross-examine if they desire ? Mr. McIntire. This lady has been very much affected by the odors. I don’t wish merely to bring the testimony of persons who have smelt OURO FT TM Pe. ry MAY 31 ihoal 143 ee Lie) ea these odors, but I want to show that some have been made seriously sick by them. The Chairman. Suppose you ask the witnesses whether they have been affected and in what way. Q. (Mr. McIntire to witness). Where do you live? A. At No. 6 Sixth Street, between Cambridge and Gore Streets ; about three hundred feet from Mr. Squire’s place. Q. Have you ever been affected by these odors? A. I have; my throat particularly, my stomach also. Q. How often during the last season? A. Very often during the last season. I noticed the smell of the hog, the smell of the trying, and the dock smell. ~ _@. Can you distinguish them, and which affects you most? A. I can tell them; they are very different smells. I think the smell of the hogs affects me most. It is the most nauseating. It is a styey smell. Q. Does it affect you to vomiting? -A. It has, and I am not easily vomited, either. It has affected me so that I have had to go away two , Summers, Q. Did you go away because of the smells? A. I went away on that account. I have lived in Cambridge many years, and have been obliged to go away the last two summers. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Do you know whence the smell comes that affects you? A. The smell comes so distinctly to me that I know it comes from that direction. Q. Do you know whether it comes from Mr. Squire’s? A. I can’t say that. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you think they. come from there? A. I presume they did because the trying is done there. Sometimes it comes very strong ; when the wind is favorable we have to close the windows and doors, and then we have to air the house. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Are you married? A. Yes, sir. My husband is a machinist, and works for William L. Lockhardt, on Bridge Street. Q. Did you notice the smell on the 31st of July? A. Ididnot. I was absent from home. Q. You have, during the day-time, smelt the smell from the dock? A. Yes, sir. Q. Sometimes it is very offensive, is it not? .A. It is very offensive sometimes. Q. Have you noticed that it is more offensive at some times than at others? A. Sometimes it is. Q. Have you noticed that on damp days it is more suffocating? A, Yes, sir. : Q. Have you noticed it was worse than on moist, humid days, when the nights are damp or moist? .A. I could n’t say. Q. Is there not a little opening near your house, through the build- ings down to the basin, through which the air is drawn up from the basin? A. There used to be, and there was a smell came up that way ; but during the last year it was built up. Q. There is still a narrow -passage-way, is n’t there? A. I think there is. 144 Q. About ten feet wide? A. I think it is, Q. Don’t the air come up from that passage-way? .A. I couldn't say. I think we had the smell a little worse before those buildings were up. Q. Which smell i is the most perceptible? I think the dock smell is the worst. Q. You noticed that on moist days suffocating smells came from the dock? A. Yes, sir. TrstiMony oF SamueL A. Duran. To Mr. McIntire. Yam a physician, and member of the Boston Board of Health. I reside at the Evans House, 175 Tremont Street. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). As a member of the Boston Board of Health, have you ever visited the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co. A. Yes, sir, I have visited it once. 2. Please state the occasion of your visit. -4. We have been repeat- edly complained to by citizens of Boston in regard to certain smells which we did n’t find the source of in Boston, and we went over there for the purpose of looking at those works, —I think on the invitation of Mr. Squire ; also to see what we could find about the smells. Q. When did you visit there? .4. I think it was upon the 13th of September last. Q. Will you state what you saw there? A. On approaching the establishment we did not detect any marked smell. We entered and were taken through the building by Mr. Squire. They were not at that time rendering, except in two or three small open kettles. The larger tanks were not in use. It was near noonday, or not far from twelve o’clock. Q. Did you perceive any odor arising from those open kettles? 4. Very slight indeed. Q. Did you know what they contained? A. If I remember rightly, it was cut-up hogs, and some of the entrails. We went mostly through the establishment. Q. Did you test any of the gases? A. I did n’t test any gases. Q. Did you try any of the vapors by putting your head over the ket- tles? -A. Somewhat. I detected a very slight odor. The Chairman. Is the testimony of Dr. Durgin to be cumulative? If so, I don’t think it necessary to take up so much time. Dr. Derby. The members of this Board desire that the official opinion of the Board of Health of Boston should be given, and that their evidence should be presented. Mr. McIntire. I intend to give the testimony of the members of that Board, and shall call another one of them. Dr. Derby. Official reports of the Boston Board cf Ilealth have been made in regard to this odor. We desire to know wnat the members saw. Q. (by Mr. McIntire), Have you any opinion as to the origin of those odors which reach Boston ? Mr. Derby. Suppose you confine your remarks to the visit to the establishment. I would like to have you confine them particularly to that, and not to have general ideas. 145 Mr. McIntire. I would ask his opinion of what it is. Mr. Derby. We ought tb have facts as a basis of opinion. Mr. McIntire. I will ask him, then, from what he saw at the estab- lishment, from the business carried on, and the animals kept there, has he formed an opinion in regard to the odors which reach Boston? A. I found, in passing through the institution, the live-hog smell distinctly, which was, to me, very offensive. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Will you have the kindness to give the time of that visit? .4. It was on the. 13th of September. Q. And you found the hog-smell very distinct? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you formed any opinion in regard to the origin of those smells which come into Boston? A. I have no doubt that those odors may go a great ways. We have satisfied ourselves that the odors at the West End do not emanate from any source on this side of the river. In my opinion they do not. We have searched a long time, and in vain, on this side to find their origin. Q. (by a member of the Board). When you say your opinion you mean the Board’s? A. Yes, sir. The odors particularly complained of were from the rendering. I should say we did not smell any, on our visit to the establishment, in marked degree, because they were not in operation, the rendering being done mostly in the evening. Q. (by. Mr. McIntire). The hog smell was very distinct. Had there been any attempt at deodorization? .A. The pens were covered with charcoal, and were in very cleanly condition, not as clean as a parlor, but as clean as a hog-pen could well be. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I would inquire how long you have been upon the Board of Health? A. Since the 15th of January. Q. Has your attention been called to any localities at the South End, or on the Back Bay, where they are filling in, and to any offensive odors there? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Have n’t you found that as they were filling in the odors came up from that? A. Yes, sir. We found bad odors, and have not found much difficulty in remedying them. Q. How far have you succeeded in remedying them? A, So far that - people have ceased making complaints of them. Q. When did they ‘cease? -4. Complaints were made, I think, as early as the first part of May, and ceased in July. Q. Were they very uncomfortable in July? A, Yes, sir. They were quite offensive in July. Q. What time do you think the remedy was found? A, The com- plaints lasted some time, but on letting in the tide-water the oder ceased. Q. Did people complain that they were obliged to close the windows? A, Yes, sir. Q. Did they complain of nausea, coughing, or bad headaches? Please state what was the tenor of the complaints? .4. I think there were strong complaints of nausea. I don’t remember any instance of vomiting, or irritation of the throat. @. That was counteracted by letting in the tide-water? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the bad smell come from the flats or sewage? A. No, sir; it 10 146 came from what was called, by the people in that vicinity, a cabbag> or vegetable growth on the bottom of the basin, which became heated and offensive in the sun, and which the cooling off by the tides seemed to cure at once. If it remains in the sun very long it undergoes decomposi- tion, and becomes offensive. Q. Hasn’t that part of the Back Bay been frequently complained of as a depository of sewage? .4. We haven’t had trouble with that por- tion of the flats. This was easterly of Parker Street. We have never traced the trouble to the sewage. Once we traced it to the mouth of the sewer, and found the odor extremely offensive at certain stages of the tide. But generally we did not find it remarkably offensive, and finally concluded that the basin was the great source of the trouble. I am in- clined to think it was from this vegetable growth. Q. Have there not been times when there were complaints to your Board of those smells from the sewer? .A, At low tide it was quite offensive, but I don’t remember any positive complaint, but I remember that there was some suspicion that it came from there. ; Q. Follow along down to the West Boston Bridge. Have n’t odors come from there which are quite offensive? A. I haven't been there. Q. Haven’t you heard of the sewage from the Massachusetts General Hospital stagnating in that neighborhood? .A. No, sir. Q. With regard to the Miller’s River basin, do you find an offensive odor there? A. Idid. I should say it was very offensive. Q. Has your attention been drawn to the Broad Canal in Cambridge ? A. No, sir. Q. Or to Charlestown? A. No, sir. Q. On both sides of West Boston Bridge, to the flats above, has your attention been called to them as collecting sewage? A. No, sir. Q. Is it not in the city a matter of serious consideration whether there should not be a drain to carry off to deeper water the sewage drained into Charles River? .A. There is at the present time going on an exten- sion of the sewers to deeper water from Berkeley Street. Q. To carry the sewage from Berkeley Street to the river? A. The sewer has been built down to the sea-wall on the Mill Dam, but it is now being extended out into deeper water. Q. Is it done to carry the sewage out into deeper water, or to remedy the existing evil and to counteract, to some extent, that bad odor from that side of the city? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by a member of the Board). In what part of the city do persons ° reside who complained of the odor that you found no source for? A. At the West End, from Beacon Hill down through Charles Street. It was observed mostly when the wind was northerly. Q. (by Mr. Derby). When the winds were northerly you noticed them most? A. That was when people complained. Q. Did you go to the soap-works on Miller’s River? A. No, sir, only to Mr. Squire’s. Q. Did you go through the whole works? A. Yes, I think, and pretty thoroughly. Q. How did you find them in regard to neatness? A. As arule they were in very fair order. Q. As much so as any works you ever saw? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen the Abattoir ? A, Yes, sir. 147 Q. How did they compare? A. One was a great nuisance to me, compared with the other. At Brighton I should say it was quite free from odors, and I was astonished to see it so free from odors. At the ieee place I should n’t wish to stay a great while, and I could not have one 80. Q. You did n’t notice anything very offensive at Squire’s? A. When I first entered I did n’t detect anything very offensive, but when I got in- side and at the hog-pens, I smelt the hogs very strong. Q. (by a member of the Board). Is it your opinion, as expressed from your investigations, that the odors from which the people of the West End suffer come partly from Mr. Squire’s establishment? .A. I have no doubt of it. Q. Do they come largely from there? A. I have no doubt of it. Q. (by Mr. Derby). If you were informed that there were large -places near there where putrid meat was tried out in open kettles, shouldn't you ascribe a larger amount of it to these open kettles than you would to the kettles in Mr. Squire's establishment? Wouldn’t there be a larger amount of putrid grease than in Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I think there might be. Q. Your attention was not drawn to the places along shore, but simply to Mr. Squire's. A. We intended to visit all those establishments, but only went to this one. Q. You noticed an offensive smell from the dock ? A, We did. Q. Wasn’t it a similar smell to what you perceived in the yard? Was n’t the smell in the yard similar to that which came up from the dock? A. At the windows we got the smell from the dock, and in the building we got the smell from the hog. Where the scalding was going on there was a smell somewhat offensive, but not as offensive as the hog smell or the dock smell. @. You perceived no smell so strong as the dock or hog smell? A. No, sir. In the yard we smelt something pretty bad, but I can’t say whether it came from the dock or not. Q. You could n’t say that it didn’t come from the dock? A. No, sir. Q. There was a smell you couldn't determine from what source it came? A. No, sir, we could not determine it. Txstimony or Atonzo W. BoarpMan. To Mr. McIntire. Iam Chairman of the Boston Board of Health. I reside on Charles Street, between Pinckney and Revere Streets. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Has your attention been drawn to any nox- ious odors from the direction of Mr. Squire’s establishment within the past season? A. Yes, sir. Q. In consequence of that have you visited the place, and if you have, will you please state what you saw there, and give us your opinion in re- gard to the origin of it? A. During the spring and summer of this last year I have smelt several times—I can’t say how many —a dreadful odor at night. I should think that I had smelt it perhaps half a dozen times up to the 17th of June. It would wake me up in the night. I felt as if there was some heavy weight on my chest. My room was full of a dreadful odor. I live on the easterly side of the street. I don’t do 148 as many others have done, — close all the windows; I kept my windows open and let the smell out. Icouldn’t get to sleep again for a long time. Sometimes I was kept awake for two or three hours ; would some- times lose my sleep in consequence of this odor. On the night of the 17th of June there was a different smell from anything that I was ever before conscious of. It was a different smell from any that I ever got before, that I am aware of. The only description that I can give of it is, it seemed to me to be a pork-fat smell. It was fearful. I was sick all night ; my servant-girl was sick, and my youngest child was vomiting, I have no doubt from the smell. I took it more to heart on that account. I called that morning at Dr. Derby’s office ; he was away, but called on me that evening. Mr. Squire called upon me that evening at my house, and we had a pleasant interview, of half or three quarters of an hour. I should have said that that morning when I went to City Hall, I got my associates, Dr. Durgin, and Mr. Whiting, and the City Physician, Dr. Green, to go over to Mr. Squire’s with me. We crossed over the bridge at the foot of Leverett Street, to East Cambridge, and took the right-hand street, so that when we came in sight of Squire’s establishment it was on our left. We were on the right side of the basin, and Squire’s place was on the left. We were going along the shore on the northerly side. We stopped our carriages there, and did n’t go any farther. Before we all got to the spot, I recognized the smell that I had the night before. I com- pared notes with Dr. Durgin, and both agreed that we had got that smell before, but, as I think, it was less intense, or it may be because I had got used to it. After we got enough of it by staying there, we turned round and went to the windward of Squire’s establishment, and there we did n’t get the smell. While we stood there the wind was southwesterly, and came from Squire’s establishment. I ought to add that there was intervening between us that whole place where the filling is now going on. We put ourselves in a position so that the wind came between him and us across the basin. (Witness pointed out the location on the map.) The tide was low that morning. i Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did you detect what is known as the dock odor? A. I should n’t want to say that.there was this dock odor with it. As near as I can say it was the pork-smell. There may have been the dock odor with it, but I can’t say. Several times this summer I have been affected by this smell, and almost got into a state of panic about it ; I was made sick by it, but the smells we chiefly got were worse than that we got on the 17th of June. I can’t express it, except by using the words of a witness here to-day. It was the smell of putrid meat. There was no getting it out of a room after it got into it. It seemed as if it would | stay forever. I suppose Dr. Durgin has given you an account of the visit we made. I never made any other visit. We did n’t go in on the 18th of June; we simply went there to see if I eould recognize that smell. My associates had n’t had the benefit of it. We went into some of the houses there, and inquired of some of the people about the smell. I noticed what appeared to be discolorations. There was one woman who handed out from a trunk some spoons, that she said were discolored by it. On the 13th of September our party went over there. , Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I will ask you whether you detected the live- hog smell? A. I recognized at three different times — while I was going through the establishment or out in the quadrangle — the odor that I 149 have got so much this summer, that is, the odor something like putrid meat. I got the other — this pork-fat smell — somewhere there, though I can’t say in what part of the establishment ; our clothing was completely satu- rated with this awful stench. When we got back to City Hall we smelt it fearfully. There were two places inside in which I found some odor. We spoke to Mr. Squire about it two or three times. Dr. Durgin was standing by me at the time; but Dr. Green, I think, was not, because he got enough and went out. We remarked to Mr. Squire about that smell, and he wanted to know what we smelt. I could n’t tell him. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you remember going near the pens? A. We went all over them. That wasn’t so offensive to me compared with the others ; I don’t mind the smell of live hogs. Q. In your experience as a member of the Board of Health, and from what you have seen in Mr. Squire’s establishment, and from what you have smelt there, and at your house on Charles Street, can you give an opinion as to where these smells came from? A. I am not able to swear that the whole of this smell comes from Squire’s establishment, but I am ready to swear that a part of it comes from there, and it all comes from that vicinity. Q. And a large part of it comes from Mr. Squire’s place? A. It is a pretty difficult thing to divide that up. I should hate to apportion it out. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). How long have you occupied your present house on Charles Street? 4. Nearly nine years. I went there in May, 1865. Q. When were you first troubled by any smells? A. I don’t think I have been troubled until this last summer. 1 ought to explain further that I think I was led to ask Mr. Squire, and did ask him, the question at my house on the 18th of June, whether he did any different business this year from what he had ever done before, and if he did any different busi- ness at night than in the day time. Q.' What was the reply? A. I think he said there was one branch that he didn’t carry on, though I don’t recollect what it was. Mr. Muzzy. It is the rendering of tallow, that he has dropped. | Q. When was this conversation? A. It was on the 18th of'June. Q. Mr. Squire invited you to go there and inspect his place? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you went there did you meet him? A. He was there, and © was very courteous indeed. Q. Had you been troubled previous to the 17th of June, when you got this smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. What had you smelt before? A. It was this putrid-meat smell. Q. How did this smell differ from the other? A. I can’t tell you. I think it was the pork-fat smell that I got on the 17th of June, and before that the odor was like the smell of putrid meat. It had n’t the effect of driving me into a panic, as this had. Q. At what hour did you first perceive the smell on the 17th of June? A. My impression is that it was a little before twelve o'clock. Q. Had you been asleep? A. I was, and was awakened. Q. How long did it continue? A. I think it lasted four or five hours. I left the windows open. Q. On which side was your chamber located? A. On the street side. Q. What kind of a night was it? A. I can’t remember. Q. What kind of a day had it been? A. I can’t remember. ep Q. When you went over the next morning, you were upon the northerly side of the basin, about opposite to Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I should hardly say opposite ; I should think it was about southwest from the factory. Q. Did you perceive the works of Merrill there? -A. Did n't recog- nize any other works at all. Q. Were you aware that all about there there are rendering establish- ments where a high degree of heat is obtained, and grease is collected in the houses and allowed to stand, and that the fumes go into the air? A. No, sir. I had heard of them, but had not visited them. We got the smell in one place, and did n’t think it necessary to go any farther. Q. Did Mr. Squire suggest to you that a man named Reardon was the cause of the trouble? A. I think he did at my house, — at least, he shoved it off on to somebody else, or tried to. Q. Were there any windows open at Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. At one end of his establishment there was a window open, and there I got a little of the pork-fat smell, and I also got the smell of putrid meat. I can’t say whether it was from the building or not; neither can I say ‘whether it came from the basin or not, but somewhere in that building I got this putrid-meat smell. Then, as I stood there and saw them butcher- ing hogs, I got a very bad smell. We went out from the door. (Witness explained the course taken on the map.) Q. (by Mr. Muzey). How long were you there? Did Mr. Squire go over the premises with you? A. I think Mr. Squire showed us over the premises, and that we were there not less than an hour or two. Q. What was the general appearance of the premises as to cleanliness, taken as a whole? A. I should indorse Dr. Durgin’s reply. I should say it was fair. It is giving Mr. Squire credit enough to say it was fair. Q. How does it compare with the Abattoir as to the general aspects of cleanliness? A. I thought the Abattoir at Brighton was sweet compared with this establishment of Mr. Squire’s. Q. In your visit to Brighton, you must do us the justice to remember that you did not get the basin smell? A. I know that. You drew the comparison. Q. (by a member of the Board). Have you had complaints to your Board of Health of this offensive odor? A. A great many times. Q. And they described the same stench to you that you have described to this Board? .A. I could identify the smell which they described, but my associates had not had the benefit of my experience. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). About the interview you had with Mr. Squire at your house on the evening of the 18th, the next day after the smell, — did not he say to you that his object in calling upon you was to notify you where the smell of the night before came from? A. No, I don’t think he did. ie Q. Did n’t he say that he had received a letter from Dr. Derby, the Secretary of the State Board of Health? A. I can’t say. I think he said he had just come from Dr. Derby’s. I don’t think Mr. Squire would have called upon me unless he had first been there. Q. Didn't he say to Dr. Derby that he had come to point out the By 31 Ros yy haben chs 3 cause of the stench to the State Board of Health? A. I can’t say that. Q. You'used an expression just now that pained Mr. Squire somewhat, — about trying to put it off on to some one else? A. Well, I will take that back. I don’t wish to say anything to pain him. But he said there was 2 man named Reardon, and he said he had been talking with him and with Boynton to advise him to remedy the difficulty. Q. Did Mr. Squire say he had notified the Cambridge Board of Health where this trouble came from? A. I don’t remember. Q. Now, isn’t there a very general complaint of the condition of the Boston shore near to Charles River? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. Has there been any suggestion that the bad odors came from the sewers emptying into Charles River? A. If you want to go into that at length, I can say that when these smells first came I tried: my utmost to find out where they came from. I didn’t think of Miller’s River, and did n't trace them there. I didn’t know anything about Squire’s estab- lishment, and so did n’t look to that as the source of the mischief. I wondered whether this smell didn’t come from Charles River. I also tried to find out whether there was anything in my own house. People came to me making complaints. Superintendent Forristall and the officers of the Massachusetts General Hospital made the same complaint, and we all finally traced it to Miller’s River. .I recollected what people said, and I satisfied myself that it did n’t come from the sewer. Then I thought the deposit on the flats might cause it. Then I thought it might come in the night. Then my neighbors, some of them, got smells sometimes that I would n't get. At last it settled down and gave us al] the benefit of it. Thereis a place beyond Chickering’s factory which people com- plained of; it was complained of by people who lived at the north of it; it affected them when the wind was northwest. We went and exam- ined that, and did our best to follow that up. Others complained of the filling in of the Back Bay, near Parker Street, and that the odor from the wind was very offensive ; but we satisfied ourselves that these were dis- tinct from the odors that settled down into our houses in the evening. Q. Now take the sewage emptying near Braman’s bath-houses, near the foot of Chestnut Street ; is n’t there complaint of a bad odor there? A: Not that I am aware of. Q. Didn’t Mr. Bradley advise that there should be constructed a marginal sewer to extend as far to the eastward as it could be discharged ? A. I think it would be a:good plan; but that has nothing to do with this thing. Q. Do you mean to say that nothing has been talked of about this? A, The Board of Health have talked about it and recommended it in their Report last summer. Q. Don’t you believe that much of the trouble arises from this deposit in the river? A. No, sir. Q. Have you examined into the river or made any investigation as to the amount of sewage that is poured into the river? A. No, sir. 151 Testimony or Dr. Bensamin S. SHaw. To Mr. McIntire. Tam a practising physician in the city of Boston. I was at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and had been there fifteen years previous to a year ago. % 152 Q. (by .Mr. McIntire). Have the patients or those at the Hospital been affected by the odors from Mr. Squire’s rendering-works! A. Yes, sir. . ‘ Q. Do you distinguish the smells? A. It was an odor different from any dock smell. It was very disagreeable. It was a sour odor, some- thing like that of decomposing fat, putrid meat, or sour swill. Q., How often would you get that odor at the Hospital? A. I think we got it ten or fifteen times in the course of the summer. Q. Was this during the past season? ‘A. This last summer I know nothing about ; I think in the summer of 1871 and 1872 I have noticed that odor so that we had to shut the windows. Q. You have resided in Boston since then? A. I have been out of town evenings and nights. Q. What effect had the odor upon the patients? .A. I don’t know that it had any injurious effects, but we had to close the windows, so that they suffered from the want of pure air. Q. Did you ever have occasion to trace up any of these odors? A, Yes, sir; during those very summers when I noticed it. My first impression was that it was a local affair; but I found that it came with the westerly wind, and in riding through East Cambridge . I noticed the same smells there. I noticed it in driving through Somerville and East Cambridge. It was where they are filling in now. Mr. Derby. There are two fillings in, one at Boynton’s and one at Squire’s. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You never passed on the Gore Street side of the Medford’ road going to Somerville? -A. I don’t know much about the streets there; but I know that I recognized the same odor. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). How many times did you notice this in 18724 A, From ten to fifteen times. Q. Was the smell always the same, or sometimes was there the smell of the dock? .A. It was a fatty or pungent smell. Q. You think it was the smell of putrid meat? A. I believe it was, most all of the time. Q. You spoke of a sour smell; did it seem to come from some place where hogs were kept? A. It wasn’t a pigsty smell, but it might have been such a smell as when the pots are not clean. Q. The water is shoal at the General Hospital, and has the accumula- tion caught in the eddies'there? -A. I.know it is obstructed there, but there is no sewer opening into it. Q. Ispeak of the sewage coming down from above? A. They are gradually filling up, and I suppose that some smell sometimes comes from those docks. 7 @. You have noticed the smell of sewage, or the dock-mud smell ? A.:I can’t say as much, as we have not had it in the vicinity of Beacon Street. If you stand about the docks you get the usual dock smell. Q. You can’t tell what particular part of Cambridge this smell came from? A, I never examined it particularly. It generally came from the other shore. 153 TESTIMONY oF Dr. Joun B. Taytor. To Mr.- McIntire. I am a physician in Cambridge ; reside on Third Street, opposite the Court House; am at the corner of Otis and Third Streets. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You distinguish these smells testified to, don’t yout A. I have noticed different odors from the vicinity of Squire’s factory. Q. In regard to the effect of these smells upon your patients in that neighborhood, what has it been? A. It has nauseated them in a great many cases ; in some cases it has vomited them. Q. In what time of the year does it most affect them? A. In the hot months. Q. (by a member of the Board). Have you been called on that ac- count? A. I don’t know that I have been called on that account. But I have known persons to complain of this nausea. Persons who were sick have complained of it. I have been annoyed by patients who were sick experiencing this smell and being prevented from passing a good night. I think convalescence has been prevented by this in some cases. Q. Did you ever detect any of these odors arising from that estab- lishment? -A. In whatever direction I may be I find these odors from that establishment when the wind is right. At my own house I get it when the wind is northwest. . Q. Have you ever driven or walked in the’ current of the odor and followed it to its source? -A. Not into the building, but on Cambridge Street and on Gore Street. So long as I was in the direction of the wind I could smell it. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). The cases of vomiting have been rare? A. They have been rare, I think. Q. The odors from the basin are very sickening, are they not? A. Yes, sir; particularly at this season. Q. Is n't it a fact that the odors from the basin have become very much like the rendering odors? Isn’t there a very strong resemblance between the odors of ‘the basins and the odors of the rendering estab- lishments? A. I think the odor from the basin has grown to be very much like what the odors of the establishment were last year. Q. Isn’t there very much relief expected from filling in the basin? A. I should suppose there would be. Q. Isn’t there very much expected? A. They expect partial relief from it. Q. Have you been in Mr. Squire’s establishment? -A. Not recently. Q. Do you know what has been the effect of the improvements there ? A. No, sir. Q. Don’t you get some odors on the other side of the basin when the wind is favorable? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you get some odors as far as Fourth Street? A. At times we do, when the wind is favorable. Q. Have you ever perceived those odors at your house, unless when the wind was blowing from the direction of Miller’s River, —a south or - utherly wind? A. No, sir, never. 154 TrstimMony oF Dr. Anson P. HooKer. (To Mr. McIntire.) I'am a practising physician in Cambridge ; live on Otis Street, between Third and Fourth Streets, about 1,500 feet from Squire’s establishment. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You have distinguished these several odors } A. I have. Q. Have you known of their affecting any persons? .A. In one case the rendering odor affected a son of Dr. Clark, who was suffering from typhoid fever, and was obliged to have the windows closed in the middle of the hot weather to keep out the rendering odor. We traced the odor to the river. That is the only case that I can trace. I was obliged to have the windows closed. ‘ Q. (by Mr. Derby). It was while the patient was sick? A. He was very sick. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You mean to say you traced it to the locality ? A, I traced it to the locality. I also remember seeing some patients at the Massachusetts General Hospital, who said there was a pig odor at the south window. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Did your patient recover? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you know any cases of vomiting 4 A, I know of my own. I think it was on the evening of the 31st of July. That night we had our house filled with the odor. I don’t know where it came from. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). This. was the 31st of July? Did you note the day? A. I think it was then. Q. What time of night was it? A. I should say it was between ten and eleven o’clock ; amd it continued some time. Q@. And it affected several members of your family 4 A, It did. @. With respect to the basins and the river, are they not in a very foul condition? A. They have been; but I don’t know whether they are now or not. Q. I mean the portions not filled up? A. Yes, sir. Q. By'odors emanating from them? A, Yes, sir. Adjourned. THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. SIXTH DAY. Monday, December 8, Dr. Dery, the Secretary, in compliance with the wishes of the counsel of Mr. Squire, has received the following note :— “Dr. Derpy : Dear Sir, —In compliance with your request, I to-day , examined the file of the ‘Boston Daily Transcript,’ and find that my communication was printed on the 12th of June last, consequently the event referred to in it took place in the early morning of that day. “Very truly yours, “S. L. Asgor.” The Chairman. The Board is ready to proceed. Mr. Muzzey. Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen,—TI am still suffering from the effects of a severe cold, and Mr. Derby has kindly offered to take my situation, and will now introduce the case and make the opening argument, Mr. Derby. I did not receive the information in behalf of my friend, Mr. Muzzey, that he desired me to present the case this morning until last evening, and I have been obliged to make the best preparation I could in so short time. I will, however, proceed to open it. Before I proceed I will take the liberty to present a map prepared by Mr. E. F. Bowker, from a survey of the territory by Mr. Boskey, which indicates the flats and the rendering establishments ; with your permission I will have the map introduced before I proceed. Mr. LE. F. Bowker was then sworn ; described his map, and pointed out the various localities under consideration. Mr. Derby proceeded with his opening argument as follows : — 158. OPENING ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS BY HON. E. H. DERBY. Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE Boarp or HEALTH :— In the discharge of the duty which has so suddenly devolved upon me, by the ill health of my associate, Mr. Muzzey, I will pro- ceed to open this case. Had I more time to condense, I could be more brief. But you will pardon me, gentlemen, if I should exceed the appropriate time, as so few moments were allowed me for prepa- ration. I notice that Mr. McIntire is not here. I will most cheer- fully wait for him, if it is the pleasure of the Board. The Chairman. I don’t know that it is necessary for the Board to wait. We are here according to arrangement, and J don’t know that we will wait for any. one. Mr. Derby. I have in the first place, gentlemen, to thank Mr. McIntire — I regret I must do it in his absence —for the courtesy with which he has conducted this case. I must then deal with some of the points which he has made in his opening. I adopt his first point, that this Miller’s River is, and has been for a length of time, a nuisance. We concede at once that the river has become intoler- able. But the firm we represent has not created such a nuisance. It has sprung from other sources. For the last twenty years it has been made the cesspool for a very large portion of Somerville and Cambridge. You have observed, gentlemen, the water-shed of these two sections, and you have seen how large an area, probably several square miles, drains into this receptacle. It has been not only a settling basin, but a catch-basin, for the drains and sewers of a population of 10,000 to 20,000 people, and you may well imagine it would accumulate here a very large amount of sewage, and. that it would become offensive to the senses. It has also been supplied. by the dye-works. Three carboys of sulphuric acid, according to the evidence, have been poured into it daily for a long series of years by the bleachery. Many tons of logwood, as well as other dye-stuffs, have flowed down in that turbid stream. The distillery of Mr. Sortwell contributes daily 50,000 gallons of its refuse. The yeast from this distillery comes down into this basin, and then the sulphuric acid mingles with the yeast and the sewave, and produces effects upon the olfactories of the people, when the flats are exposed to the sun, which exceed those produced ly the ordinary emana- tions from the sewers. The river, in the words of the complainants, 159 has become an intolerable nuisance to the people who live upon its borders ; not sufficient to destroy health, perhaps, but to affect their comfort. This is the first proposition of the complainants. This nuisance led to the steps which have been taken, which resulted in the joint action of your Commission and thé Commission on the Harbor in the requirement of drains, and in the filling up of these basins, in which the party I represent here to-day, Mr. Squire, has most zealously engaged. According to the testimony of the com- plainants, he has filled up at the rate of an acre per month, and during the next season will complete the filling of the whole area, which is now his own. He has bought out Mr. Merrill, who held one of those small establishments for rendering, and is filling his part also. He is followed by the Boynton Packing Company, who have also set the steam-shovel in motion, and are emulating Mr. Squire, who fills the basins below. I draw your attention, gentlemen, to the fact that here are basins, one of which, with land previously made by Mr. Squire, comprises twenty acres ; another, the Boynton Basin, ten acres ; and another, belonging to Mr. North, containing several acres,—in all about thirty-five acres, now appropriated for the killing and packing of swine. It is an area conveniently near the markets and railways, and admirably adapted for the purposes to which it is devoted. The position of Mr. McIntire was that, after these improvements had been commenced, there came up, on a certain night last summer, a most horrible smell, and the day assigned for it is the 31st of July. Mr. McIntire examined some twenty-four witnesses, and of these twenty were from the vicinity of Somerville and Cambridge, and testified to offensive smells which they had encountered. Upon recurring to that evidence last evening, I found that more than three fourths of all those witnesses fixed the most offensive day, the most offensive night that they experienced, the night on which the paint was discolored and people were waked in their beds and were obliged to close their windows, as the 31st of July. I am very glad, gentlemen, that they fix the particular date. I was careful on the cross-examination to draw their attention to it par- ticularly, and I find they all agree to it that the worst they expe- rienced was on the night of the 31st of July. Now, there is no evidence that there was any wind blowing from Mr. Squire’s establishment that night; there was no wind discovered except by some individual who moistened his finger and put it ur 160 to the air, and what was perceptible he thought came from the north. I put it to you, gentlemen, that there is nothing in the evi- dence to show that there was any connection between the establish- ment of J. P. Squire & Co. and this scent, or that the scent was car- ried by the wind from their works. And I will show you, gentle- men, that on this night there is a perfect failure of sequence and connection between cause and effect. There are interstices in the evidence of the plaintiff in this case which remain to be filled. I. intend to fill them, but we shall ask at your hands in advance that if there were no other evidence offered you should find that the complainants have not made out a case. All that they say is, that they were waked up at night by uncomfortable smells ; but they did not trace them to this establishment... So far as they went in that direction they found that the smell abated, and when they arrived at the works they found there was no smell there whatever. You will find, gentlemen, in the course of the evidence which we will now present to you, that on this evening of the 31st of July, at the invitation of Mr. Squire, an assemblage of the Mayor and Alder- men met at the works. Several gentlemen were present at this establishment. to witness an experiment with a new condenser, and the only smell that was perceptible was when the stop-cocks were opened at the request of these visitors. The establishment that night will be shown to have been one of the sweetest places in Cambridge. The complainants have introduced several persons from Cam+ bridge who have identified this night, and draw from them the testi- mony that they were affected a little about the throat by the smells of that night and of other nights. With regard to the evidence, I ask your attention to the fact that there is no case, whatever the smells may have been, or whence they may have come, — whether from the basins, from the works of Reardon, or from the establish- ment of my clients. No one has proved that Mr Squire’s establish- ment is thé source of these smells. The most that is done is that certain parties are brought here, probably those who are the most sensitive to anything of this kind, who state that they have been waked up in the night with coughing, and that‘ they have experi- enced uncomfortable feelings ; that a lady who was subject to sore throat, who had it when at the Point and when elsewhere; that a school-girl or two, and one lady who had worn herself out in school, were affected by the smells, which came from some place in the 161 direction of J. P. Squire & Co.’s. That is the evidence. It is not conclusive, and it will be answered by the evidence which we shall introduce in the course of the hearing. The final position taken by Mr. McIntire in his opening was, that in view of all the facts of this case, he should not ask you to peremptorily close the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co. He thought it would be unreasonable. It would be for you, gentlemen, to indicate some future time when the great business there con- ducted should be abandoned. This was the position taken by Mr. McIntire, and it shows how slight is his confidence in his case. He called his witnesses, and you heard them. I have adverted to some of them. With regard to the witnesses from East Cambridge, I shall not only meet their allegations by the absence of links in the chain of testimony, but I shall reply with downright evidence. We shall show you that on all these occasions there was some state of the atmosphere which brought up emanations from docks, sewers, and basins, under a fall of the barometer. We shall show you that there are other establishments in East Cambridge of a different character from this, from which these emanations came. In the evidence which I hope to introduce, you will see that these red spots upon the map are establishments in which trying is carried on; in some with care and fidelity, as in the large factories of the Boynton Packing Company, and of North, late North & Merriam, and that there are others where the parties conducting the business were active at those hours in the night when they could best escape detection ; that at some of these there were men who lighted their fires at ten or twelve o’clock in the night, and kept them burning until people rose in the morning, and during that time were not rendering pure, inoffensive leaf-lard, such as we render in the estab- lishment I represent, but were rendering putrid grease, standing for weeks and sometimes for months in the yards of this great city, collected in small carts or wagons and carried to these establish- ments; and adding to that the spoiled mutton that came from a great market, a load of which I will show you was carried toward them and offered at other establishments before it reached them, — that they were receiving this rancid material and burning it, gen- tlemen, in open caldrons, and making odors that were intolerable at the midnight hour, and in the early hours of the morning, when people were absent from the streets of the city, and that these odors, carried by the wind down Cambridge and Gore Streets, and. 11 162 across Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Streets, affected the inhabitants of Craigie’s Point. This, gentlemen, is the evidence which I hope to introduce into this case. I have referred to the putrid meat with which’ East Cambridge is regaled, — “°?T is grease, but living grease no more,” — when it leaves the caldron. I will also draw your attention to two or three other points from which these smells arise. Canal Street, familiar to one of the members of this Board, bordering on the Mill Pond of Charlestown, on which the Eastern Railroad proposes to make improvements, a place where a large number of carts, employed in Boston during the day, are kept at night, and when they go out from Boston they carry the refuse of the markets, which they tip into the dock on Charles Street. Another point is where the Boston and Lowell Railroad has been enlarging its freight yard, at Prison Point Bridge, to which refuse matter, decaying oranges, and other things of that kind are carried, and there engender a putrid smell. From these spots come many of the emanations which have been referred to by the witnesses. It will be my duty to draw your attention fo the fact that in various parts of the city, along its western shores, there has .been an accumulation from the drains and sewers; that from these come fetid odors. Beginning as high up as the borders of Roxbury, in the Stony Brook drain, and coming down the sides of the Mill Pond by Bra- man’s Docks, and passing down by Cambridge Bridge, to Craigie’s Bridge, you will find that within the last ten years the flats, composed of the sewage of the city, have risen three feet along wharves of which I was proprietor thirty years since, when I built them out to deep water, so that vessels could come there and .dis- charge their cargoes. Now at low water there are emanations from these flats most offensive to the senses. I shall be able to show you that on the night of the thirty-first of July, the night in ques- tion, by records kept at the Observatory in Cambridge, and by the records kept at Mr. Squire’s works, the wind was southerly and south- easterly during the entire night, and on the morning of the first. of August ; that the wind was not from Miller’s River across Cam- bridge, towards Boston, but from. Boston to Cambridge. I think the evidence on that pdint will be perfectly conclusive with re- gard to the thirty-first of July. I shall be able to show you that there were watchmen very wisely detached by the firm of 168 J." P. Squire & Co., and provided with a carriage, who; on that night, and until the latter part of September, made observations of the winds and smells; that on the thirty-first of July they found the most odious emanations coming up from Canal Street, in Charlestown, and from Prison Point, from the basin of Roxbury, and the shores of Charles River; and that, passing by the Broad Canal in Cambridge, they found emanations coming up similar to those from the basins ; that on this night the establishment of Mr. Squire was visited, and I might say was in possession of the city officers of Cambridge. They were there, and found it more free from smell than any other point. That in Boston on this night the watchmen found odors on Cambridge Bridge, on the shores of Charles River, by the foot of Chestnut Street, Braman’s Docks, and as far up as Parker Street, and they were very offensive. You will remember one witness for the complainants’, who attended church in Charlestown, sAid that he had visited the house of some friend near Boylston Street, and found this smell so offensive that his friends closed their windows. That witness told the truth. His only mistake was in imagining that it came from Miller's River, against the wind. On that night, with the wind blowing from the south, these emanations came up, the state of the barometer will be explained to you by Professor Horsford, and he will prove that no such smell could come from Mr. Squire’s establishment. This brings me to another important point. Nearly all the wit- nesses said to you that on their visits to the establishment of Mr. Squire they found, when close to the building, no smell whatever. Now, gentlemen, I wish to explain to you for a moment, as we pro- ceed, why there was no smell there. Mr. Squire’s blocks are two or three hundred feet long, and form a barrier between the basin and the buildings. They prevented these odors that rose from the basin from striking the buildings on the opposite side of the street ; they were to a certain extent a barrier, as the buildings opposite will show. The witnesses will apprise you that there are houses oppo- site the works painted white, and that they have remained so for along time. The discoloration of paint was on buildings lower down, opposite the basin, where there was no protection between them and the basin. There was no barrier there. Before I proceed further, let me advert to another point in the case. There are certain limits to the jurisdiction of this Board, although it is clothed with very large powers. I do not find in the 164 laws of the State any provision that the Commission shall interdict the travel of the pig on his way down from Iowa or Ohio to:the market here, or on the other side of the ocean. These denizens of the West, like other citizens, are permitted to pass through our State. We have no right to interdict them, any more than we have to interdict the emigrant and tax him, as we ventured to do some years ago. They have the right to pass; while on the cars they are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Health. I think we may relieve the case from the passage of the pigs on their way to the yard. They come under the jurisdiction of the Commission when they breathe their last, when they ascend the scaffold. I have adverted, gentlemen, to the evidence. There were three classes of testimony. The first witnesses could not trace the smell to the establishment of Mr. Squire; some said it came from that direction. It might have come from North & Merriam’s, or from some rendering establishment above. They could only say it came from that direction. I pass now, gentlemen, to other evidence offered for complainants, in the shape of testimony from experts. A young gentleman, re- cently a student at Cambridge, and now a professor in the Dental College, — Mr. Munroe,—a good analyzer, I am told, and I be- lieve an honest man, but a little too eager to trace the nauseous smells to the establishment of Mr. Squire, in accordance with the views of a certain clique at the Point,— has testified in this case ; he has given you the results of some of the experiments he made. He had certain stations and exposed upon them his tissue papers, and he found that these papers were not affected in the first two experiments, but that somewhere between night and morning, during various stages of the tide, these were affected. But the wind did not come from Mr. Squire’s establishment ;: it came from the east, across the basin. They were evidently dis- colored, but there is nothing in them to affect Mr. Squire. Then he referred to certain spokes of wheels, some of which had been in the water, some in the mud, and some upon a wagon standing in a shed near the basin. But you will notice that he found them some half a mile below the establishment of Squire & Co., quite a distance down the stream, and there is nothing to show that they were affected by anything that came from above. They were affected by the gases from the basin, from the flats, and from thé water ; such was the result of the experiment. Well, then he fows 165 under the establishment in a boat, and finds some hair, which in the course of the fifteen or twenty years Mr. Squire has been there may at some time have dropped down. He was able to gather pos- sibly a handful of hair or bristles of the swine, which had caught against the piles in former days, when less care was exercised than is exercised now. There is nothing in the fact of his finding a few bristles upon the piles, or seeing something upon the bottom of the basin, which can bring him or. you to the conclusion that Mr. Squire is responsible for those smells which affect the community. I come, then, to the analysis of the different articles which now pass from this establishment into the water. And, first, I come to the tank which is spoken of as the tank for dead hogs. Why it should be called so I do not know, except it be that there were once seen by one of these witnesses one or two dead hogs upon the platform. That is the only evidence that any dead hogs are ever immersed in this tank. I shall have the evidence of Mr. Squire upon that point; and it will be substantially this: that on the journey from Albany to Boston, occupying usually about twelve hours, sometimes there will be a hog trampled to death on the way. The average time it would be on the cars would be less than six hours ; and probably the animal is not three hours dead when it reaches here. Perhaps two or three a week of these animals are imniersed in this close tank, from which no smell emanates, and converted into oil and scraps. The oil is drawn off, and the scrap is sold for fertilizing. What remains is soup, three pints to each hog. The solid matter in that is about nine per cent, which would be less than two ounces. Now, if this great basin is to be disturbed by two ounces a day of this solid matter, how much is it disturbed by the ten tons of material which come down the stream every day from the water-closets of Somerville and Cambridge ? Then comes the scalding water. I have seen allusion to it in the newspapers, that the water in which 400,000 hogs are washed was dashed into that river every day. In place of these there are 1,000 or 1,200 hogs, from which the bristles are removed by immersing them in warm water. These bristles are sold, and carried off. I think they are sold for six cents per animal, or for $ 24,000 a year. They are gathered up carefully, and not allowed to float away on the water of the basin. Well, now take the water. It is clarified and “used over. The solid matter is taken out, so that only clear water remains. According to the testimony, the whole amount of solid 166 matter which might go into the basin is from 200 to 300 pounds per diem, —a very small quantity. Dr. Munroe says it is a little more. He has evidently made a mistake. He had taken, perhaps, the whole quantity in the tanks. Mr. Sharples reduced it to about one third. We shall reduce it still more; and you will find that this matter, which is soluble in water and usually preserved, amounts to about 300 pounds a day. About 15,000 tons of salt water from the sea come into the basin at each tide; and this solid matter cannot possibly pollute it. There is not basis sufficient for such an assertion. I have dealt, then, with everything except a little residuum of moisture from the steam, which trickles down under the channel from the condensing pipe ; and that, gentlemen, is no cause for this odor. I put it to you, gentlemen, that there is no ground on which you can trace these horrible smells to the discharge of these trifling liquids into that stream. With regard to the sulphide of ammo- nium, if there is any to be found, you must look for it, gentlemen, to putrid meat elsewhere, which, as Professor Munroe informs you, is more dangerous than the innocent and harmless lard which is tried out in the establishment of Mr. Squire. I have adverted to two classes of evidence presented by these complainants. There is a third class, and that is the evidence from residents of Boston. Certain gentlemen, highly respectable, — Mr. Russell, Mr. Boardman, and Dr. Abbot,— come here and say that they have experienced sickening smells. Why, gentlemen, it seems to Mr. Squire almost impossible that any smell should have travelled two miles, from Cambridge and Somerville to the homes of persons living on the heights of Mount Vernon; and he imagines that it must have risen from drains or sewers, which are becoming so - offensive on the Boston shore. The impression may possibly have been left on your minds that some of these odors may have been wafted over by a northwesterly wind from tlfe vicinity of Mr. Squire’s. Possibly they may have come from the shores of Charles River ; possibly from the deposit from the drains of Boston ; 3; pos- sibly from the Broad Canal in Cambridge; but probably, if they came over to this side of Charles River, they came from the works of the two Reardons, O’Neil and Barry, where the putrid fat was rendered, where, if there is a foul smell to be found anywhere, it will be found. It is our misfortune to be southeast of these wotks, 167 and intercept, it may be, more or less of the smells that come down Cambridge, Thorndike, and other streets. If we can prove to you that the odious smells come from others, I shall look to this Com- mission not to visit ‘them upon us, but upon the parties whe are guilty. The evidence from Boston is. too remote. It is quite unreliable. Not to advert further to the case presented to you by these parties, I will proceed to give you an outline of the evidence we propose to introduce. But first, gentlemen, I will call your attention to the powers in- trusted to this Commission, and the duties of the Commission, as they present themselves to us. We are parties deeply interested in the results of your investigations. Your power was derived from various acts of the Legislature, the principal act being that of 1871. By the acts of this State establishing local boards of health, and by its acts authorizing the Board to close certain slaughter-houses and to require their occupants to remove to the Abattoir in Brighton, provision is made for a jury trial before a place of business can be closed, thus relieving the Board of Health from that duty. In the Act of 1871, giving additional powers to this Board, the power is given to them to pass, as a jury, upon this question. They are in- vested with all the powers of a court of chancery in England, to de- cide upon fact as well as upon law. You have a duty, gentlemen, to perform more serious than the ordinary duties of the court an&. juries, for you are the court and jury, as I understand it, in this case. Very great powers are confided to you by the State. By the Constitution of the State the property of no citizen can be taken for the public use without the payment of full compensation, to be assessed by a jury. In building a line of railroad the citizen is not to be deprived of property without the award of damages, by a jury. No such provision is made in this case. Now, gentlemen, I would suggest to you that in cases of this magnitude, in exer- cising this great power upon masses of property, you will feel that you represent the State; that you will look carefully to what you are doing, and consider very thoroughly the question of the pub- lic health, the public convenience, and public comfort in deciding this question. There are some who might suggest to you that if an enterprise or an establishment created an inconvenience, a discom- fort, some injury to health, it was at once to be abated. There are 168 two sides to that question, gentlemen, certainly. You are to con- sider whether the closing up of this establishment would not be prejudicial to the convenience and health of the people. If the es- tablishment is so situate that it ministers to the comfort of the people, because they need the cheap food which it provides, — if this is to be lost by the breaking up of the establishment, — then more injury may result from the discontinuance of it, to the comfort and convenience of the people, than from its continuance. Another fact, gentlemen. Life itself is quite as important as health, indeed more so. Cheap food ministers to life. So, also, does employment. Suppose five hundred or seven hundred men are em- ployed, and they support their families, who in turn support as many more, in dependent trades. Here are thousands dependent upon an establishment. We shall give you in this case the popu- lation of Cambridge and Somerville, and more especially of this ward at Craigie’s Point. We shall show that in this ward there are thirteen hundred houses, and at the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co., and others near it, thirteen hundred men are employed. There are from five to six people in each of these houses, and but one or two of these are males. You will find that most of these males in this region are dependent upon these establishments, and a large amount of wages is circulated monthly. You will find that many are dependent upon this busi- ness for their daily bread. What is the effect of closing this establishment? It is for the State to lose all these people and their families. Suppose they left the State, and you drove the _ business to New York, to Chicago, or back to Cincinnati. Does not the State lose the lives of these men, except as one of the members of this great confederacy of States? It is for you, gentle- men, to balance these considerations, and then decide whether the closing of this establishment would be of advantage or injury to the public health, comfort, and convenience. I wish to put into this case the Report on Noxious Business, in the House of Commons, England, ordered to be printed the 8th of July, 1873. In this Report you have evidence elicited -by 3,956 questions. In the contents it is stated that the number of slaughter- houses in London is 1,687, and one of the important facts con- nected with it is that some are situated within fifty feet of the streets, or of other buildings, and a great many houses have been erected within the distance. The Commission reported in favor of 169 removing the restriction. The general tone of the Report is, that these establishments are convenient to the people, and tend to cheapen the price of food. I have also reports from the city of Liverpool for 1866, the report of a Commission and of an Engineer; also the By-Laws of the slaughter-houses of Dublin, 1866, and the report of a company called the Liverpool Abattoir Company, conducting a small business in Liverpool; also the petition to Parliament from gentlemen in Liverpool, for the establishment of an abattoir and the exclusion of others With respect to Liverpool, it appears by one of these documents the petition did not succeed; that Parliament was not willing to establish an exclusive abattoir in the city of Liverpool, but decided to continue the existing establishments ; that in Dublin a great many slaughtering establishments for the killing of cattle are scattered about. In Paris there are several abattoirs, and wherever they have been established population has grown up around them, just as it has done in this case. I have taken you, gentlemen, to England. There you will find that the ground for public convenience is taken that there should be a con- ' tiguity of these places to the places where the food is consumed. And the tendency of the English mind seems to be, at the present time, to have a large number of these establishments at a short dis- tance from the centres of the cities of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Dublin. In this case it will be shown to you that the present application is not sustained by the Mayor and Aldermen of either Cambridge or Somerville, and is urged by individuals with strong prejudices but little influence. They have already applied to the local boards of health, and city authorities of Cambridge and Somerville, who re- fuse to complain, because they are well satisfied with the steps al- ready taken by these defendants. The grand jury of Middlesex also have thrown out all complaints against this establishment. Mr. McIntire. I understand the grand jury have not thrown out the complaint, and it is continued. Mr. Derby» I wnderstand from a gentleman upon the grand jury that the case has been abandoned. ; Mr. McIntire. The case has not been abandoned. $ Mr. Derby. You should, perhaps, know better than myself. But, at all events, before this hearing is closed, the fact will be settled by the expiration of the term of the grand jury itself. I understand 170 that the Mayor of Somerville did request the Board of Health to make some suggestion about the matter, and received the reply that it was not expected of the Board to give any advice. Dr. Derby. We said we were ready to ene advice to any one who wanted it, at all times. Mr. Derby. Your letter to the “Mayor is in the case, and speaks for itself. I-draw attention to the fact, which is a prominent one, that this case is not supported by the Mayor and Aldermen of Som- erville or of Cambridge, nor does it come supported by an indictment of the grand jury. It comes before you on a somewhat singular petition, signed by a féw indviduals of the city of Cambridge. The Chairman. It is all the same. . Mr. Derby. I do not mean to say that it is not. But if the people were in favor of it, it seems to me it would have been taken up by these authorities. Mr. Newhall. Would not the authorities have had the power to have corrected the evil? Mr. Derby. Certainly. Mr. McIntire. So that is to be an argument why we should have applied. to those tribunals. I think wé can show why we did not. . ; Mr, Muzzey. The Cambridge Aldermen refused, eight to one, to do anything in the matter. Mr. McIntire. One of them was convicted by this same Board in 1871, of this same offence. Mr. Derby. Iam here to present nothing but this case. I speak in this case only. I will now, gentlemen, present a series of propo- sitions, which I wish to submit for the consideration of this Com- mission. We concede that Miller’s River and its basins have for many years been a nuisance, having been the common cesspool of Cam- bridge and Somerville, and defiled by dyes and sulphuric acid of the bleacheries. This dark, loathsome, and Lethean stream has spread the sewage of two cities over flats bare at low water, from which offensive gases and odors were exhaled long before the works of the defendants were. established. That is one of the propositions. Another: The exhalations from these flats have been aggravated by gases and offensive smells from the small works of other parties, used for rendering tallow, carelessly conducted; and also, by neg- 171 lected piggeries on the north bank of the river; and if at any time in past years they have received any addition from the blood of animals killed at the defendants’ works, there has been no blood allowed to flow, for the past year, from these works into the river. Another point: The exhalations from Miller's River have been unjustly ascribed to the defendants’ establishment. This will be proved by the most clear and conclusive evidence, by Professor Horsford, Mr. Avery, and other eminent chemists, by buildings blackened on one side, which borders on the sewers which flow into the river, but bright on the other side, which borders on the de- fendants’ works. It has been well proved, also, that no deleterious odors come from their works; that their pens are daily cleansed, swept, and sprinkled with sharcudl that the blood and offal, in- stead of going into the stream, are daily removed in. air-tight carts ; that even the water in which the swine are scalded is purified by chemicals before it is allowed to flow away ; and, in fine, their whole establishment is kept in admirable condition. Another: That the site of the defendants’ works is adjacent to those long occupied by the Winchesters, which for nearly fifty years have been devoted to the killing and packing of cattle. If there were anything that could encourage these defendants to select this position, it was the fact that for nearly half a century this business had been carried on there, commencing certainly half a century before. Another fact is the particular topography of the locality. On the one side is the rising ground of Cambridge and Somerville heights, appropriate for dwellings, and on the other side these flats, appropriated for the factories and workshops attendant on a great city. Like the Mill Pond land of Boston, this will be the Mill Pond land of Cambridge and Somerville. We shall offer you evi- dence on this point to prove that this portion of the ward is commercial and manufacturing, and that the value of the factories and of the workshops exceeds the value of the houses. I think we shall be able to show you that more than half the houses at Craigie’s Point are occupied by the people who toil in these estab- lishments. Another proposition is, that, if any odors ever issue from the defendants’ works, which is not admitted, they are inoffensive, and much less perceptible than those which arise from an ordi- nary kitchen and from many harmless manufactures. The vats 172 in which fresh leaf-lard is tried out will soon be replaced by Close tanks now building, like those now in use at the works; all gases from which are consumed under the boiler. Mr. Squire has - been gradually adopting improvements. He has introduced the burning of the gases under the furnace; he has introduced better arrangements for killing the hogs, conducting it in the third story above the flats; he adopts every improvement that is feasible. Let me say with regard to the odors, that there are certain gentlemen who are sickened by going into the kitchen where beef and cabbage are boiled, and where doughnuts, one of the chief staples of New England, are fried. I think this case, however, is not to be judged by such standards, by such keen sense of smell. I know of gentlemen — perhaps one of them is in this room; possibly there may be one on your Board — who, if an unfortunate cat or dog should lie down under their table, would be so affected by the odor they would be obliged to leave the room. So keen a perception is a misfortune and not a fault. But it is not a standard by which a case of this kind is to be judged. With regard to the rendering smell of pure leaf-lard it will be obviated by the close tanks we propose to intro- duce ; but we would suggest that in conducting any great branch of industry, some smells will arise. A gentleman of the Board of Trade, Mr. Rice, illustrated this subject by saying that a complaint came to him, when Mayor, of an establishment on Water Street which burned coffee; a few neighbors complained of it as a nui- sance; but he said, “I took the liberty to say that if the smell was offensive to certain individuals, I would suggest the policy of their removing to some spot where coffee was not ground. There were places in the city where they could live without inhaling an odor so offensive as the smell of coffee.” So with regard to the great manufacturing places of the State. Take the town of Danvers, which recently changed its name to Peabody. If any gentleman goes there, he would perhaps say that there was the smell of the bark and the tan, and also of the tan water; not very agreeable to the olfactory nerves, but not sufficiently disagreeable to induce the Board of Health or any commission to break up the great establishments in the vicinity of a great city, which add so much to its prosperity. There are smells from the sugar-houses, which could not induce you to break up their business. Such odors are adverted to by Dr. Holmes in one of his poems, where he describes his journey eastward, and tells us of our favorite resorts, — ” 178 “ There the smells begin Of fishy Swampscott, salt Nahant, and leather-scented Lynn.” But we are not, gentlemen, for every little smell which may be slightly offensive, to break down great works, as against the comfort, . health, and convenience of the community. Another proposition, gentlemen: In the defendant's works five hundred to seven hundred men are employed,—the number vary- ing with the season. They live near the works, and breathe the atmosphere in and near them night and day, enjoy excellent health, and would feel greatly aggrieved should the works be closéd upon the plea of injury to health. Their wages exceed half a million of dollars yearly. _ It is a somewhat striking fact, gentlemen, that although Miller’s River is so offensive to some people, these parties living in this establishment or doing business in this establishment enjoy very excellent health. I have recently heard that a gentleman has gone to Charles River for the purpose of drinking blood as a restorative of health. I have only newspaper authority for it, however. But I will say that the persons employed in and about this establish- ment, and their families who reside near by, enjoy remarkably good health, and have not suffered from their position. Another point: In London, so celebrated for its health, the slaughter-houses are much inferior to those of the defendants. In populous districts of that city it has been proved that there are 1,687 buildings for killing sheep, swine, and cattle, and usually within fifty feet of the streets and other buildings; while in New York more than a million of swine are killed annually in a popu- lous district, between Fortieth and Forty-first Streets, and they are also killed in populous districts of other large cities, and converted into oil and lard. There is a map here, of the city of New York, that a witness will illustrate hereafter. I will show you, gentle- men, that in wards of the city of New York containing a population of 50,000 and 100,000, these establishments exist. They are between Broadway and the North River. In them are killed 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 swine annually, and the parties are increasing their busi- ness year by year, and are not excluded from the city. I under- stand such to be the case in other great cities in the West, in St. Louis and Cincinnati. I am not personally familiar with those cities ; but in the city of New York, the commercial metropolis of this country and the powerful rival of the city of Boston. in foreign . 174 commerce, this business is conducted on a very large scale, in a warmer climate than that of Boston, and this business is done in the very vicinity of the populous districts. _It has received more or less the sanction of the Boards of Health (they are more or less un- der their jurisdiction), and I have heard within a day or two that the establishment at Communipaw, on the Jersey shore, is to be broken up and carried into a more populous district. The Chairman. They are not killed there during the summer time. Mr. Derby. The witness will be able to state more definitely than myself. ‘ That brings me to this point, gentlemen, that one of the great ad- vantages of this establishment at East Cambridge is, that by means of the ice which is taken from the ponds in the immediate vicinity, and brought down to the several works on the river, where some 20,000 tons are used annually, —10,000 tons by Mr. Squire, and some 10,000 tons by those other establishments,—the ice from the ponds enables them to continue this business later, and to commence it earlier, and, in fact, to carry on a portion of it all through the year; that the ice preserves an equable temperature ; that the pork goes into ice-chambers, where it is cooled off, and it becomes possible to put it in shape for packing all through the year. The business is exceedingly important, as the only steamships, if we give them only the freight in the cold weather, would leave us during the summer. Our establishment supplies the city with a very large amount of provisions, the cheap meat, the spare rib, selling at eight cents per pound, and sausages at eight and eight and one half cents per pound. Other parts of the animals, such as the hams, are sold by wholesale at eight or nine cents. This establishment, by fur- nishing these supplies at a low price, does it to the great com- fort and convenience of the people. As to the city of New York, my impression is that the work is carried on summer and winter. Mr. Squire. It is. Mr. Derby.. As I have some experience,—having courted my wife there in July and August,—I know how hot itis there in summer. [Laughter.] The concentration of. business in the establishment of John P. Squire & Co. seems to have disturbed some good people in Somer- ville and East Cambridge, but the concentration of a large business 175 in one spot, by these defendants, is in accordance with the recom- mendations of this Board, when it established an Abattoir. We may not have succeeded in making as perfect an establishment, in all its details, as the State Abattoir; but we have built up here very’ large works, composed of long ranges of buildings, separate struc- . tures, devoted one to the killing, another to rendering and the manufacturing of sausages, and another to the manufacture of lard and the cutting up of the pork into English shapes. It is cut into English breakfast bacon and Preston hams, which are shaped very differently from the American ham, and look like legs of mutton; and instead of selling for sixpence per pound, are sold for a shilling in England. The business of this establishment consists not merely in what I have enumerated. There is a cooperage on a gigantic scale. It is an establishment where one building, or suite of apart- ments, is devoted to the reception and killing of swine; but the greater part is a manufacturing establishment for the curing of hams, the rendering of lard, and the packing of these articles in boxes and packages, in which they are to be carried away. Itisa very large establishment, of which, as I understand, gentlemen, ‘but a small part would be amenable to your authority; that the part occupied for slaughtering would come under your jurisdiction, but the other parts, for the manufacture of boxes and the packing of the provisions, it seems to me, are not reached by your jurisdic- tion. / The next point is, that there is no occasion for precipitate action in this case, for we have six months of cold weather before us, and ample time for deliberation and the adoption of any modern im- provements, and the counsel of complainants asks no immediate action in the premises. It is but necessary to state that point ; it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon it. The measures that we have in progress will probably suffice. You have other cases to hear, and it is probable that you will find that there are offensive places demanding the attention of the Board. It is not the work of Mr. Squire, in his defence, to assume the character of an accuser ; but some of the smells ascribed to him come from places which may be discovered if you are vigilant. He acts in self-defence only ; makes no complaints, but would ward off unjust attacks. I also offer with this proposition another, that the defendants stand ready to adopt any reasonable safeguards that may be suggested by the Board, and will soon complete and set up iron tanks for rendering leaf-lard, 176 whose gases will be consumed as is the-gas from those now inuse. I entertain no doubt, but that, if you should wish that the “soup a should be carried off and concentrated, my friend, Mr. Squire, will ‘endeavor to do so, if you attach any weight to that. With regard to the tanks, close tanks will be introduced, although lard cannot be ‘rendered in them so well as in open kettles. But whether you de- cree it or not, he has come to the conclusion to adopt them, and so get rid of the smell of the leaf-lard, which seems to disturb the olfactories of some of the sensitive people of Cambridge. If we knew how to stop the squealing of the pig we would do that also, and if it is necessary to give them a handkerchief sprinkled with perfume or carbolic acid, while on the cars, we would be willing to do that. [Zaughter.] We are willing to adopt anything that com- mon-sense or good reason may dictate, to make this thing as accept- able as possible to the people. My next proposition is: that these defendants, in conducting their vast business, are obliged to compete with rivals in other large cities, in which their business has been long established, namely, with rivals in St. Louis, where are killed yearly . ¢ Z : 500,000 swine, Cincinnati, “ ‘ “ 7 ‘ . 620,000 “ 1 New York, “* “ a A ; 3 - 1,000,000 « Chicago, “ ct “ : ‘i : 1,425,000 “ While Boston as yet kills . - . : i 800,000 “ although it packs annually one or two hundred thousand and more. The defendants are enabled to compete with other cities chiefly by the adaptation of the spot they occupy to the business they pursue. Their packing-house is believed to be the largest and most perfect in the country. Their proximity to the city and to the ice-houses aids them in this competition. If, gentlemen, you should order these parties to leave the vicinity of the city, it would be a serious drawback , to them. Their removal would increase the freights they pay, and perhaps prevent their competing successfully with other parties. It is by making the most of the few advantages nature gives us in this vicinity, by the greater rigor of the atmosphere, as compared with that of New York, that this spot is adapted to their business. ‘Here is a large district of thirty acres, insulated, surrounded by streets with no dwellings upon them except a few occupied princi- pally by the operatives; separated by a sheet of water from other es- tates, and which our client is now making solid at the suggestion of 177 the State. A large area belongs to him, and another large area belongs to other parties. Probably nowhere could we find a similar area in the vicinity of Boston. But it isnot only its size that is important ; it is its proximity to the wharves and to the markets. It is but a mile and a half or two miles from Faneuil Hall Market, and it takes but sixty or seventy horses to enable him to supply this market. Every step you take him away from the markets you make it necessary for him to increase his number of horses to do the busi- ness. His site is close by tide water, so that he can land his salt and other articles at the Fitchburg wharf or at East Boston, and by the facilities of the Grand Junction line he has the advantage ofthe Boston and Albany line, the Fitchburg or Tunnel line, and the other steam railways running out of the city to connect with North, South, East, and West, and also with the Cunard steam- ships at East Boston. Taking into view the fact of its nearness to market, and the configuration of the territory, I know of no spot on this continent so admirably adapted for this business, or where it is capable of being managed so well, as it can be here by our clients. : Finally, let me refer to the facilities they thus have for disposing of every part of the animals killed by these defendants, and contin- uing their business summer and winter, from their contiguity to the ice-houses, the sea, and Boston. It is important to them to be able to sell the refuse meat of the animals at fair prices, but itis of far greater importance to the poor people of the city to be able to pur- chase it at a low price. It ministers to their comfort and to their convenience. The next point I have already adverted to. I draw a parallel thus: In Boston itself, the high ground on Mount Vernon com- mands four dollars a foot for dwellings, while the low ground extend- ing from North Market to Summer Street sells at.ten dollars to fifty dollars a foot for stores. If Athens had her Pireus as well as her groves and her Acropolis, why may not Cambridge and Somerville have the same? Athens had her Pirzus, and I presume she had her sausage-maker, as Aristophanes, in one of his plays, tells of a sausage-maker. My idea is that the whole of Cambridge is not to be devoted to literature and residences, but that a part of it is to be devoted to commercial and manufacturing purposes, and those citi- zens whose nostrils are very sensitive will live upon the highlands and not upon the lowlands. 12 178 My next point is: The works of J. P. Squire & Co. have not in- jured, but have greatly benefited, the cities of Cambridge and Som- erville, which have grown in population and wealth with more rapidity than any towns in the county of Middlesex. But a few days since I saw in one of the papers, which I will put into this case, proof that Somerville has increased in wealth as well as in population more rapidly than any other place in the vicinity of Boston. The growth of the population is dependent very largely upon the success of these establishments. : I come now to the position of the defendants, and the incon- venience that they would sustain if they should be removed. I will simply read the point. The investments of the defendants at their works exceed half a million of dollars, and the active capital used at them exceeds that sum. The perilous business they pursue re- quires the closest attention to details and the most rigid economy. Their business, although hazardous, is a growing one. By it the vast crops of Western corn, which will not pay freight to the sea, are utilized, for three pounds of it may be consolidated into one of pork, and thus enabled to bear transportation. The rise of wages abroad, and the increase of manufactures at home, create a demand for animal food, and pork énters largely into the consumption of the farmer, the artisan, and the fisherman. The amount exported during the last year by these defendants alone exceeds 24,000 tons. During the past year the defendants have killed at their establish- ment half the swine received by Boston from the West. Their agereeate sales during the past year in this State, England, and Belgium have exceeded eight millions of dollars. In this year they have employed from five hundred to seven hundred men, and sixty to seventy horses, and have also made at their works 45,000 casks and 90,000 boxes, and consumed 2,500 tons of coal, 5,000 tons of salt, with 10,000 tons of ice. Their sales have usually been half at home and half in foreign countries, and their present rates per pound are for cut meats eight cents, for bacon and lard eight and one half cents, and for hams and sausages eight to ten cents, while the price for their lard oil ranges from fifty to sixty-four cents per gallon. Another proposition: The amount paid by the defendants of freight last year to railways was $700,000. The amount paid by them for freight to steamships and other vessels was $300,000. They furnished about one seventh of the entire exports of Boston, 179 and nearly one half of those exports consist of pork and its prdoucts. . The progress of our commerce, gentlemen, is somewhat remark- ° able. It commenced with the export of fish and lumber. It has extended to miscellaneous products. We have arrived at a period when our trade has doubled and quadrupled, and our exports now exceed $30,000,000 annually. Nearly one half of this export con- sists of the article of pork. Of this, Mr. Squire furnishes one third, or more than one seventh of the whole exports of the city. This brings me to the memorial of the Cunard Steamship Com- pany presented by Mr. Alexander. You have there the amount of freight contributed to their vessels. A few years ago they were un- able to load a vessel here at all. They are now loading a weekly line which is a very important acquisition to the commerce of the city, because our merchants are enabled to send and receive goods direct instead of by way of New York, which was unsatisfactory to Boston. Now the exports of England for the time being have fallen off. The panic has had the effect to make them very light. The vessels are bringing coal and salt and other things at exceed- ingly low rates. The chief export from Boston at this time is pork; the market is in Liverpool and London, although some is sent to Antwerp. The “Ville du Havre,” when it met with its disaster, had on board one hundred packages of pork, belonging to Mr. Squire, but fortunately it was insured. But the English workman says: “ Recently I have lived on bread and cheese, and I am not satisfied. My wages are eight shillings per day, and I must have pork.” And he takes it in the shape of bacon or hams. I am apprehensive that he will become more ex- acting in his demand for fresh produce, and we shall have to send out fresh pork in some way or other, and possibly beef in the same condition. Another proposition: The closing of these works would tend to reduce health and life itself by the diminution of food and employ- ment, According to the proof in this case, the discontinuance of these works would increase the cost of fresh meat at least one third, and throw many people out of business. Another effect of closing these works will be to transfer most of the business now done in them to New York and Chicago, whose railways and steamships will receive the freight money now paid to Boston railways and steamships. Such a transfer would carry with it a large population 180 that would be wholly lost to the State, and would occasion a loss to these defendants of $400,000. ‘Another point: During the past year these defendants have supplied freight sufficient to load fourteen steamships to Liverpool, and two to Antwerp. As their export trade doubles yearly, they will be competent in the coming year to load a semi-monthly line to Liverpool, and a monthly line to Antwerp, which would be in- valuable to Boston. The memorials of the Board of Trade and of the Cunard Steamship Company sustain these points. The com- mittee appointed by the Board of Trade tell us that if the establish- ment is not disturbed, a second weekly line of steamships will be started from Boston to Liverpool by April, but will be abandoned if these works are closed. I hope that in time we may have an An- twerp line, but at present we depend upon sailing vessels sent out from this city. I understand that during this very past week a very large part of the cargo of the Marathon and two or three other vessels bound for the Continent of Europe was furnished from the works of John P. Squire & Co. Again, the evidence of Judge Russell, the Collector of the port of Boston, establishes the fact that one half the exports of Boston consists of hams, lard, and bacon, and that half the annual increase of its exports consists of the same staples. Very many of the above points are sustained by the me- . morial and evidence of the Boston and Albany Railroad Company, in which the State is a large stockholder. To sustain the firm of J. P. Squire & Co. is the true policy of the State, as it is interested to the extent of a million in the Boston and Albany line, and to the extent of twelve millions in the Tunnel line, — both of which must draw a large revenue from this firm if it is left undisturbed. If they are sent off to Cincinnati or to Chicago, that business will to a cer- tainty be lost to the State. The State has evinced a desire to preserve the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co., by the action of two committees and two com- missions, as also by the efforts it has made to keep open the lower basins of Miller’s River, and the cellars under the Squire establish- ment. It has done so, too, by the requirement of new drains, and of the filling of Miller’s River. The whole subject of a nuisance in Miller’s River has been confided to a State Commission, who super- vise both filling and drainage, and it is respectfully submitted to this Board that the true course for the Board of Health to pursue in this case is to await the result of the operations directed by the 181 State. We hope to put on one or two of the State Commissioners, certainly one of them, Mr. Parker, who once appeared for the clos- ing of the river, and trust we shall be able to show that this work which is now going on, the filling of the basins and the building of the drains, will substantially do away with the nuisance thdt comes from the river. We respectfully submit that the Commission should be permitted to finish its work, and see what can be done before this Board interferes. One of the witnesses who was exam- ined, I think the homceopathic physician, testified that he thought the effect of the closing up of the basin would be to enable them to locate the smell and get rid of it. He was uncertain whence it came, and most of the witnesses were uncertain. You require cer- tainty, not conjecture. Mr. Squire stands before you as a party pre- sumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. He is not to be tried upon suspicion or conjecture, or by any prejudgment that any one or more members of this Commission: may have formed, but upon evidence rendered to this Commission; upon this he is to be acquitted or found guilty. Why dishearten him? Why discourage him? Why break up what is going on successfully ? Why cut off his means and resources for filling in? Why de- prive him of the opportunity of doing what the State has enjoined upon him ? I have a few suggestions more which I will soon finish. My next point I have already adverted to, and I will merely glance at it. The animals on their way to the defendants’ works are taken often by night, and usually in one or two trains across a marsh and other lowlands, and pass near few dwellings. They pass rapidly into the packing-house ; if any odor comes from them, it is transient and in- considerable, and if need be, may be subdued by charcoal or disin- fectants in the cars: it should not be suffered to outweigh the great interest of commerce. De minimis non curat lex. I will call your attention to the location of the Grand Junction Railroad. It runs across, that unsettled district in Cambridge, and passes near very few buildings, and I think occasions offence to very few people. I think of no road that could be used for that purpose with so little objection as this. The defendants, in accordance with the advice given by the State Commission, have improved their works, set a steam-shovel in mo- tion, and are filling up the basin of the river near them at a cost of twenty-five cents a foot, and are thus expending more than $75,000, 182 and it would be cruel for the State to disturb them after they have, at the instance of the State, incurred such heavy expenses. The next point is: That which remains to be done is to accelerate the drain which the State has required to be built through Cam- bridge to deep water in Charles River. The Mayor of Somerville has begun this drain with energy, but it is delayed by Cambridge. If there is any nuisance next year, it must come from other sources, or from the neglect to build this drain which has been ordered by the State. I understand that Cambridge intends to appeal from the decision of the State next year. If its people are so solicitous to get rid of the smell, let them finish the sewer. Mr. McIntire. We don’t want it in the neighborhood of Charles Street. We want it down the harbor. Mr. Derby. I have no objection personally to its going down the harbor. I am coming to my last proposition. It is incumbent on the State Board of Health to take a broad view of this question, and not to look with an eagle’s eye for small defects, or to proceed in the spirit of an inquisition for blood; but, while taking reasonable care of the comfort and health of the public, to cherish the business by which thousands of the people of this State earn both bread and meat, and thereby sustain the Commonwealth. Within one hour of this State House is a population of a million, doubling once in twenty years. If permitted to extend its foreign trade, it will, in less than half a century, exhibit a population as large as that of London. In our foreign trade imports depend on exports, and ex- ports with us depend chiefly on a single staple of meat, which increases as grain diminishes, Our inland trade depends more or less on foreign commerce, for the Western merchant seeks the largest assortments. Great interests are not to be sacrificed to those who have sewage on the brain. No excitement on this subject by gentlemen who wish to make Craigie’s Point what nature never designed it to be, and no solicitude to get rid of a little annoyance, must stand in the way of the commerce of our city. and State. Gentlemen, I close with a single expression of my own feelings, which I have reduced to writing: that the much-abused John P. Squire, who has in a few years built up a great business and ex- panded the commerce of the State and its metropolis, and who is beloved by his men as their benefactor and friend, has done more 188 for the commerce of the State than any other individual. No Per- kins, Thorndike, Gray, or Lawrence have done what he has done for the development of its trade. This is the opening which I have the honor to submit. Mr. Derby then put in the following report :— Report of the Special Committee of the Boston Board of Trade on the Pork-Packing Business and the Export Trade. The committee find that these establishments are three in number, owned and managed respectively by Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co., C. H. North & Co., and the Boynton Packing Company ; and they are all lo- cated in East Cambridge or Somerville, on the water-shed of Miller’s River, and the business and process in each are substantially the same. One of these establishments has been brought conspicuously to public notice by a protracted controversy — between parties interested in prop- erty lying in the neighborhood of their works and other persons on the one part, and Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co., the proprietors, on the other part — respecting the sanitary results from the prosecution of their busi- ness in this locality, it being alleged that these results are the pollution of the basin and flats adjacent to the river, and the corruption of the atmosphere by noxious odors and miasmatic exhalations, which are not only extremely offensive, but deleterious to the health of the neighbor- hood. On the other hand, it is replied that no perceptible increase of these disagreeable and dangerous influences has been engendered by the busi- ness of these establishments ; but that their cause is to be found in the nature and topography of the soil, and in the defective drainage of the whole territory, both of the portion occupied by residences and of that used by industrial establishments of all kinds which depend upon Miller’s River for the ontlet of their sewers ; moreover, that measures have been undertaken, and are now in progress, in the nature of improved processes of “melting and rendering,” of chemical disinfectants, of filling the mud-flats with clean gravel, and of constructing ample sewers, leading to full tidal currents, which, when completed, will eradicate the evils complained of. It will be evident upon the briefest reflection that the sanitary ques- tion here involved is one not to be settled by mere visit and inspection by any Géommittee ; and that no intelligent and impartial opinion thereon worthy of adoption by this Board can be formed except by an exhaustive examination of all the facts involved, and a careful maturing of the de- ductions therefrom. And even then the determination of these sanitary influences would seem to belong rather to the department of chemistry and hygiene, under the treatment of. professional experts, than to a commercial organization whose members are unfamiliar with this class of investigations. Moreover, such an investigation could be conducted only during a considerable period of time and by large pecuniary cost, for which this committee is not informed that any provision has been made. They therefore conclude that no such elaborate sanitary investigation 184 was contemplated in their appointment by the Board. We find, however, in the examination of the subject, that such an investigation has already been made by a Joint Commission appointed by the Legislature of Massa- chusetts in 1872, consisting of the Harbor Commissioners and the State ‘ Board of Health. This Commission was charged with the duty of ‘‘de- vising a plan for the abatement of the Miller's River nuisance.” In the execution of this plan they employed Mr. Phineas Ball, civil engineer of Worcester, to make the necessary surveys of the district in question, and estimates for improvements therein. The Report of Mr. Ball, and of the Commission which is based thereon, are herewith submitted for the information of the Board. The Commissioners’ plan for abating the Miller’s River nuisance em- braces four points, all of which refer to additional drainage, and filling with clean gravel all the basins and flats contiguous to that river, until the drainage of all the territory of Cambridge and Somerville now leading into these basins has been diverted from them into Charles and Mystic Rivers. No special allusion is made in the Report of the Commission to the establishments referred to in the resolution of the Board of Trade, either as among the contributing causes to the alleged nuisance, or as involved in the remedies proposed ; but the report is summed up, after stating its four propositions, in the following language : — “The Commission has adopted no temporary measures in regard to this nui- sance, because it was conceded by the representatives of both cities (Cambridge and Somerville) and of all other parties appearing before the Commission, that none could be devised that would give any substantial relief; and such was the unanimous opinion of the Commission.” $ Your committee visited two of the packing-establishments alluded to, on the 12th of November, and found them to be remarkably clean, and free from noxious or offensive odors. Indeed, they were much less offen- sive than many of the small slaughter-houses in the neighboring towns, and less, also, than many establishments in different localities where other kinds of industry are prosecuted. From a business and commer- cial point of view, and especially with reference to our export trade, these establishments appear of cardinal importance, and deserve all reasonable and safe expedients to preserve them undisturbed, or to increase their facilities. Those who are not familiar with the development and growth of this branch of our trade will probably be surprised to learn that Bos- ton is already second only among American cities in the magnitude of its business in pork-packing ; the amount of which annually reaches ten mil- lions of dollars, and furnishes about forty-five per cent of the exports of this city to Europe. The following summary of the exports of pork in various forms, by the establishments named, from the port of Boston during the years 1870, 1871, and 1872, and to September 30 (being nine months of 1873), have been obligingly furnished from the books of the Cunard Steamship Com- pany, by direction of Mr. James Alexander, the agent of the company at this port, and the statement shows the present magnitude, and, by com- parison, the rapid growth of this branch of industry during the period named :— 185 Summary of Shipments by Messrs. J. P. Squire & Co., North & Co., and the Boyn- ton Packing Company, per Cunard Steamers from Boston, during the Years 1870 — 72, and nine Months of 1873. J. P. Squire & Co. Total Weight. Boxes. Barrels. Tierces, Hhds. Tons. wt. For year1870 . . . 38,822 aie bes Leh 798 10 fe 1871 . . . 14,876 ' 2,025 8,950 129 4,586 8 es 1872 . « . 43,859 4,130 1,665 338 12,118 5 “ 1878 . . . 60,364 5,205 2,867 1,086 16,969 10 (to September 30). C. H. North & Co. For year1870. . . . 100 gna mae Oty 25 oa ce 1871 . . . 14,042 100 1,475 176 1,288 9 ef 1872... 12,555 1,034 2,078 255 - 3,466 6 . 1873... 14,284 1,175 885 104 3,590 3 (to September 30). Boynton Packing Company. For year1870 . 1. 1 wee ar wits bis dare: aya ls se 1871. . . «61,948 eee 868 iene 576 8 ee 1872 . . . . 1,606 16 642 51 510 14 bi 18738. we 2,769 304 132 45 728 17 (to September 30). The following statement, furnished by Messrs. Squire & Co., respecting some items of their annual business, will further illustrate the magnitude which this industry has attained in a single establishment ; at the same time that it gives some interesting statistics, by way of comparison, of the hog killing and packing business of this and some of the leading Western cities. Statement of Annual Business of J. P. Squire § Co. Yearly sales . . . . ‘ ‘ $ : . $8,000,000 Number of swine slaughtered Po nee se pA 400,000 Number of menemployed . . . . 5 ws - 500 to 700 Number of horsesemployed . Be Dy ela . 60 to 70 Salt used Fi ‘ ‘ ; ; . ¥ ‘ 3 ‘ . 5,000 tons Coal used . 3 ‘ - . . ‘ ‘ A ; ‘ 2,500 tons Woodused - - wees . oe eee 200 cords Ice used . ‘: . . ‘i . 5 ; i 10,000 tons Number of casks used 5 z : ‘ ‘ , . . - 45,000 Number of boxes used . has os ‘ é . F : 90,000 Wages paid toemployees_ . : . ‘ . $ 500,000 Freight paid Boston & Albany Railroad . 2 Sy $ 700,000" Freight paid Cunard Steamship Company to Liverpool . $ 350,000 Freight paid on shipments to Antwerp. ew FF $ 25,000 Malus of products sold in domestic market . i s : - $5,000,000 a shipped to Europe . 7 - : $ 3,000,000 Cost of land and buildings (J. P. Squire & Co.) - +. . «+ ~~ $500,000 Land used in connection with their business ~ . . : . 19 84 acres Land covered by their buildings . . about 54 acres Cost of filling basin of Miller’s River, under act of Legislature ‘ $ 100,000 Number of hogs slaughtered past: year in Chicago. : 1,425,000 Cambridge and Somerville 800,000 oe “s Cincinnati. . : 620,000 oi oe “ St. Louis. . : 500,000 186 The foreign market for these products is, consequently, growing. The establishments of Messrs. North & Co. and of the Boynton Packing Com- pany are of -more recent origin than that of the Messrs. Squire & Co., but the statistics of their product and sales show a corresponding growth. Whether, therefore, these establishments be considered with reference to the large amount of capital employed, the number of persons also em- ployed, the value of their products, the large amount: of cheap food which they furnish, or the important contributions which they make to our domestic and foreign trade, they seem of notable magnitude ; while in all these respects combined it is not easy to point to any new branch of business so full of promise and value to those who aspire to sustain this city as one of the leading commercial ports of the country. All of which is respectfully submitted. (Signed) ALEXANDER H. Ricz, JEROME JONES, J. H. Dayrorta, Epwarp Sanps, Epwarp W. KINSLEY, GEORGE O. CARPENTER, Eveene H. Sampson, Committee. Testimony oF Mr. Joun P. Squire. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). What is your business? A. Provision business. Q. How long have you been in that business? 4. About thirty-one years. : Q. Where have you been occupied in that business? .4. In Faneuil Hall Market. Q. When did you first locate. your slaughtering. establishment on Mil- ae River? A, We commenced slaughtering there on the 9th of April, 856. Q. Give a general and brief description of the business and its extent. A. It was about one fifth the extent it is now. ae Q. How much land did you cover then? A. I think about 250 by 350 feet. ? Q. That was the size of the building? What territory of land was there about the buildings? A. That was about what we had. Q. Now, you have added what? A. What there is between these buildings and the Grand Junction Railroad. Q. Will you give a minute description of the manner in which you conduct your business, — how many swine. do you kill in a day on the average? A. Some 1,200 or 1,300 daily. They are received from the Grand Junction Railroad, on the platform, and driven into the yards, They do not pass into the streets. Q. It is a covered building that you receive them into? How many stories high? A. Three. Q. What holding capacity has it? A. We might crowd in 7,000 hogs. 0. Now, come to the slaughtering, which is the next step: how is that conducted at present, and what recent changes have you made in that 187 department? A. Very recently we have put our slaughtering establish- ment up stairs, and have a hard pine floor. We conduct the business as we conduct everything else, on the new system. The floor of the slaugh- tering-room has a hard pine floor, with conductors to take everything off into the sewer which is completed. Q. Is it possible, now, for anything from the slaughtering-floors to reach the river by any dripping through? A. Every part of the blood and offal is taken off in wagons. Q. Describe these wagons, —are they tight? A. Yes, sir. Q. How often is the blood removed? A. Just as often as we get a load. Three or four loads a day, or five. Q. Where is it carried? A. To Mr. Bradley’s, in Everett, where it is made into fertilizers. Q. Then we come to the scalding-tank. Will you describe that? 4. Some ten feet long, six or seven feet deep. Q. Where do you get the water to supply it? A. From Fresh Pond. Q. How often is the water removed in the scalding-tank? 4. Every ten or twelve hours. Q. Is anything put into it to precipitate the solid matter? A. I don’t know the article. One part is blood, but I don’t know the others. @. But there is a method by which the solid matter is precipitated 4 A. Yes, sir. Q. What is then done with the water? Is it let off, or used again 1 A. I don’t think it is used again very often. Q. Are you trying experiments with the scalding-water 4. Yes, sir ; we are trying to find the best way to dispose of it. Q. Is there any change made in the place where you formerly washed the hogs? A. It is done in the same manner; but the business is transferred up stairs. Q@. Are the improvements going on in your establishment entirely completed? A. Not entirely. We intend, when this sewer is com- pleted, to turn everything into that. @. When did you begin these improvements? 4A. We began them last summer. @. Well, now come to the rendering department. How many tight tanks do you now use? A. Four. @. As to dead hogs, how many of these do you receive? A. None to any extent, say, ten a week. Q. (by the Chairman). You have four tight tanks? How many kettles? A, There are nine kettles that we use ; but we don’t use them all at once. We used to use them previous to having put in these tanks. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You have close tanks which will do the work of the open kettles? 4A. Yes. We shall set them up just as soon as we can get at it. Q. What delays your doing it at once? dA. We have got to have the building hoisted up, and put a story under it. Q. That is it progress now? A. Yes, sir. ; Q. How long have you had these tanks actually constructed? A. .I think we have had them as much as two months. Q. Then, when they are set up, all the rendering will be done in close tanks? A. Yes, sir. Q. Describe the process by which you get rid of the gases that are 188 generated. A. The pipe runs from the tight tanks to the condenser. The gases then go through a lime chest, and are purified ; and then they are passed through gasoline to the furnace. The tanks are all perfectly tight, or intended to be so. The pipes are connected with all the boilers ; so that, in case one is out of order, we can turn the gas into another of the ten that we have. Q. What other buildings have you beside your slaughtering establish- ment on the ground? A. We have buildings for wheelwrights, carpen- ters, coopers ; and ice and packing houses. Q. Do you make your own boxes, and do your own coopering? A. Yes, sir. We also have a blacksmith-shop. Q. What have you done in the way of filling the flats, under the Act of last winter? A. I don’t know the exact area. I suppose we have covered about four acres. Q. How many acres have you to fill? A. There is as much more, and perhaps a little more. Q. Can you tell what yon have spent in filling in, under the Act of the Legislature? A. About $ 25,000. Q. What do you anticipate your whole filling will cost? A. It is deeper towards the channel, and will cost, I suppose, about $ 75,000. Q. That does not include your contract with the city to fill up the rest? A. No, sir. 2 Q. Where do you get the gravel? A. From Prospect Hill. Q. Have you constructed a railroad? A. No, sir. It is brought down in horse-carts. Q. I see that the Legislature, by the Act, requires you to build a bulk- head about your building. What do you intend to do with the material now under your building? 4. I intend to clean it out; and when the bulkhead is built, it will allow nothing to go under it. It will be as clean asacellar. Q. Are you at work upon the bulkhead? A. We have built most of it, but have left openings underneath it, to remain till the sewer is completed. Q. Have you filled against it? .A. No, sir; we have n’t got as far as that yet. Q. What delays that? A. We have not got as far as that yet. The city sewer is on the other side. When the city of Cambridge diverted the Gore Street sewer into Broad Canal, there was a break in the Gore Street sewer which runs under my buildings, and has been there ever since. Q. Until the cities of Somerville and Cambridge have constructed the large sewer, it is not possible to close the channel of Miller’s River en- tirely? A. No, sir. \ Q. What are other people doing toward meeting this legislative require- ment to fillin? A. All the rest of them have done about one third of what I have. Q. Within what time is it expected that the entire valley of Miller’s River down to the Boston and Lowell Railroad will be filled in? A. I have a contract to fill the balance of the basin, exceptirfg a little around the Kerosene Works and a little which is in Somerville below the bridge. I have a contract from the city, which I could complete before hot weather began, if they could provide the way for the channel. I could finish the work by the Ist of June. 189 Mr. Muzzey. The Legislative Act of last winter in substance is this: It requires the filling, so far as the scheme of the Act goes, of the entire territory of Miller’s River and its basins lying above the crossing of the Boston and Lowell Railroad. That takes in the whole of the Squire Basin, the Boynton Basin, and the stream above, so that the whole district is made solid land. Then, consequently, a sewer is to be built, — compulsory legis- lation in this case was had, for the first time in Massachusetts, as to a sewer. That sewer, it was provided, should be built, taking the course of Milk Street in Somerville, which is Bridge Street as continued in Cambridge, and find its outlet in the deep water at Craigie Bridge. The Commission, which was composed of this Board and the Harbor Com- mission, in 1872 reported in favor of the filling and the building of the trunk sewer. There were six lines reported, by the engineer employed, as all feasible lines, and the choice of the engineer lay between two of these routes, one of which would have put the mouth of the sewer at Tufts Dock, Mystic River, near its opening into the sea. There was a controversy upon that point, and finally it was decided in favor of Craigie Bridge. And here let me say that Mr. Squire went to the Legislature to ask that everything that they had recommended be done. The cities of Somerville and Cambridge went before the Joint Commission, and asked that the sewer should continue to find its outlet somewhere in Miller’s River by the Boston and Lowell Crossing. But the Commission and their engineer agreed that Miller’s River should no longer be the point of discharge for sewers. The engineer recommended these two lines. A compromise was made, so that while the filling was to be re- quired, it gave a choice of the route of the sewer to the election of the two cities, and compelled them to build on some one line. It provided also for the appointment of a commission of three gentlemen who should have control of the locating and carrying on of the work. When the bill got into the Legislature, it was amended, so that the route was selected by the Legislature itself, and pointed to Craigie’s Bridge for the outlet. Mr.Squire interposed no further than in his appearance before the Committee. It was the decision of the Legislature. And here I may say that the Chairman of the Committee on Water Supply and Drainage, who himself was an East Cambridge man, from this very territory, thought that route should be selected. Well, now, while Mr. Squire has entered upon this work, and has filled in a large share of his territory, and is now with his men and ‘his carts turning Prospect Hill into the basin, the others have not got one third as far with the work. Somerville has commenced to build its sewer on its own territory ; but Cambridge murmurs a little re- sistance to this Act of the Legislature, and proposes to go and ask that they may be relieved of the requirement as to the building of the sewer. 190 Mr. McIntire. I don’t think that is quite so, Mr. Muzzey. They don’t think the sewer should be built on the line indicated by the Act. They want the sewer and admit the necessity ; but we see that, built upon this line, it will afford no relief, but, on the contrary, it will be the greater nuisance. It should go to deeper water. Dr. Derby. There is one point I wish you would explain, if you can, and that is this: the Joint Commission recommended the cities of Cam- bridge and Somerville and others to fill up the basins, including the Squire Basin, but a part of this basin, directly underneath the establish- ment, is not to be filled, but is still to remain there unfilled. Mr. Muzzey. Mr. Squire owns some twenty acres, and his buildings cover, I think, four or five. By not filling this space underneath the building he is saved money.and preserved a cellar. The deposit will be taken out and the bulkhead will form an impervious wall. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). Whatever gets into that cellar cannot get out 4 Mr. Muzzey. You understand, sir, it is to be cleaned out, and is to be as pure a place as any dwelling-house cellar.: , Q. How many acres of the basin are thus covered ? Mr, Muzey. J think about four or five. Mr. Squire. 1 will make a proposition to the Board. When the cellar is cleaned out, if they are not satisfied I will fillit up. There shall be nothing there that anybody shall have any chance to complain of. Mr. Newhall. That disposes cf that. Mr. Squire. If it is not in proper shape, I will finish it. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). When -did you put in the new machinery for de- stroying the gases? A. In July. Q. Did the city of Cambridge pass an order requiring all persons en- gaged in rendering by steam to use close tanks? .A. I think they did. Q. Do you render anything that is not sweet? 4. We have occasion- ally a dead hog. Q. Where are they rendered? A. We have a small tank, and when we have a dead hog we put it into that. Q. Take the average of the arrival of animals dead in the cars, how many of them do you receive in a week, take the whole year? -A. I don’t think they average more than one a day. I don’t know, but I can fur- nish the exact number. I keep a record of the whole. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). Everything that is rendered at your establish- ment comes there alive? A. Everything, with the exception of a hog that may die in coming to us.‘ We do, occasionally, if a man has a hog that dies, take it if it is not offensive. Q. Well, now, what is rendered from the dead animals in your estab- lishment? A. It is manufactured into grease-oil. -@. Is it ever made any other use oft A. No, sir. Q. Is it ever made into purified lard? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). Well, now, I want you to give us a little account of how you receive these animals, where and how they are gathered, what 191 method of selection is pursued, and of their journey till they reach your place? 4. Most of them are brought from the stock-yard in Chicago. Q. Have you agents there? A. Yes, sir; I have agents constantly there, hired by the year. The cars are opened, and they are taken off at Toledo. Sometimes they run through from Chicago to Buffalo, and from Buffalo to Boston. Q. They are loaded at Chicago, and taken off at Buffalo, and fed and watered. Are they fed and watered in the cars at all? A. Never. Q. Then where is the next stopping-place? A. At Buffalo. Q. Then from Buffalo they come to Boston? A. No, sir; we take them off at Albany. They make three stops upon the road. - Q. What are their habits in the cars? A. They make no nuisance on the cars. Q. For what period of time are they on the way from Chicago to your house? A. Five days is the regular time. Q. How many come in a car on the average? A. That is according to the size of the hogs. We calculate about twenty-three thousand or twenty-four thousand pounds to the car. The average number is from seventy to one hundred and ten. In the spring they are lighter than at other times. Q. Are they all on one floor? A. There is a deck in each car, making two floors. They are what are called double-deckers, and are counted as two cars. Q. How many of these car-loads do you receive in a day on the aver- age? A. Perhaps from the first of March till the time of the panic we ran about’ ninety cars per week; sixteen aday at that time. In the sum- mer-time ‘we run a few less. Q. How long does it take to unload the swine from the cars into your place? 4. If we had fifteen cars we would unload them in fifteen minutes. They can be unloaded at the same time from both decks of the same car. Q. Ten or fifteen minutes is sufficient time to discharge the freight of sixteen cars? A. Yes, sir. d Q. Are the cars after their arrival allowed to stand on the track? A. The engine generally takes them back. They whistle when they arrive, and we go to take care of them. Q. Have you made experiments, under the direction of Professor Hors- ford, to see what can be done to sweeten the animals in the cars on their passage? A. No, sir. Q. Has he not made one experiment? -A. I think he has. Q. Have you requested his professional advice and assistance in that matter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, take the floors of your pens in your hog-houses ; what do you do with them? .A. We never allow our hogs to stay in the yard over night. 0. How often are the pens cleansed and sprinkled with charcoal? A. Every day, if there has been anything in them. Q. Before I forget it, let me ask you if you are in the constant practice of running your works on Sunday? A. No, sir. Q. Now, it has been testified that you have been running the works on Sunday. Won't you state under what circumstances, and why you do it? A. Because of the delays in the trains. We have sometimes to 192 kill in-warm weather. We can double the force in the day-time and kill twelve or fifteen car-loads at once. I consider every dollar we pay out on Sundays as lost. Q. How long do you keep them before you kill them? .4. We don’t keep them any longer than over night except they get delayed, and then we might keep them some two or three days. Q. But as a rule you receive them just as fast as you are able to kill them, and do not have them accumulate on hand? When the trains are delayed they come altogether, and you,kill them at once? A. We buy every day in Chicago, and kill every day here. Q. Does it ever happen that the transportation of three days arrives at your house at once? .4. We have had such an occurrence in the win- ter, when there were storms at the West. Q. Do you not have in view, in working upon Sunday ever, the public comfort, in getting rid of the animals from the house? A. That is the object. Q. Then again as to the supply of the early Monday market ; has it anything to do with that? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by a member of the Board). How much do they shrink between Chicago and Boston? A. About twenty per cent from their live weight in Chicago to the dressed weight here. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). I will put you a-question, If the soup-liquor which you now run into the river is, in the opinion of this Board, an ar- ticle that ought not to be put into it or into the sewer, are you ready and willing to carry it away, and dispose of it in any way they may direct? A. Certainly. Q. So also as to the scalding-tanks, will you submit yourself to- their direction, whatever it may be? A. Yes, sir. Q. In fact, without going into details, would you welcome their advice gladly, if they would give it to you? -A. I would be very glad to have their advice. Q. And you would follow the advice of this Bail i in conducting your business? A. Certainly. ; Q. Why could not you adopt the suggestion of the Board, that you should remove to some other place to carry on your business? A. It. would: be very expensive. The farther we get from the markets, of course that is expensive. The buildings we have there would not be worth anything. It would be about equal to tearing them down, as you do here to widen streets. It would not amount to anything. Q. Well, then, would you be willing to go into business with some of these individuals, -—for instance, Barry, — and let them do their business with you? A. I should not want their reputation for stinks. Q. You would object to the business association to begin with ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then whether or not your own establishment is as large as it can comfortably be under one person’s management ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How does it compare in size with the Brighton Abattoir! A. I don’t know. I was never there. Q.. What led you originally to select Miller’s River as the place for the establishment of this business? .A. Its nearness to market. We slaugh- tered out at the Arlington Heights before I was here. Q. What is the distance by rail that you have to transport pone prod- ucts to the Cunard wharves? -A. Less than three miles. 193 Q. Tothe Faneuil Hall Market? 4. I call it about a mile and*three quarters. Q. What you send into Faneuil Hall Market goes there by teams. How is that sent which goes to the Cunard wharf for shipment to Europe and to the vessels that go to Antwerp? A. On the cars to East Boston. Q. You state that the amount of your domestic trade is about half of the eight millions of your production. How widely extended in the com- munity is your domestic trade? .A. All over New England and into New York. ; Q. Now in sending out your products to all parts of New England and to New York, how generally is the product transmitted by rail? Is any use made of the roads that connect with the Grand Junction Rail- road? A. Not often to any extent. Q. By the circuitous route of the Grand Junction Railroad it is about six miles to East Boston, is it not? A. Ido not know the distance. I did not suppose it to be more than three miles. ; Q. What is wanted for the domestic markets is delivered from your establishments in East Cambridge and Somerville, the greater bulk of it? A, Yes, sir. Q. And others buy of your houses in Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. What business places have you in Boston, of your own? A. There are properly three stalls in Faneuil Hall Market which are our own and two with which we are connected. — Q. Have you any places in Boston supplied from your establishment in East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. I have a store in North Market Street and on Blackstone Street, and one in Merchants’ Row; another on North Market Street where we cut up stuff for the stall. Q. Now you are doing something in Cambridge opposite your place in Gore Street, putting up a large brick building. What is that for? A. There are several parties carrying on work there. : Q. Is that to be a free market-house? Do you intend to make any difference of prices in carrying that on? A. No, sir. Q. Do you intend to charge the same prices there that are charged in provision-shops in East Cambridge? A. I calculate to sell for prices that we can afford. | . Q. Whether you mean to sell at wholesale prices or at retail prices ? A, TI calculate to sell at wholesale and retail prices. I do not intend to interfere with East Cambridge shops, of course. ; Q. Well, how much of the first story of that building will the market occupy? A. We may probably occupy the whole of it for a market. Q. What is the size of the building and of what material is it built? A. It is built of brick and is 56 by 57 feet. Q. How many stories? A. Three. Q. What will you do with the stories above the first? A. Use them for tenements or boardirig-houses, as it may be convenient. Q. Do you own, besides your slaughtering establishment, the houses that your men occupy? A. There are twenty-nine, besides the works, which are occupied by my men, and which are owned by me. @. Your workmen mainly live in East Cambridge and in Somerville ? A. Yes, sir; right close by. Q. Take the general condition of your men as to health, what is it! 13 194 A. Pthink that their health will compare favorably with that of any people in any community. ‘Q. As to their families? .A. And their families. Q. They constitute the population nearest your works? A. They do. Q. How many men have you? A. We have about five hundred now. I think the greatest number on the pay-roll was six hundred and eighty- seven. Q. Mr. Squire, do they carry on the Toby and Booth slaughtering- house on the North River during the summer as well as during the win- ter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what is the reason that in Chicago they do not do the amount of business in the summer season that they do in the winter ? Has the getting of, ice anything to do with it? A. I think that they can get ice enough. They are working around into summer, packing more than they have done. Q. Their former habit was to kill only in the winter? .A. Yes, sir; but that is not true at the present. They kill to some extent now in the summer. Q. I wish you would describe what you know personally about the es- tablishments around you, besides those of Boynton, Lincoln, Chamberlin & Co., and North & Co., — of the other establishments pursuing the busi- ness of rendering? A. It is well known to all of the inhabitants of Hast Cambridge that decayed matter and grease are collected, carried out there, and tried. Some of them will get an accumulation of a week, some longer. It is carried out there and tried, and makes an awful smell. Some of these men have made these smells there this summer ; lots of them. When I have been going home, there is O’Neil’s place a short distance off, which has made me sick, so that I almost vomited, 4 great many times. Q. What is the odor that is given off? A. It is a very stinking odor ; that is all I can say about it. It is an odor I know and can recognize from others there. @. Do you ever smell that odor up in your own neighborhood ? A. Yes, sir, often. Q. Well, what sort of places are O’Neil’s and Shevvellin’s? Did n’t O'Neil pass some judgment upon himself, and in place of his open kettles put in close tanks? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. And did the city of Somerville prevent his using them? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Squire, have you taken any measures to assist the public authorities, as well as to protect yourself, in ascertaining what there is, excepting the basins of Miller’s River, that makes mischief in the air in that locality? And if so, tell what you have done. A. I have tried to call the attention of the authorities of Charlestown and Boston to the subject. Q. Well, have you employed any men to keep an eye upon the teigh- borhood and ascertain the source, as far as possible, of anything that was disagreeable? 4. Since the 26th of June, I think, with the exception of one night, —I am not certain of that, — until the 10th of September, we had men out every night this present year. They used to come in from eleven to one o’clock. ; Q. Have they kept a record of what they have observed? A. Yes, sir; including the direction of the wind. ‘ 195 Q. Have you a report of the discoveries that have been made by them of the condition of things on any particular occasions? A. On the morn- ing of the 18th of June, when I came down to the works, I was informed by one of my men that Reardon had been making an awful stink. He said to me, “ They lay it to us. What shall we do?” I said, “Take the horse and buggy and go to Brine.” He is one of the members of the Board of Health in East Cambridge. He went to his house and did n't find him, and then went to his store in Boston and informed him of it. On that same evening I received a letter from Dr. Derby in regard to the bad smells that we had had. I had just got ready to go home, and stepped into my buggy and went away to Dr. Derby’s house. I didn’t find him at home, but the lady at the house said he was over at Mr. Boardman’s. I went there, and told Dr. Derby that I was very glad to receive the letter from him while the matter was fresh in mind, and I related the circumstance that I had notified a member of the Board of Health in Cambridge with regard to this matter. Q@. Do you remember anything in particular that oecurred on the 9th, 10th, and 11th of June? A. No, sir; nothing particular. There ‘were a great many nights that they complained of bad stinks, but they always came from the wrong direction to be ascribed to us. There is a dock smell there, which, of course, they have all of the time. These big stinks were always in the wrong direction to come from our works, so far as our investigation went. Q. Do you remember anything occurring to produce the bad smell in the neighborhood on the 17th of June? A. That is what I have just spoken of. . Q. Now, I want to come to the night of the 3lst of July. What occurred in your establishment on that night? 4. That night the pat- entee of this apparatus that we have, wanted to exhibit it, and wanted to have the Board of Aldermen and the people about there to come and see it and advertise it. We arranged for an exhibition of it for that evening. The Aldermen came there and the apparatus was exhibited. From some fault or other, the men were not acquainted with the working of it, and they could not get it to work, at first. He was a little disap- pointed for perhaps three quarters of an hour; but after it was under- stood, the gas burned very well and without any difficulty. Before we got it to burn, there was a little smell of gas from the water getting hot in the condenser. It was nothing more than you would smell when the gas is leaking in the street, for perhaps ten or fifteen minutes. After the water got cool and the gas began to burn, it was all right and sweet around there. The apparatus was a success in every way. Q. Well, how late were they there, the Committee of the City Government? A. Some of them might have gone away at nine, some at half past, and others at ten or eleven. Q. Who were these gentlemen that constituted that Committee? A. Mayor Bradford, and I think pretty nearly all of the Aldermen. Q. It was not, then, the Committee on Health only? 4. No, sir. Q. How long were you about the premises yourself? A. I went away about half past eleven, perhaps a little later. Q. Did you receive a visit from Mr. Magoun and others that evening ? A. Mr. Magoun was there with the others. Q. Was Mr. Hastings there? A. I don’t know that he was. 196 Q. Was Mr. Meyer there? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recollect any other persons except Mr. Magoun and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen? A. It does not come to my mind just now. Q. Well, now, what was going on that night in your establishment ? A, The tanks were going all night after that. Q. Were the open kettles? .A. Yes, sir. Q. How many close tanks were in operation? .A, Four, I think. Q. Do you do anything in the night that differs from what is done inthe day? -A. The open kettles are run both in the day and night, and the tanks only in the night. Q. At what time do you begin to run the tanks? .A. Perhaps we get the steam on them at four, five, or six o’clock. As soon as we get a tank full we put the steam on. Q. How long do you runthem? .A. About ten hours. Q. Well, was anything going on in your establishment that night which differed from the ordinary state of things? .A. Not at all. There could not have been, except this little escape of gas for a few minutes. This occurred about eight o’clock. This disappeared in about fifteen minutes. Q. Do you know of any other nuisance in the vicinity of Miller’s River, take the Prison Point Bridge locality, for instance? -A. The stinks around there are very thick. The water up the ditch along the side of the Grand Junction Railway is very offensive, indeed. My attention was called to it one night, and I got into a boat and went up there. It made me sick for twenty minutes. Mr. Brine’s attention was called to it several times. Q. How far is that from your place, Mr. Squire? 4. About five hun- dred feet. Q. (by the Committee). Was that a sewage odor? 4: It was a combi- nation of everything, I should think. I think the ditch is now filled up. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). It is not your property? A. No, sir. There is property west of the Grand Junction Railway where there is no sewer, and that is very offensive. There is other territory that they are filling up now, which is being filled without any sewers. Mr. McSorley told me that he was made sick working about there, and that he had to go home and go to bed. Q. That is land that the basin does not touch or flow over? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are there other such places in your vicinity’ 4. There are a great many ditch-holes there that make bad smells. There are lots of them this side of Medford Street. Q. Is that the territory that is to be filled by Act of the Legislature ? A, Part of it is, but not all of it. Q. How far distant are you from Broad Canal, in Cambridgeport, which is drawing now so much attention? A. I could n’t tell you; half mile, T should think. Q. Do you speak of the marsh land lying between Cambridge Street and Broad Canal, as a spot not covered by the Act of Legislature, but which ought to be filled? A. I think it should be. Q. Do you know anything of a sewer in a bad condition connected with the House of Correction in East Cambridge? .A. There is one there, and I think that the County Commissioners awarded the city of Cam- bridge $ 800 to carry it out into deep water. 197 Q. What has been the condition of things there? 4. I think it is just as bad as Miller’s River, any part of it, and worse. Q. When you first established your business where it is located now, were there many dwelling-houses in the immediate vicinity? A. No, sir. Q. Have they been built quite generally since you came there, so that the land is now pretty well covered over? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the class of buildings that have been put up there within ee years} .A. They are of the poorer class; such as working people uild. Q. What was the condition of the river when you first came there? A. I think when I came there there were no sewers, the drains ran directly into the basin. Q. What sewers have been running in there since? A. The Catnbridge Street sewer for one, which runs back as far as Hovey’s Nursery. Then there is the Gore Street sewer, which used to pass down through our cooper yard. Four years ago they built a sewer alongside of the Grand Junction, and it was turned into that. Formerly it used to empty im- mediately under our buildings. Q. Did that have any effect upon the basin or the condition of things beneath your buildings? A. It caused more nuisance, five times over, than all that we put in, of course. Q. How long was this sewer which came from Hovey’s Nursery down to the basin? .A. About a mile. ‘Q. What district did the Gore Street sewer drain? A. It drained Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Streets, —a populous district, thickly settled. Q. Where did the Medford Street sewer enter? A. It entered at the upper end of the basin. Q. That drains Somerville territory, does it? A. Yes, sir. There is, also a Winter Street. sewer down below. Q. Is there not another sewer coming from above the Grand Junction Railroad? A. Yes, sir. There is also the Fifth Street sewer. Q. That, then, makes six sewers, above Miller's River, flowing into this basin alone. Now, then, how many of these sewers continue to run into the basin? .A. All except the Gore Street, which we have just turned out. The Cambridge Street sewer was diverted last fall. Q. Does any open under your buildings now? A. We have planked it up, so that it does not run directly under, and we have extended it a little farther beyond, but it still empties into the Miller’s River basin. Q. You have been charged with putting offal and blood into the basin in times past. Will you state whether you do anything of that kind now? A. No, sir; not at all. Q. How long since you ceased to make any use of the basin in that way? A. Three or four years. Since the first of this month Mr. Bradley has taken it all. Q. Well, have you for a year polluted the basin with any offal or blood? A. Nothing more than comes from washing the hogs. Q. Have you had anybody keeping an account of the direction of the wind? A. We have a watchman who is a very competent man, who has made a record several times a day. Q. When did he begin? A. He had kept it previously for my benefit, but he put it on cards before the 31st of July. ‘ 198 Q. How many times a day does he take the direction of the wind? A. He is there from six o’clock in the evening until six or seven in the morning, and if there is a change he makes a note of it. During the day he does not make a note of it. Q. Now, Mr. Squire, if your business should be stopped where it is now conducted, what would you do? where would you go? A. I don’t know. I don’t know of any better place than that I have got. Q. Would you transfer it to any other place in Massachusetts? A, Not of the magnitude that it is now. Q. Where would it probably be transferred to? A. To the West. Q. What injury would it be to you, if this Board should order you to stop carrying on your business? A. Jé would wipe out thirty years of my savings. Q. Why? A. The buildings would be almost valueless. Q. What effect would the stopping of the pork-packing business, as carried on by yourself, by the Boynton Packing Company, by North, and by Lincoln & Chamberlin, have upon the price of pork in the market ? A. It would have a tendency to shorten the market, and make prices a great deal higher. Q. How much higher would pork be in price in this market 4 The Chairman. It seems to me that is a question we cannot take into consideration. Mr. Squire. I think it would raise the price at least twenty-five per cent on all fresh meat. Q. Would it affect anything except the price of pork? A. Yes, sir. Pork is the great leveller of prices of all meats. The Chairman. I don’t think that is relevant to the subject. Mr. Muzzey. We put it in the light that cheap meat concerns the health, comfort, and convenience of the whole community. AFTERNOON Srssion. — TesTIMONY OF Mr. SQUIRE CONTINUED. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You listened, Mr. Squire, to the testimony of Mr. Boardman and Dr. Durgin, members of the Boston City Board of Health. They made a visit to your establishment. I would like to have you relate what occurred on that occasion? A. I went over the works very thoroughly with them, and showed them everything there was there. After having been around with them, and supposing that they had seen everything, some one said they would like to see where we smoke hams, so I went out and showed them that. Then Dr. Durgin, as we were going along, began to snuff. He said, ‘‘ What smells so?” I said, “I can’t smell anything.” I could not smell the first thing. Q. In point of fact, is the floor over that area you were crossing tight, or can the odors find their way through? -A. The floor is not tight and never was intended to be. Q. Some witnesses have spoken of a smell or smells in various parts of the building. I want to know if any one visiting your building in the warm weather does not get smells from outside? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do not odors always come in from the basin outside? .A. Yes, sir. ‘ 199 ; Q. Do you know it as a fact, that the odors from the basin invade your establishment, and are perceived in it? .A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you anything further that you would like to state to the Board? A. [ would like to say of Mr. Munroe, that what he said about the state of things was greatly magnifying things, like making one hogs- head ten hogsheads. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Squire, you spoke of those places where they tried out soap-grease ; you were there seventeen years ago? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know anything of those places then? Don’t you know that seventeen years ago there was n’t a great deal more soap-prease tried out there then than now? A. I don’t think there was so much then as now. Q. Don’t you know that there was so much, — don’t you know that single individuals used to collect grease in the country, and each indi- vidual tried out his own grease? A. Yes, sir. Q. Don’t you know that that whole locality, where Barry and O'Neil are, that there were many of them there? A. There were more in num- ber, but things have been more concentrated. O’Neil does a great deal more. @. Now each man sends off from three to twenty collectors, and gets in grease and tries it out in one place, instead of each collector trying it at his own place? .A. Yes, sir. There are a great many of them, I know, who work that way. Q. Don’t you know that each of them used to get his kettle full and try it out, and did n’t it smell as much as now? A. No, sir. Q. Don’t you know that twenty years ago they got that smell in Charlestown? A. I don’t know ; they used to use small tanks then. Q. Don’t you know that the smell of the pork-fat in Charlestown came from Reardon’s place? .4. I don’t think it came from the tanks. This stink that Reardon made on the 17th of June might possibly have gone over there. Q. What do you think that stink that was in Boston then came from? A. It may be taking somebody else’s business out of their hands, but I will give you my opinion, if you wish. As the tide rises at the mouth of the sewers there is an accumulation in the sewer. During that time this accumulation is undergoing decomposition, and perhaps for four, six, eight, or ten hours. But when the tide drops away that don’t relieve the sewer. The air is hotter and hotter, and there is a smell inside. If there is a crack in the sewer and there is a draught, it makes a horrible stink. : Q. Then you say those smells came from the sewer? A. I do. Q. And they are not rendering odors? .A. They are not rendering odors. They don’t create the heat there. It isn’t the rendering odors that the stuff and vapor rise from. Q. (by a member of the Board). I don’t fully comprehend the answer. You say that when the tide falls the vapors come out of the sewers? A. When the tide leaves the mouth of the sewer, the air is hotter inside than it is outside. But if there is a crack in the sewer, or an opening in the house or in the inlets in the streets, there will be a draught created, the same as up a chimney. 200 Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You spoke of all that low district where all the sewage is, between the Grand Junction Railroad and Cambridgeport ; now, as a fact, houses have not been commenced to be built there till within four or five years? A. It is some four, five, or six years. Q. Hasn't it been gradually built up within a few years? and have not those houses been filled up to a great extent with workingmen ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That locality is not in Cambridge? A. Only a portion of it. I don’t exactly know where the line is. Q. Isn’t all above the Grand Junction Railroad in Cambridgeport ? A, I don’t know that. Q. Mr. Derby stated that about seven hundred of the houses in East Cambridge are occupied by your employees and establishments of that kind. Do you mean to swear to anything of that kind? A. I don’t swear to anything of the kind. Q. How many of your workmen live in East Cambridge? .A. You politicians ought to know that. I don’t know anything about it. Q. Will you swear that two hundred of your workmen live there? A, I don’t swear to anything of the kind. You politicians ought to know better than I do. Mr. Derby. That was my proposition, sir. . Mr. McIntire. I want to see if it was based upon his own compu- tation. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Derby said there are about thirteen hundred houses in East Cambridge; will you swear that a majority of those houses are occupied by your workmen? A. I can’t tell you anything about it. Q. Do you know how many live in Ward 2? A. I do not. I don’t know where Ward 2 extends. Mr. McIntire. Everything west of the dike is in Ward 2; everything east of that is in Ward 3. Q. Now, out of thirteen hundred houses, how large a proportion are occupied by your employees? A. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t know upon what Mr. Derby bases his computation. 2 Q. You own some houses there? A. I own twenty-nine houses or tenements there. There are nineteen tenements in three blocks. Q. Don’t most of your employees live in those houses or tenements ? A. Nothing like all of them. Q. Don’t most of the others live beyond the Grand Junction Railroad in Somerville? 4. I don’t know anything about that. I only know those who live in my houses. Q. Most of those who live with you are healthy, ain’t they? .4. Most of them are. i Q. Have n't you known anybody to become sick in your establishment ; I don’t mean those who come there from day to day, but that some got sick when they first came there? A. I don’t remember a single instance. Q. Don’t you remember that a man got sick on the roof one day ? A, Never heard of it before. - ; Q. Don’t you remember testifying anything about that at the hearing before the Board of Aldermen in Cambridge? A. I don’t remember about it. It is news to me now. 201 « Mr, Muzzey. There was a case that you refer to; it was that of a man at work underneath the building. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). There was a man underneath affected, was n’t there? A. I don’t know. I supposed it was beer. His head and eyes were affected a little, I believe. Q. Never heard of this man being affected on top of the building? A, Never heard of it. | Q. Speaking of dead hogs, I think it has been stated that the hogs that you get there become dead coming from Albany. What is done with the hogs that die on the way. -d. They are sold to parties there, at Buffalo, Toledo, and Albany. Q. Have n’t you had some come through dead? A. I don’t know that Ihave. If they are dead they never bring them through. At Albany a man examines and sees that they are shipped all right. That is his busi- ness. . Q. What parties dé you sell them to at Toledo? A. Ian’t tell you. It is a party’s business there. Mr. Muzzey. Please not to forget, Mr. Squire, to put in a statement of the whole number of dead hogs received by you during this year. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Now, in regard to working on Sundays. You stated that you never work on Sundays except on extraordinary occa- sions. Don’t that happen very often, and have n't you actually employed your men there some part of every Sunday this past season? .4. There are some men who have to work there on Sundays taking care of the lard. Q. The necessity of your establishment requires that you should do some work on Sundays, and you have to work, slaughtering and scalding, etc., part of the day? A. Sometimes we have to slaughter, beginning work on Sunday night and ending on Saturday night. We are obliged to do so. : Q. Then as a matter of fact you have to work every Sunday? A. There is some work to be done there every Sunday. Q. Then, what has to be done every Sunday? .A. Slaughtering has to be done Sunday night. Q. Then you have to render on Sundays? A. We have to clean up Saturday nights, and of course, if we have anything in the kettles, we have to render it. The lard that we take from the inside of the hogs we must put in the kettles. Q. That is gut-lard, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir. Q. All the fat that is rendered into lard is tried out in open kettles? A. Most all. Q. If I understand it, the scrapings and trimmings are put in the tanks? A. We put all the trimmings in the tanks. °Q. You cart most all the hogs over to Boston just to cut them up, don’t you? A. For the last two or three years we take and split them, and that saves the carting. Q. These whole hogs are taken to market and cut up there, and the trimmings are brought back and put into these close tanks? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you do with those trimmings? A. Put them into the tanks. Q. Don’t thoge trimmings get a little soured sometimes? A. No, 202 sir. We have a process that prevents that. They are put into barrels and brought back the next day from Boston. We can’t afford to wait to let them smell. Q. But don’t they get sour before they are brought back? A. The trimmings are taken out and teams bring them back. The lean meat is trimmed off and the lard is put into kettles, Q. Those trimmings are put into barrels, — are they left open? A. We put a sail-cloth over them in hot weather. Q. Do you have those sail-cloths.for hot weather only? A. We have them for both hot and cold weather. Q. You put the head, feet, and trimmings into the kettles to be tried out? A. The head, feet, and trimmings. If there is an overplus it goes into the tanks. Q. These dead hogs, — do you put them into the same tanks that the trimmings are put into? A. In slaughtering there is a sort of waste stuff that isnt fit for lard. If we have a dead hog it is put in with the waste stuff. We render this stuff every day. Some of it is made into oil. Q. Please to tell us what it is that you make oil of, — what parts of the hog do you make oil of and what parts do you sell off? A. We press a great deal of our lard, and we use it all except the waste stuff and the dead hog, which is made into grease, and we press the oil out of the grease. There are two qualities of oil, — grease oil and extra oil. Q. What are the different oils used for? A. They are used on rail- roads generally. Q. What is the difference in the grade of the oil? .4. One is made from grease and the other from lard. Q. Is there any difference in the appearance of them when they come out? A. One is a little more colored than the other. Q. You don’t have any method of clarifying them? A. No, sir. Lard is pressed naturally, and grease is pressed naturally. Q. These kettles are in the same room that the lower portion of the . tank is, and you have four close tanks, — about how many open ket- tles have you? A. We calculate they will hold, when full, Ebel 17,000 pounds. Q. How many pounds will the open kettles hold? A. Ten or eleven flour barrels full of stuff. Q. (by a member of the Board). What is the capacity of a close tank ? A. About 17,000 pounds. We generally put in about 14,000 pounds. Q. (by Ur. McIntire). How many hundred pounds will the round open kettles hold? 4. I only know that those round kettles hold about ten or eleven barrels and each barrel holds about 200 pounds. Q. At all events, you think two closed tanks will render all that hae open kettles render now? A. I think that two more than we have would. Q. How much will they hold? A. About 22,000 or 23,000 pounds. _I don’t know, — never made any calculation. Q. And where you put in pork or scrap to render in the close tanks is up stairs, and you let it out below? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, now, on the night of the 31st you had this new apparatus tried. How long had it been put up? -A. I don’t know exactly. It was put in by Mr. Kendall, a member of the Board of Health. 203 Q. Mr. Kendall has done your work for the past three or four years? A. If he has done it he has got it by bidding for it. We put out our work by the contract, and advertise for the lowest bidder. Mr. Kendall has done a portion of those kettles. ~ Q. He did a portion of those kettles last year? -A. No, sir, he did not. He furnished us a boiler two years ago, and we did n’t consider it good for anything. Q. When was the experiment with gas-burning machine first tried ? A, On the night of the 31st. Q. Never tried it before? A. I don’t know. They might have tried it somewhat, but I think that was the time it was perfected. Q. Before that, I think your apparatus was something that carried off this smell into the basin? A. We blowed it off at high tide. Q. What were the dimensions of the vat that you turned it off into? A. It was 15 by 16. Q. You generally blowed it off at high tide unless you had to blow off the tank when the tide did n’t happen to be high? -A. We never did so, because there was no necessity to: Q. A year ago, Mr. Squire, you claimed that that method was the best to get rid of the matter? A. I think now that, on a full tide, it was the best. Q. Do you think now that it is better than the present method ? A, If we had a full ocean to turn it into, I should think it would be best. Q. But it went into the Miller’s River basin? A. It would be just as good as what I have now, when the tide is full. Q. But you changed it for this apparatus! A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you run this apparatus often now? A. We run it off when- ever it is necessary. It is attached to every boiler we have got now, and runs through it. Q. If I understand this apparatus, it is the gasoline that is burned ? A. The gasoline makes a certainty of its burning. Q. Don’t you have some burners that run into the boiler? A. No, sir. Q. Did n’t you have something of the kind the night you made the experiment? A. No, sir; we had one to show to exhibit it. 2 Q. And you don’t use the gasoline except to burn? 4. We used it at the beginning. Q. As the apparatus is now made, is there no chance or opportunity to turn off those gases without turning them through this coil into the fires beneath the furnace? 4. You can blow them off while the dirty ‘water goes out, but that would n’t do if you let the dirty water get hot. The pipes have to be kept immersed in water. Q. Then I understand that if the water should get warm that it would n’t work, and the gases not rise from the water and mingle with the water? A. No, sir. Q. (by a member of the Board.) The whole thing would go into the stream, would n’t it? A, Yes, sir. Q. And part of it escape in the shape of steam? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did I understand you to say that the steam would condense and pass off? .A. I meant that if we blowed the water through these pipes it would be steam. Mr. McIntire. I understand him to say it would run off into the at- 204 4 mosphere and form steam. But there is a place in the. apparatus ‘where the gas rises from the water. * Q. (by a member of the Board). That is where the steam passes into the tank. The steam mingles with the water in the tank, and the gases escape and go into the burner. Am I right in understanding that the whole product —gases, steam, and all— passes through the coil, and when the coil is kept cool, the steam is condensed and the gases pass along on the gasoline tank, and the water passes out through the aperture 4 Mr. McIntire. That is it. These gases rise through the coil, which purifies them, and then they pass off into the gasoline. Q. (by Mr. McIntire.) What portion of the gasoline, and what kind of gases rise from the coil? A. I don’t know much about the machine myself. Q. Isn’t it after the gases pass through the coil that the gas rises from the water? A. ‘It is after the steam is condensed. Q. (by a member of the Board). The gas and steam are mixed; and the lower chamber condenses the steam? A. That is it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Now, I will ask if that water is warm and the steam does not condense, whether the steam does not come out and the gases go off into the atmosphere? A. No, sir; they would come through the steam-chamber, and press through that, the same as gas would. Part would go one way and part the other; but our engineer could ex- plain this matter better than I can. I think the steam would go out where the condensed water would. : Q. I suppose it is now fixed that the gases pass off after the steam is condensed and passes through the still. The water runs in a different direction? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many hams do you smoke in the course of a year? A. I could n’t tell you. We smoke all we cansell. I can’t give any idea of the number. Q. Do you keep your smoke-houses going all the while? A. Some of them are doubtless going all the time. Q. How many smoke-houses do you have, or how many hams can you smoke in each house? A. In some of them we can put 4,000 hams, in some others 400. Q. Where does the smoke pass off? A. Out of the chimneys. Q. How high are the chimneys? A. J don’t know exactly. We have two roofs, one a sort of loose roof, and another tight roof over it. When I said the chimney, I didn’t say what I meant. The object is not to have a strong draught, but to let them smoulder. Q. How many hogs do you keep on hand generally through the year? A. I don’t think we average more than a day’s work. Q. How many trains go you have daily? 4. One train would bring all we wanted. Q. I understand you to say that you had one ‘train a day, and each car averaging eighty hogs? A. Sometimes they come along scattering, but I should think we generally kept about two thirds of a day’s work on hand. Q. And sometimes you get blocked up, and keep more than that amount? A, Sometimes we get blocked, and keep more than that amount. ; Q. Don’t you wash the pens occasionally? A. Yes, sir. 205 Q. How often? A. Since we began to use charcoal, that is scraped up and washed out about every day, or when the hogs are taken out. Q. Where does that water run down to? -A. It runs down into the tide. We manage to conduct everything into the sewer, or we intend to, but everybody knows we can’t enlarge it, because we haven't got the sewer. Q. Has any part of your establishment been turned into the sewer? A. No part of our works are running into it now. Q. Will you please to tell us how you catch the blood? A. We have a large tank for it; we have changed it from where it was. Q. How large is the place where you kill the hogs, — where the actual killing is done? A. It is made just large enough for work, and no more. Q. How many hogs can you get into it at once? A. Perhaps ten or a dozen at once. Q. You have only one man in there ata time? 4. Only one man. Q. You haul up your hogs to kill them now? A. We put a chain on his hind leg, and when he is hoisted to a certain height a man takes him and sticks him. Q. Does the man who sticks them stand on the floor below? A. He does. I can’t say how far from the floor he is, though I think it is about four feet. Q. He takes the hog by the leg, and sticks him. The floor of this place, where the sticking is done, is made of planks running edgeways, isn’t it? The old method used to be with a two-inch plank by an inch, aud all the blood fell into the water? A. That was the old plan. Q. Now, you say, the floor is inclined and tight, runs off from the centre, sloping into the tub? A. It is made so as to let the blood run out, so that we can wash it, and clean it all up. Q. That place is washed occasionally, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where do the washings from the blood-tub go? A. It runs down into the tub. Q.. How long has that tub been there? A. Ever since the blood has been carried off in that way. Q. Then these hogs are carried off into the scalding-tank. What is done with the bristles? 4. They are sold to a party who takes them off every day and night, except in cold weather, when he doesn’t come so often. Q. And the intestines? -A. They are carried off too. Q. And when the hogs are passed out of the scalding-tank and put on to the benches they are swung up by the legs and opened? A. Yes, sir. Q. There is a certain amount of blood that escapes from the hog when it is washed. Where does that go to? A. That must go into the tide till we get the sewer. 2 at eee Q. And what is done with the intestines and inwards? A. They are carried off the same as the blood is. Q. Are they not put upon the floor before being put into the wagon ? A. They are thrown in the wagon agg cleaned. It has been done in that way always. Q. What is taken out from them? A. The sausage-skins. Q. Where do you put those? A. They are stripped and put down on to the floor. ' Q. The livers, hearts, etc., they are kept there, are they not? 206 A, They are all carted off. ‘We save what is wanted, and the rest is carted off. I make a contract with a party to take them off. @. What is done with the plucks} 4. They are rendered into fer- tilizers. Q. Don’t you save the heartst. 4. We do. We keep the hearts, and salt them. They are all washed, and thrown into a box. Q@. Where does the washing go to? A. Into the tide. When the sewer is built we shall have a proper place to run it off in. Q. Are the intestines washed first? A. No, they are stripped. 4 Q. Where do the washings of them go? .A. They go into the tide, of course. Q. The intestines are taken into the gut-room; what is done with them? .A. We salt them, and men dress them for market use. Q. Isn't that very nasty work? .4. I don’t know that it is very nasty. We can make a nasty job of anything if we have a mind to. Q. But most of your poor workmen are employed in doing that work ? You don’t have any of your best men there? -A. They are mostly one- legged men and men who are disabled. Q. And some Portuguese 4 A. I don’t know of any Portuguese in my establishment. Q. That isn’t a very pleasant smell, is it? A. It is merely a local smell. There is no odor there that will affect anybody outside. Q. Why do you put chloride of lime there? A. Why do you put chloride of lime anywhere ? Q. To get rid of smells, I suppose: Do the washings from the gut- room go into the tide? A. Of course the cleanings from the gut-room go into the tide. Q. You don’t try to influence any local boards of health there? A. I never did. Q. Or tried to influence dtestions’ in any way to prevent parties from going into the Board who were opposed to you? A. Do you want to go into that? Q. It was alluded to in the opening argument here. I want to ask you whether you tried to influence the action of the local Board of Health 4 A. J don’t think the men on that Board are men of that stamp. Q. Mr. Woodbridge isea neighbor of yours, isn’t he? A. He is a neighbor of mine. Q. And Mr. Kendall does your piping? A. He does what work for me he can get. Q. You had more or less conversation with Mr. Sawin at the hearing, had n’t you? A. Never saw him before that night. Q. Have you had some conversation with him since? A. Never have had a conversation with him since. Q. But your men have tried to defeat one of the candidates for Alder- man? A. And they did defeat him, because he was n’t fit to be there. The Chairman. I don’t see the object of going into this, Mr. Mc- Intire. @ : Mr. Muzey. We don’t object. Mr. Squire doesn’t live in the town. His men have been turned out of meetings and had their rights invaded. Mr. McIntire. I don’t wish to go into that. We wish to show that 20T they did go to the meetings, and we can show that money has been spent to defeat a man from our ward who has acted with the petitioners. Mr. Muzzey. We have not the slightest objection. All I desire to say, now that the question has been raised, is, that we do not object; but the, Board will recognize the propriety, if any false aspersions are cast upon us, of our making a proper reply. The Chairman. I think the subject had better stop here. Mr. McIntire. I don’t care to follow it any further. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). On the night of the 31st of July, when this hor- rible stench came up that has been testified to, you say you first tried the experiment of using this apparatus in the presence of Mr. Magoun and others besides, and that night it didn’t work well? A. For a-few minutes it didn’t work well, and then the gas came out. Then in ten minutes it was attached and there was no more chance for it to come out. Q. (by a member of the Board). Where was it attached? 4A, Right on the bridge. * Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Then you think the gas did come out, and that was the cause of the smell? A. No, not a bit of it. The smell we had did n’t last ten or fifteen minutes, and it began about seven o'clock. QY. You heard Mr. Munrée testify that the water was hot? A. Yes; they did n’t know how to use it. Q. Did the water get hot again that night? A. Yes. It got hot again before they came there. @. And you regarded the result of the trial satisfactory? A. I did. Q. How do you know that the sewer at the House of Correction is so foul? A. It must be so, because of the number of water-closets discharged there. Q. You don’t know about it yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Have you seen any blackening of the houses there near the bridge? A. No, sir, I don’t think I have. Q. Then you were not testifying of anything that you had seen your- self? .4. No, I have not examined the sewer. I heard people say so. Q. What you have testified to has been upon what you have heard other people say of the sewers? .A. I know where they are. I have noticed a smell from them, and, in crossing Dock Square, I have noticed a smell that corresponds to these vilest stinks. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Do you mean to say that you are aware of the situation of the sewer that you described in your direct examination, and have smelt odors that came from there? A. These smells that they have been talking about, — these ranky, knock-down smells, —I don’t know anything about them. Q. You are familiar with the smells in your basin? A. I am familiar with them, of course. Q. (by a member of the Board). You mean to say you have smelt these odors of sewers in the streets of Boston? .A. I have heard a great many descriptions of these stinks, and, in passing oyster-saloons in Dock Square, I have smelt the vilest stinks I ever got. Q. Have you a similar smell? .A. We have a strong dock smell, but not as bad. : Q. I would like to know if Mr. Squire has noticed this bad smell at 208 the mouth of the sewer? A. N o, only from general remark ; I have n't been to these outside ones. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You smell the sewers that run into your basin? A. Pe course we get a smell from them. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Is there more than one sewer that empties under your establishment.’ A. There is one other that empties inside of mine. It is within my ground. Q. Do you ever notice the mouth of that sewer ? A. I have noticed it a good many times, but I never noticed these other smells that you have been talking about. We have a strong dock smell, but not the knock-down smell that they are talking about. I think the quantity is small for the locality. There is a good deal of water. Q. Do you suffer with catarrh? A. No, sir, not a bit. Q. You heard Dr. Durgin and Mr. Boardman tell of a smell they got in the quandrangle. I believe Professor Munroe also testified in regard to it. What do you think that smell was? A. I can’t tell you. Dr. Durgin snuffed around there and I could n’t smell anything. Q. And you could n’t smell anything that they did? 4. I look at it just this way: I calculate that anybody being down in the market —a man who is there every day — would n’t smell anything, and a man just come in would. Q. Now, you have long ventilators the whole length of your building, have n’t yout A. This is a new apparatus. We put ventilators, there that did n’t exist there before. Q. What is there that passes into the tall chimney A, Nothing but wood and coal, except this gas. Q. What was the object of building it so tall? A. We built it so because we thought it might be needed. Q. Did you expect to turn off any steam there? A. We thought it might be needed. Q. You are building a large enclosed space there in the basin; what is that for? .A. It is a reservoir for water. Q. Where do you intend to get your water from? A. On the other side of the basin people get any amount of water by digging twelve or fourteen feet. Folks who live there said we could supply our works if we had a reservoir there. So I drove piles and planked it-up eighty feet square. Then we shall clean out the mud and dig down there. Q. Do you think that will be pure water? 4. Yes; the man said it was clean, pure, and fresh. Q. Don’t you intend to do anything there but dig out for water? A, I don’t intend to do anything else. — Q. Do you think the water that runs in there would be pure enough to use? A. Yes, sir; pure enough, if the spiles are driven down far enough. Q. Is there any connection between that place and your sewer? A, No, sir. Q. It isn’t intended to blow off with? .A. No, sir. Q. (by a member of the Board). Do you think it will be good water? A, Yes, sir. If it is not what we expect, we will fill it up. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say you have tried to call the attention of the authorities to the cause of the odor that has arisen? Whom have 209 you ever applied to? .A. I sent a petifion to the city of Boston. The reason I did it was because the news s accused me of making stinks which I didn’t make. I came to the conclusion that the difficulty was with the draughts up the sewers. Q. And you notified the authorities that the draughts were in good condition 4 Mr. Muzzey. We have the document here which will show it. A, That was the object of it. Q. What did you do with Charlestown? A. I sent a petition, and called attention to their own difficulties in Canal Street. Knowing that I did n’t make the smells, I wanted them to look for them.at their own doors. Q. You stated that there was more than one hog a day which came through dead? A. I won’t be certain, but I think it would n’t average ~ more than one a day. Q. But they came mostly in hot weather? A. Extremely cold weather is about as bad as hot weather. Q. How do you collect solid matter that is in the scalding-tank ? What is your method? A. I said I did n’t understand it. Q. Do you understand that you collect all the solid matter ? Mr. Derby. We will put on the foreman presently, and he will explain that. Witness. We have a method of disposing of the solid matter. It is passed off into offal wagons, and goes to Mr. Bradley’s. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Is there not a certain amount of bristles in there? Do you take any care to catch them before they go into the solid matter? A. The bristles there don’t amount to anything. When the hog is scalded, some of them are rubbed off. They are scraped off. Q. (by Mr. Derby). There is a specific process for that? A. Yes, sir. _ Q. (by a member of the Board). Why would n't it be a safer thing to have the cutting up done at your place? A. It is better to have them carried in and cut up as people want them for market. We have ice- boxes for them to be put in. Q. Your impression is that this smell of the sewer came from the Boston side of the river? A. I have no doubt that this stink of July 31 came from the sewer at the House of Correction. I left our works not more than five minutes from half past eleven, and nothing could be sweeter than they were then. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You were asked about the old grease establish- ments in former days, whether they didn’t keep their rancid grease on hand to boil it ; let me ask you whether the odor comes from the dis- charge into the water? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What do I understand you to state, —that if a hog die on the way from Chicago, he is taken out and sold? A. He is left there. The cars are examined at the first stopping-place, and the dead ones are taken out, and so on to the last place; so that no hog reaches the works unless alive, unless he has been killed on the way from Albany to Cambridge. Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). Speaking of the gases that you now burn into the furnaces, I will ask you whether Dr. Jackson said that the former method was satisfactory in disposing of the gases? A. He did. 14 210 Q. Do you know whether Tgbin and Beal have the same method at their establishment on East Rivgge 4. I know they have. Mr. Muzzey. In one of those establishments none of those gases are sara ce by fire. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Now, there was a little escape of gas on the first trial of your gas-consuming apparatus on July 31. I wish to ask you whether since then there has been any trouble, and whether that machine performs its service without irregularity? A. It does, or seems to. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You spoke of sometimes having seven thousand hogs in your slaughter-house ; does that happen except during the cold weather? A. No, sir. @. Does it happen except when the cars are delayed by snow-storms or Sea is a block up on the road? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What did I understand you to say about the blood from the intestines? Does that go into the river? A. There isn’t any there. Q. Only the washings and drippings ever run into the river? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Now, Mr. Kendall — Deacon Kendall, as he is called — has been spoken of as a man likely to be influenced because you bought certain things of him. Is he not a member of the firm of Ken- dall & Roberts in Cambridge? A. He is. Mr. Muzzey. That is a sufficient indorsement of him for the public and this Board. Mr. Derby.. Ihave in my possession some account in a newspaper of the progress of Somerville. I have n’t time to read it, but will simply give it to the Board. 211 REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SOURCES OF THE OFFEN- SIVE ODORS WHICH ARE ASCRIBED IN A PETITION BY JOHN M TYLER AND OTHERS, BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, TO THE HOG-SLAUGHTERING ESTABLISHMENT OF JOHN P. SQUIRE & CO. OF EAST CAMBRIDGE. BY PROF. E. N. HORSFORD. Mr. Muzzey. When I was first employed in this case, and was notified of the time allowed for the preparation of the case, I regretted very much that we were deprived of the services of Dr. Jackson, who had been employed in the case. I inquired of my client whether he knew Professor Horsford, and he said he did not. I asked whether he had ever been to the establishment, and learned that he had not. I then asked my client if he was willing to trust his case to the investigation of Professor Horsford, and he replied that he was. Immediately upon the return of Professor Horsford from Europe, I waited upon him, requested him to make an investigation of the case, and obtained from him a promise to visit the establishment. I am happy to state that this Board was willing to grant *“ my request to give him time for his investigations, and I am still more happy to call him to give the results of those investigations to this Board. Professor Horsford was sworn. Mr. Muzzey. I desire, Professor Horsford; to put to you this general question: Will you state briefly the general circumstances under which you entered into this investigation and what results you have reached ? Professor Horsford. As Mr. Muzzey stated in his opening remarks in regard to my testimony, he waited upon me very soon after I arrived in town after an absence of six months, with a request that I should exam- ine the case of alleged nuisance in East Cambridge. I doubted very much whether I could command the time, in view of the numerous en- gagements that devolved upon me, partly in consequence of my business and partly in consequence of the peculiar state of affairs in which I found myself. But I was willing to go down and see whether it was a practical subject to follow up. J then said that if I had time I could make myself familiar with the subject and be qualified to give an opin- ion in regard to it. He then intimated to me that I could probably have until the lst of December in which to make the investigations. I set about it immediately, and have continued from that time until this. I may say that I completed a report upon the whole question about a fortnight ago. Mr. Muzzey requested that I should put it in writing and 212 have it printed for his convenience, and, as it was possible, I thought it might be well to put the result of my labor into permanent form, and I have the whole manuscript in my hands. That I might have the light of anything that was presented by the prosecution, and that I might amend my judgment if it became necessary, I have retained the manu- script until the present moment. I believe that I have put into a few words the reasons which have led me to the opinion, and I have put it into fewer words than I can present it in any other form. THE REPORT. The question of connection between the Squire Hog-Slaughter- ing Establishment at East Cambridge and the offensive vapors which have been the subject of complaint in Somerville, East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Old Cambridge, Charlestown, and Boston, during the last two years, resolves itself mainly into three inquiries, relating, — 1. To the smell of sulphuretted hydrogen, which, under certain circumstances, rises from decaying animal matter, and which is capable, under cgrtain atmospheric conditions, of changing the white color of silver to brown, and of lead paint from whiteness, or from light shades, to a slate-color. 2. To the smell due to fat rendering, soup-liquor, and scalding- . water. 8. To the smell of living swine. In regard to the first of these, it may be stated that it is be- lieved by many persons that sulphuretted hydrogen, the chief offensive gas arising from putrid animal matter, is necessarily exhaled from any slaughter-house, with whatever care its processes may be carried on. The foundation for this belief rests mainly, doubtless, in the well-known offensiveness of the neighborhood of old and long-used slaughter-houses. This belief is strengthened in the particular case " of Mr. Squire by several considerations which may be enumerated. 1. There are more houses, the paint of which is discolored, in the immediate neighborhood of Mr. Squire’s establishment than at great distances from it; and sulphuretted hydrogen is known to change the light shades of lead paints to a dark slate-color. 2. The discoloration of houses and the offensiveness of the atmosphere have increased somewhat in the ratio of the increase of the works. ” 218 8. This increase of annoyance and of the industry have been coincident in point of time. These foundations of popular belief are entitled to full con- sideration. Mere Slaughtering not necessarily Offensive. In the first place, the mere slaughtering of animals need not be attended with exhalations offensive to persons at any considerable distance. Ifthe opposite were true, an inoffensive and successful abattoir would be an impossibility. That abattoirs are successful and inoffensive we know from the experience of Paris, of Mar- seilles, of Pesth, of New York, and of Brighton. The cause of offence lies not in the slaughtering, but in the want of care of the fat, blood, and inedible parts. . If the viscera, blood, and waste matters are permitted spontane- ously to go into putrefactive fermentation, sulphuretted hydrogen, either by itself or in combination with ammonia, will escape into the air. In Pesth all such matter is washed from stone walls and floors into the Danube. In Paris every portion is most care- fully utilized, taking advantage of heat, water, and antiseptics to altogether prevent the fact of putrefactive fermentation. The presence of smooth stone and cement surfaces in Paris and Pesth make thorough removal of the animal refuse and waste practi- cable. . But in our old and long-used slaughter-houses, without proper floors or drainage, the soil of the underlying and surrounding grounds is saturated with animal matter in a state of decay, and so is a source of fetid exhalations. The local considerations applying to Squire’s works are, at first glance, of considerable weight. It is natural to think that two events, uniformly coincident in time, should be in some way mutually dependent. But it is pos- sible to err. 2 The inference that Mr. Squire’s slaughtering or rendering is the direct and only cause of the blackening of the houses inthe neigh- borhood demands that there should be found no other adequate cause, and that we should be able to find somewhere in the estab- lishment an adequate cause. It involves this also: that if the in- fluence of blackening goes out from Mr. Squire’s works, it should produce its effects of discoloration first on the sides of painted ob- 214 jects nearest the works, and that the effects should be uniform over the surface. This is obvious from the consideration that the black- ening influence must be carried by the wind. It would of course reach the nearer side first. Such an effect as blackening the most distant side of a house, while the side directly open to a current of air from the slaughter-house and nearest to it was unchanged in color, is simply impossible. It is especially and manifestly impos- sible that a black spot should be produced on the distant side of a house, while all around and especially the nearer and more ex- posed surfaces were unchanged in color. Photographs of Discoloration. The application ofthis principle to the question in hand is illus- trated in two photographs which have been taken,— one exhibiting a dwelling-house and the establishment of Mr. Squire at a little distance and across an open area, and another exhibiting a black spot on the same dwelling-house on the side most distant from the works. [The map gives the position of the dwelling-house as third in the line of the Boston and Albany Railroad from Cambridge Street on the left side of the track.] Nothing can well be clearer than that no agency transmitted through the air from the slaughter- house of Mr. Squire could have produced this particular effect of discoloration. Sulphuretted Hydrogen, the nauseous, irritating Gas that discolors Paint. The cause of this kind of discoloration is well known, as already stated, to be sulphuretted hydrogen, which decomposes paints having a basis of white lead; zinc and ochre paints are not affected. The same agent, as is well known, is the source of one of the most offensive and irritating smells found about accumulations of putrid animal matter, as vaults, the mouths of sewers, docks, etc. The Offensive Vapors of July 31, 1873. This particular odor, arising from ‘putrefying animal matter, is soluble in water; its escape from water_or from decaying sub- stances is facilitated by a falling barometer, — that is, by diminished atmospheric pressure, — and its production by warm weather. Its intensification as an annoyance is aggravated by all these quali- 215 ties being taken advantage of, in concurrence with a muggy at- mosphere and a very gentle breeze, as a dry, high wind would rapidly dilute the gas beyond recognition. Most of these qualities were favorably concurrent to offensiveness on the evening of the 31st of last July. There was, following that particular evening, an almost universal outbreak of complaint against this particular smell. Pop- ular suspicion fastened on the establishment of at, Squire as the source of the offensive odor. To test the justice of this suspicion there are obvtous resources. The smell was sickening that night at the Lower Port, in East Cambridge, in Old Cambridge, and in Somerville; but it also compelled families in Chestnut Street, as well as on the Back Bay and in Charles Street, Boston, to close their windows. It was offensive even at the Harvard College Observatory. ‘The smell was universally characterized as the ‘dock smell,’’— the smell that one occasionally experiences on the West Boston Bridge. This was the odor that reached the Observatory. Now, it is highly probable that annoyances of the same nature could not reach all these different localities from one source in any length of time. But it is positively certain that the offensive gas of sulphuretted hydrogen could not have proceeded from one centre to so many different and distant points on the same occasion ; because, if the _air was at rest, it would not move at all, and if. it were in motion, _ it could not be in motion in various opposing directions at the same time. Let us look at the condition of the atmosphere as shown by the meteorological record kept at the Observatory. The day had been cloudy, the evening was muggy, — that is, the air was saturated or supersaturated with moisture. The barometer at ten o’clock on the morning of July 31 stood 30°.18; at four o’clock in the afternoon, 30°.16. The next morning it stood at 30°.06, and the next afternoon at 29°.97. It was a falling barometer, and so favorable to the escape of gas from decaying matter or from water. The temperature all day was above 80°. There was a breeze of four miles an hour at four o’clock in the afternoon. This breeze was from the southeast veering to the south. [The next morning at ten o’clock it was from the south.] The tide was going out. According to the Coast Survey Tide- Tables it was dead low at the Navy Yard at about 10.53 P. M. The flats along the Cambridge shore, which are covered by four 216 and a half feet of water at high tide, must have been bare before eight o’clock. Between eight and nine o’clock in the evening of July 31, the offensive smell at the Observatory was experienced. If we take the Coast Survey map of Boston Harbor, and lay the edge of a ruler on the Harvard College Observatory in the direction of southeast and northwest, it will be seen to pass, not through Squire’s establishment, or even Hast Cambridge at all, but to pass through Cambridgeport, to the south of Broad Canal, and over the flat land, bare at low tide, above West Boston Bridge, in the di- rection.of Boston Back Bay. These observations determine that on the night of July 31 not only was the offensive smell in East Cambridge not due to Squire’s works, but the offensiveness of the atmosphere of Cambridgeport, and even of the whole city of Cambridge, on that evening, was not at all due to Squire’s works, for the simple reason that the wind and its direction made it impossible. What applies to Squire’s works applies with nearly equal force to all the basins of Miller’s River. Somerville must have suffered from the exhalations of the river basins on the night of July 31, but no portion of Cambridge, except, possibly, from deflected currents, that along the immediate margin of the basins. Coincidences and their Explanation. To consider in the next place the meaning of the coincidence in the ratio of annoyance with that of increase of the works and the coincidence of these in time, is almost rendered unnecessary by the conclusion already arrived at. Still it may be desirable to show their real significance. Settling Basins; Normal Action of Flood Tide. It is well known that until the advent, in point of time, of the offensive smells in various parts of Cambridge, where, until com- paratively recently, they had not been observed, the slaughter- works on Miller’s River were in the way of discharging their blood and refuse directly into the basins, to be removed twice a day by the visits of the tide. As on the retreat of the sea the basins ‘were emptied, whatever had been received into them that was either soluble in sea-water, or of less specific gravity than sea- water, was, as a general rule, carried out. There was, however, a variable amount of insoluble material brought in by the rising tide and left at each ebb. 217 This action of the incoming tide is familiar to engineers. The Report of 1861 of the Boston Harbor Commission — consisting of General Totten, Chief of the United States Engineers, Prof. Bache, chief of the Coast Survey, and Admiral Davis — contains, at page 19, the following. Speaking of deposits in the Mystic River, it says: “ A considerable portion of those large masses of mud lands, which are found in all such places, are deposited on the top of the flood tide, and especially at those periods when the agitation of the water, under the influence of violent winds, disturbs the bottom and sides of the channel. The lightest material is carried upon the shoal ground to the highest level attained by the tide, where the water becomes quiet, and the currents of the ebb have but little appreciable velocity and no determinate direction. The cur- rent of the ebb therefore carries back only a part of the material. Every successive tide for a certain time increases in this manner Chowever slowly) these banks of mud that are to be seen wherever the tide flows.” To this deposit, due to flood tide, consisting more or less of Boston, East Boston, and Charlestown sewage, were added varied contributions, from the shore, of dead animals and refuse material of the streets and through the sewers from 2,000 dwellings, all contributing to swell the accumulation at the bottom of the basins. On inquiry of various observant persons, resident in the neigh- borhood for many years, it has been ascertained that eighteen years ago the water of Miller’s River was sufficiently clear to bathe in ; that eels and flounders visited it and were captured from it. But that since that time the water has gradually become turbid and offensive ; and the blackening of paint on houses, and the coinci- dent visit to dwellings of sickening odors, have been more frequent. One comcident fact is the appearance of Squire’s Slaughtering Works on the shore of the basin; but another is that about twenty years ago the embankment of Bridge Street, and the narrowing of the channel to some eighteen feet, was accomplished, by which work the Squire Basin was converted into a marked settling area. The filling up and progressive contraction of the Boston Back Bay, which was previously a great settling basin, is another coin- cident fact. With this contraction, the settling capacity of the remaining areas, including the flats and indentations of the Cam- bridge shore, has been brought into larger service. 218 Effect of introducing Water into the Cities upon the Amount of Sediment in Sewage. Previous to the introduction of the Mystic water into Charles- town, — that is, some seven to eight years ago,—there were numerous cesspools and privies which had no communication with the harbor, but were cleaned out from time to time by the. night- cart service. Since the introduction of the aqueduct these depos- its have been more and more conducted to the sewers, and so to the harbor. What is true of Charlestown and Somerville was true at an earlier day of Cambridge on the introduction and dis- tribution of the Fresh Pond water and the increased development of the system of sewers; and, at a still earlier day, of Boston and East Boston on the introduction of the Cochituate. Bridge Street Dam in 1871. But there has been another coincidence. There seemed to be in the summer of 1871 a sudden augmentation of the offensive odors about the basins of Miller’s River. It appears on inquiry that this marked increase had followed a well-intended act of the City Government of Cambridge. Ascribing the annoyance to the exposure of the bare surface of the bottom of the Squire Basin at low tide, and the exhalations from the mud so exposed, it was thought that covering the bottom permanently with water would prevent the exposure, and so the exhalations and annoy- ance. Accordingly, by an order:of the City Government,. the outlet of Squire’s basin between the piers of the bridge on Bridge Street was filled up to a depth of six feet, so as to flood Squire’s basin. This dam was permitted to remain for several weeks, when the exhalations from the basins above having been renderéd, as was believed, more instead of less offensive, upon the remonstrance of the city of Somerville the dam under the bridge was removed. The immediate effects of the erection of this dam were to de-. prive the Squire’s works, as well as the contributions of the sewers, the vaults, the street refuse, and all the slaughtering and rendering and soap works, above, of the advantages of the effluent tide in removing the matters received into the basins. The dam converted what had before served as settling areas into catch- basins. 219 In illustration of this kind of action, the Report of the Harbor Commissioners for 1861, p. 22, City Doc. No. 12, remarks, “‘ Wherever a dam, bridge, or weir has been built across a river, it has been observed that the alluvial deposits, whether of sand or mud, brought up by the flood accumulate very rapidly, par- ticularly in the neighborhood of the obstruction, and in this way a quick and sensible diminution of water capacity takes place.” Tt is not to be wondered at that the offensive exhalations were intensified after the dam was removed. On the retreat of the water and the laying bare of the bottom of the basins, they were covered with the accumulations from all the sources above and around, during the period the dam had been standing. At each flood this deposit was stirred up by the rush of incoming sea-water, — with each ebb the deposit was laid bare to the sun and the air. We do not need to dwell upon what must have been the conse- quences of the mistaken act of erecting a dam under Bridge Street Bridge. Source of the Dock Mud in Squire’s Basin. How much of this increase of the offensive dock-mud in Squire’s basin is due to contributions from beyond the slaughtering estab- lishments on the shores of Miller’s River ? To answer this question somewhat extensive observations were instituted. Wherever the sulphates of sea-water and organic matter of any kind remain long in contact (with exclusion of the air), reduction of the sulphates of sea-water to sulphides takes place. The sul- phates soaking through rotten logs experience this reduction. An acid—sour water of any kind, even carbonated water like soda-water is adequate — striking such a product, sets the sulphu- retted hydrogen free. Under certain circumstances, there is an accumulation of sulphur in combination, which, coming to the sur- face and set free, constitutes a white, somewhat gelatinous, body - which is known to be pure sulphur. Most persons have seen it about sulphur springs. It may be seen at Avon Sulphur Springs in New York, and at the White Sulphur Springs in Virginia. Wherever this deposit is observable, there volatile sulphur com- pounds have been produced. Taking this guide, it is not necessary that one shou!:l test every locality for the volatile compound. The white deposit is itself a sufficient indication of its presence. Such 220 deposits are seen on the stones at the sluice below North’s pork- slaughtering establishment. [Here is a stone which was covered with it, and, though dry now, has still a gray look.] It was covered with.water near the close of the ebb tide. This sulphur is seen as a white deposit at various sewers about the basins, under private dwelling-houses and about privies, on the line of the Boston and Albany Railroad north of Cambridge Street, along the sides of Broad Canal about its head, and in the branch ex- tending quite across to Cambridge Street, at the mouths of the sewers emptying into it, at the mouths of sewers against Charles Street in Boston, on the displaced mud raised above the water in the Back Bay, on the shores of the indentations on Charlestown Neck, on the Mystic, and at low tide on the South Boston flats and the flats on either side of the West Boston Bridge. These white products are due in some localities more to sewage, and in others more to the reduction of the sulphates of sea-water by other organic refuse ; for the most part in the neighborhood of cities probably to the former instrumentality.. They are proofs of the capacity of the mud which they coat to évolve sulphuretted hydrogen. The following analyses of samples of mud were made by J. M. Merrick, Esq., of the. firm of Merrick & Gray, analytical and con- sulting chemists, 59 Broad Street, Boston. They include deter- minations: 1, of the free sulphuretted hydrogen gas; 2, of the gas disengaged by acid, or what may be regarded as latent but potential sulphuretted hydrogen ; 8, of the ammonia; and 4, the relative proportions of water and solid matter in the mud. Most of the samples were strongly offensive to the smell, and the odor arising from them readily blackened test-papers.. The report is printed in full, and will be submitted. The sched- ule includes samples of mud Gain localities as follows : — No. 1. Ditch on the right-hand side of Canal Street, Charlestown, near Mitch- ell & Stearns’s (horse-shoer’s shop). No, 2. Near mouth of drain, Canal Street, between Prison Point and Tide-Mill. No. 3. Same as No. 2, but 100 feet farther out towards the river. , No. 4. North Branch of Broad Canal, behind the Boston Rolling-Mill, Cam- bridgeport. No. 5. Ditch on the eastern side of Grand Junction R. R., opposite No. 4. No. 6. Another ditch farther east. No. 7. Edge of sewer behind the office of the Boston Rolling-Mill. No. 8. Open sewer in front of the office. 9. . 18. . 19. Cambridge Flats, near West Boston Bridge. . 20. . 21. . 22. Boston Back Bay, near mouth of Stony Brook. 221 the Grand Junction R. R. against Main Street. 17. Same as 16, but nearer to the railroad. “ 17, “ oe 6c “ “ “6 “ Open drain in rear of house opposite the Boston Rolling-Mill. . 10. Under the wagon-shed, inside the bulkhead in Squire’s basin. . 11. Under the hog-pens of Squire’s works. . 12. Basin outside the bulkhead against the hog-pens. . 13. Near entrance to Medford Street sewer. . 14. Near mouth of Gore Street sewer. . 15. Near outlet of sewer leading from the house which was photographed. . 16. Marsh between Allen & Endicott’s boiler-factory, Cambridgeport, and No. 23. South Boston Flats, below Boston, Hartford, & Erie R. R. No. 24. Broad Canal towards Boston from No. 8. No. 25. From point near No. 7. No. 26. Between No. 2 and the Tide-Mill. No. 27. Near Beacon Street sewer, Boston. No. 28. Near Chestnut Street sewer, Boston. j Ibs. Mud Free Sul- | Combine to pro- Sam-!nate. Mud. Dry Water. piceettedl Sulphur rps duce one sa gore ples. Matter. Hydrogen.| Hydrogen. | bined. poe Gas, |Wet Mud. hy. gas. cubic cen-| cubic cen- | cubic cen- cubic Nov.|gram’s./per cent.|per cent.| timetres. | timetres. | timetres. Ibe. c.c. | per cent, 1 6| 100 | 51.70 | 48.30 16.88 46.45 62.33 |1604.0] 236. 018 2/11 se 49.80 | 50.20 60.65 92.00 152.65 | 649.0] 760. 0.58 3} 11 “ 51.70 | 48.30 0.09 115.87 115.387 | 857.0} 511. 0.39 4 6 © 80.71 | 69 29 40.00 | 176000 | 1800.00 55.8| 325. 0.25 5 6 ue 17.00 | 83.00 9.35 60.60 69.92 | 1428.0] 314. 0.24 6 6 ad 30.04 | 69.96 0.00 9.00 9.00 | —— | 195. 0.08 7 6 ae 46.00 | 54.00 30 00 45.10 75.10 |1331.0] 610. 0.47 8 6 “ 64.00 | 36.00 35.54 74.20 109.74 | 904.0] 357. 0.27 9 6 & 80.00 | 20.00 3.25 45.20 48.45 |2051.0| 761. 0.05 10 | 11 ‘ 32.95 | 67.05 43.10 80.30 123.40 | 803.0 |1100. 0.84 11/1 ee 30.00 | 70 00 38.20 75.40 114.60 | 8650] 787, 0.60 12) 11 ee 35.90 | 64.10 42.00 125.00 167.00 | 580.0! 787. 0.60 13 | 1l Be 23.30 | 76.70 | 204.00 164,00 368.00 | 269.0) 709. 0.54 4 | 11 a 32.85 | 67.15 | 290 00 240.00 530.00 | 188.0] 740. 0.57 15 | 17] a" 70.00 | 30.00 45.40 62.50 107.80 | 924.0] 839. 0.64 16 | 25 ff 69.00 | 31.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 | —— | 118. 009 17 | 25 Ga 68.00 | 32 00 0.00 10.70 10.70 | —— | 206. 0.20 18 | 25 *e 33.00 | 67.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 | —— | 880. 0.30 19 | 28 oo 58.80 | 41.20 0.25 100 00 125.00 | 765.0} 354. 0.27 20 | 28 sf 50.00 | 50.00 0.00 172.00 172.00 | 570.0] 354. 0.22 21 | 28 es 66.00 | 3400 0.00 94.00 94.00 |1059.0] 234. 0.18 22 | 29 ce 25.00 | 75.00 | 246.20 250.00 496.20 | 200.0! 945. 0.72 23 | 29 “ 380.00 | 7000 | 142.50 284.00 426.50 | 234.0! 603. 0.46 24 6 as 61.00 | 34.00 38.00 69.00 107.00 | 932.0) 420. 0.32 25 6 «s 24.00 | 76.00 8.00 51.00 59.00 |1689.0| 262. 0.20 26 | 11 ee 50.00 | 50.00 38.50 90.00 128.50 | 779.0] 550. 0.42 Dec. 27 4 ae 35.00 | 65.00 25.10 100.40 125.40 | 797.0} 538. 0.41 28 4 ee 69.00 | 31 00 80.00 254.00 334.00 | 282.0] 919. 0.70 222 These results of Mr. Merrick, to whose care and skill in making the analyses this whole question is indebted in no small degree, are of significance. They show the quality of the mud at various points where sewers discharge into the reaches of the sea above low-water mark. At these points and in their, neigh- borhood there are sources of sulphuretted hydrogen, which are manifestly connected with sewage and with sea-water. The largest measure of free sulphuretted hydrogen gas, that is, gas that may be exhaled without further chemical action, is found according to these determinations in the mud near the mouth of the Gore Street sewer, in Squire’s basin. It is 290 c.c. It is a volume three times and more that of the mud (100 grammes) from which it was expelled by boiling. The next largest is from near the mouth of the Medford Street sewer, in Squire’s basin. It is 204c.c¢. From the basin under the hog-pen building it was 38.2. c. From the basin opposite the pens and outside the bulkhead it was 42¢.c¢. From under the wagon-shed it was 43 c. c. All three are inferior to the amount of free.gas in the mud from the basin on Canal Street, Charlestown, between Prison Point and the Mill Pond, which gave 60.65 c.c. They exceed a little the average product from the samples of the mud from the Broad Canal and its branches, which are severally 80c.¢., 35.54¢. ¢., 40¢.¢. But of the datent though potential sulphuretted hydrogen, which is the compound to be disengaged by the access of acid water from any source, the quantity in the mud of the North Branch near its junction with the Broad Canal is enormous, being no less than 1,760 c.c., or more than 17 times the volume of the mud from which it was derived. Adding to this the free gas, 40c.c., we have in all, 1,800c.c. The spot from which this mud was collected was so situated, possibly, as to receive by action of the tide the deposits from several sewers entering into Broad Canal. Let us compare the total of free and latent sulphuretted hydro- ‘ gen in some of the more important localities. No. 4, The mud from near the junction of the North Branch with the Broad Canal contains 1,800 c¢. c. No. 14. That from near the mouth of the Gore Street sewér in Squire’s basin contains 530 c.c. 223 No. 13. That from near the mouth of the Medford Street sewer in Squire’s basin contains 368 c.c. No. 12. That from Squire’s basin outside the bulkhead against the hog-pens, 167¢c.¢. No. 2. That near mouth of a sewer in the basin on Canal Street, Charlestown, 152.65 c.c. No. 26. That between No. 2 and the Tide-Mill contain 128.5. c. No. 10. That from the basin under wagon-shed of Squire’s works, 123.40 c.c. No. 11. That from the basin under Squire’s hog-pens, 114.60 c.c. No. 22. That from the Back Bay near the mouth of Stony Brook, 496.2 c.c. No. 23. That from South Boston flats, 426 c.c. No. 28. That from near'mouth of Chestnut Street sewer, Boston, 334 c. c. It will be seen that the total sulphuretted hydrogen — free and latent — from the mud of the North Branch near its junction with the Broad Canal, exceeds three times that from the mouth of the Gore Street sewer, — the worst point in Squire’s basin ; is nearly five times that from the mouth of the Medford Street sewer, and exceeds thirteen times the average of Squire’s basin‘ The meaning of these results it would be difficult to mistake. A mud composed of sewage sediment and sea-water will develop sulphuretted hydrogen. Where the conditions are such that the sewage cannot escape to be diluted and spread over an extended surface, the accumulation will manifest itself, under favoring cir- cumstances, in accumulations of sulphuretted hydrogen. When in combination with ammonia, some of it may escape in that form. But all of it will be set free on the appearance of acid, which is one of the concomitants of the chemical changes that will return with warm weather. ; The column of figures giving the required amount of mud, in pounds, in the different localities, necessary to produce a cubic foot of sulphuretted hydrogen, has been introduced to show the relative capacities of the different settling areas, as they are to- day, to evolve offensive gases on contact with acid water. Without further pursuing the line of deduction from these ana- lytical results, it may be fairly claimed that they establish, — 1st. That the mud of Squire’s basin is most offensive to smell where nearestthe mouths of sewers. 2d. That the total mud at the bottom of Squire’s basin has been largely derived from the sewers heretofore discharging directly into that basin and into the basins above from Somerville and Cambridge. 224 8d. That the average mud of Squire’s basin, away from the mouths of sewers, is not worse than that of the basin on Canal Street in Charlestown, or that of the North Branch, near its junc- tion with the Broad Canal, or that of portions of Boston Back Bay, South Boston Flats, or the foot of Chestnut Street. Mr. Merrick remarks of the mud from the Back Bay near the mouth of Stony Brook, and that from the South Boston Flats, that they diffused through his laboratory, while drying down, odors more offensive than any obtained from any of all the samples beside _ which were submitted to his analyses. , Shoaling of the Basin over Cambridge Flats. The increase of the depth of mud in some localities in the upper interior harbor of Boston, in comparatively recent times, is well known. The actual quantity is matter of official record. In the maps submitted by Professor Mitchell to the Harbor Commission- ers in 1867, there is given the number of cubic yards of shoaling and of deepening in Charles River, which took place above Craigie Bridge and below the Brookline Bridge, between 1835 and 1861. It will be seen that at only one point in all this area has there been deepening, and that a point near the effluent stream coming at ebb through the Milldam. Everywhere else the deposit of mud had steadily advanced. It amounted in these twenty-six years to nearly 890,000 cubic yards. Now if this was going on in the spaces between the Brookline and Craigie Bridges from the action of the tide, distributing the sewage from the adjacent shores, — in short, if it was the deposit of suspended matters borne by the incoming tide and allowed to subside before the ebb, it is fair to conclude that the filling up of Miller’s River with the same kind of matter must to some extent have taken place. Not only is this true in principle, but it must be true in greater degree than in many other localities, as must be apparent from a consideration of the funnel-shaped character of the approach to the river from below, rendered such by railway embankments and the extension of wharves, as well as from the character of the sewage of the immediate shores of Charlestown and Boston. Movement of Sediment at the Outlet to Squire’s Basin. Several determinations of the sediment in the water at the outlet to Squire’s basin, on the tail of the ebb, on the young flood, at «225 high tide, and at half ebb and half flood, have been made in the interest of this inquiry. It will be seen that water from the sur- face, half an hour after high tide, yields scarcely any sediment. The suspended matter, obvious in the water of the young flood, has settled out. It has not wholly fallen to the bottom, as is shown in the water at half ebb. The effect of the rush of the water near the end of the ebb and soon after the commencement of the flood, in stirring up the sediment, is apparent in the two samples collected. [Tubes three feet long and five eighths of an inch in diameter, closed at one end, and so converted into slender, tall jars, served to collect the water, and display its relation to the sediment it contained. ] These collections are entitled to the weight only of isolated observations. But they show conclusively the mobility of the deposits which are the source of the offensive exhalations. It may not be easy to ascertain the precise instrumentality in increasing the offensiveness of the air in and about Squire’s basin due to the waste matters thrown in former times into Mil- ler’s River from the Squire Slaughtering Establishment. They have undoubtedly added to the matters collected in the set- tling basin, — the filth, sewage, and refuse of whatever kind. But the character of Miller’s River, as a succession of settling and catch- basins and an aggravated case of dock nuisance, has been brought about by agencies external to that of the manufacturing establish- ments on its shores; such agencies, for example, as the extension of Lechmere Point and the grounds of the Lowell Railroad, the broad embankment of the Fitchburg Road, the narrowing of the outlet of Squire’s basin at Bridge Street, the construction of the dam under the bridge in 1871, — and, finally, the system of instru- mentalities that has caused the filling up of the great flats on either side of West Boston Bridge. Photographs. The full significance of the photographs already mentioned is apparent at a glance. Near the discolored patch at the corner of the house is the open entrance to a sewer discharging into Miller’s River. Since the photographs were taken, the area has been filled with 15 226 = ° earth. There is now observable a discoloration of the paint at another point immediately over a space where the boards have been removed, allowing the air under the house to escape. These discolorations are produced by exhalations from the filth under the house, in part, but mainly by the dock smell, — the sulphuretted hy- drogen gas coming up the sewer from the mud of the basin. The analyses of Professor Thompson presented in the report of Mr. Ball to the Joint Commission on Miller’s River show the abundance of these sulphur compounds in this mud, as Mr. Merrick’s show the amounts in this and numerous other settling areas and basins which receive the sewage of the bordering cities. The Effect of a Muggy Atmosphere. It may be well to allude to the effect of a muggy atmosphere in intensifying the annoyance produced by exhalations of sulphuretted hydrogen. The gas is soluble in water. It is caught and dissolved in the fog of such an atmosphere, which is water in the state of fine division, and so not only accumulates, but is lodged and remains on surfaces against which the fine particles of water are driven. This will account for the capricious action of the gas in producing discoloration on irregular surfaces. The particles of water are driven in greater quantity against some portions of the painted surface than against others. Persons have sometimes failed to get evidences of sulphuretted hydrogen about docks or catch-basins even in warm, muggy weather. They may have placed their test-papers too far above the surface of the mud or water, or out of the track of the vapor, if in motion, or they may have left them too long in the moist atmosphere, in which case the color sometimes becomes obliter- ated. It must be remembered that when the muggy atmosphere rests long immediately over the source of the exhalations, as it may when there is no wind, it becomes saturated. It is the movement of this highly charged fog, in mass,— and without dispersion or dilution by strong wind, — to be deposited on the surfaces of lead paint, that produces the blackening effect, and, entering windows * and doors, produces the nausea that has been felt. The action of the gas is frequently brief, and for obvious reasons. The wind that brings the gas to a given point, if continued, and especially if brisk, soon exhausts the supply of saturated air. On the night of the 31st of July, when the offensive vapor was marked, and 227 reached the Harvard College Observatory with a southeast wind, so geritle was the breeze at the Government Signal Station at the head of Sudbury Street, in Boston, that the instrument recorded acalm. This comparative repose provided for the ascent of the sewage vapors through ‘the sewers discharging into Charles River from the slopes of Beacon Hill. It also provided for the:satura- tion of the muggy air over the Back Bay and Charles River flats and the Broad Canal and its tributaries, which the gentle breeze carried over the city of Cambridge. It is in conditions of the atmosphere such as these that dwelling-houses on the west slope of Beacon Hill, on the Back Bay, and the Worcester Depot are occasionally filled with the offensive exhalations of sulphuretted compounds creeping up the sewers. The discoloration of paint by sulphuretted hydrogen is not con- fined to the neighborhood of vaults and catch-basins. We are familiar with it as the effect of the exhalations of bilge-water, where waste organic matters of the ship have’ reduced the sul- phates of sea-water in the bottom of the hold, and so produced the nauseating sulphuretted hydrogen. The glazed or greasy look of an extended surface of a lead compound, like lead paint recently blackened by the action of sulphuretted hydrogen, so often observed as the effect of bilge-water, is a familiar appearance entirely independent of any agency of an oleaginous character. There is a striking example of this action independent of docks or sewers, and indeed of human instrumentalities altogether, at a marsh in Harwich, on Cape Cod. There, the occasional breaking in of the sea at extreme high tide, and the slow drying up of the pond so occasioned in dry seasons, produces so much of volatile sulphuretted compounds at a time of muggy weather as to discolor the lead paint of the houses in the neighborhood. The effects of the warmer water of summer in facilitating the putrefaction of animal matter in water, as well as the direct action of the sun on the er mud exposed at low tide, are obvious. The Effect of a Falting Barometer on the Evolution of Siphuretied Hydrogen from Dock Mud. The effect of a falling barometer on the evolution of sulphuret- ted hydrogen gas may, perhaps, require explanation. Gases set free by putrefactive fermentation must pass from a solid or a liquid condition to the form of a vapor. This change is opposed by 228 pressure, and is facilitated by diminution of pressure, just as steam is formed at a lower temperature on high mountains than it is in valleys. Of course the increase of pressure will restrain particles that at lower pressure would have escaped, and it follows that, in a falling barometer or a declining atmospheric pressure, we shall have set free the gases due to the time of both the rising and fall- ing barometer. The muggy atmosphere is at the same time the evidence of the falling barometer, and the instrument for accumu- lating and transporting the escaping offensive gas. Effect from Acid Water. There are four instrumentalities tending to augment the exha- lation of sulphuretted hydrogen about the Squire Basin which are entitled to consideration. On one of the upper basins of Miller’s River there is a distillery (Sortwell & Co.’s) which discharges:a large amount of the residual water of its distillation into the basin. This material, which was originally molasses, to which ferment for the production of alcohol has been added, becomes acid. The quantity of this sour liquid sometimes discharged in a single day is said to be as high as 45,000 gallons. It is obvious that this acid liquor would decompose more or less other sulphides as well as sulphide ammonium in solution, — as, for example, the sulphides of calcium and sodium in the dock mud,— and set free the sul- phuretted hydrogen gas. A second source is the waste of Boynton’s slaughter estab- lishment. Boynton reduces portions of his waste by oil of vitriol, the whole product of which, except the solid residue, is thrown into the river. The third is the waste waters of the dye-house in Somerville, which, whenever of an acid character, produce the same effect of liberating sulphuretted hydrogen and so facilitating its escape and the attendant offensiveness of the air. Allthese unite with the fourth, the products of the sewers, which are uniformly acid, to set free the offensive Sases in the mud of the basins. The mud itself of the basins below was tested and observed to be of an acid character, How much these agencies may have contributed hitherto to the offensiveness of the air from the Miller’s River basins, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. Jt is proper to mention 229 them as instrumentalities that must have played a part in disen- gaging sulphuretted hydrogen. . Fat Rendering, ete. Of the remaining branches of the inquiry, that touching the rendering of fat has been supposed to be connected with the dis- coloration of paint. This is a misapprehension. I have conducted the air of the trying-rooms over a moistened lead surface for a whole night through, with, at the utmost, only a faint trace of action. This . small amount may have come in through the doors and windows from the mud of the basin, or it may have come from the shreds of meat from which the lard is melted away. The cooking of meats, whether by frying, roasting, broiling, or even boiling, is attended with the occasional escape of traces of sulphuretted hydrogen. The yolk of a boiled egg will stain a silver spoon. Other than these traces, which are not in such quantity as to be perceived, so far as I have observed, the trying of the fat of re- cently dressed hogs is attended only with the escape of such odors as attend the frying of doughnuts ina kitchen. Indeed, in Squire’s works there is relatively much less odor, as the heat by which the fat is melted away from the scraps of meat, gristle, etc., is the heat only of steam-jackets, while that of the fat in preparing doughnuts is over an open fire and is much higher. Acrolein. It has been thought that acrolein was sometimes produced as a constituent of the vapors arising from the open trying-tanks. This is an error. The temperature is not high enough. We are all of us familiar with this gas, as the smell of the just-blown-out tallow candle long in the snuff. It is the product of destructive distilla- tion, which requires a temperature no boiler could bear. The cooling off of the tried lard in the best appointed abattoir, by exposure to the atmosphere, is attended with the unavoidable escape of vapors to some extent. Where the scrap is fresh and sweet, the odors attending the process of rendering cannot be pro- nounced offensive, and they do not at any time, when conducted at steam temperatures, contain acrolein. As Mr. Squire has already procured additional closed tanks for the whole rendering of fat, as the dead swine and viscera are now treated, in which all 230 the gases that escape are burned, it has not been deemed important to give this subject more especial attention. It may be stated that the devices he has introduced conduct the escaping gases through many hundred feet of large pipe surrounded by cold water, which condenses the steam. Some of the offensive gases given out in the process of rendering are undoubtedly condensed with the steam, but as the condensed water —a few pails full per day, at the most—is always discharged under sea-water of substantially the same temperature, no exhala- tions can thereafter take place. The contemplated sewer will, of course, receive this water. The remaining uncondensed gases then pass over lime, on the plan of the lime-purifiers at a gas-works, then through a very light and volatile petroleum product, and then into the fires under the boiler, where they are wholly consumed. Source of the acrid, irritating Odors sometimes perceived in the Neigh- borhood, but not found within Squire’s Works. There are on and near the shores of the Miller’s River basins, in the immediate neighborhood of the slaughter works, several bone-boiling and soap-making establishments to which offensive odors, sought for in vain in Squire’s works, may at certain times be justly ascribed. Among those at no great distance are O’Neill’s, Reardon’s, Spelman’s, Shevelin’s, and Barry’s; as these establish- ments utilize bones, scrap, waste, inferior and tainted meat, and soap-grease from dwelling-houses, hotels, restaurants, etc., they necessarily must have animal matters in various stages of decom- position. It is to be expected that in the process of rendering the offensive volatile products already existing in the crude material will be driven out. Where putrefactive fermentation has, set in and offensive smells are already produced, the first effect of heat is to drive them out. Where the mass of material is largely putrid, the evolution of the pungent, offensive, rendering smell’ must continue longer. Where it is carried on in the open air, under favoring conditions of the atmosphere, these acrid odors may be carried to considerable distances, — in veins, of course. That a high wind would rapidly dilute and disperse them is plain. Scalding- Water and the Soup-Liquor. The water in which the slaughtered hogs are scalded is charged with the scarf-skin of the swine, has a reddish-brown tint from the 231 presence of a small quantity of blood, and when fresh is but faintly Offensive to the sense of smell. When evaporated to dryness it yields a residue of .54 per cent, a large part of which is readily soluble in water. The average amount in the tank is, by measurement, 1,200 gal- lons; and, as the passing through of each carcass must be attended with a loss to be made up by a fresh supply of water, the total daily amount consumed in the scalding-tank was estimated at 1,450 gallons. This would give for the organic matter going into the basin from this source not far from 80 lbs. daily. But the solid portion of it— consisting of scarf-skin and making less than one tenth of one per cent, as ascertained by analysis —is scarcely heavier than water and is easily borne on the feeblest current. The soup-liquor derived from the digestion of fresh trimmings of meat in closed tanks has a sweet smell, not unlike that of soup made from fresh meat. Three tanks are emptied daily, discharg- ing, by measurement and computation, nearly 2,592 gallons. The evaporation of the liquor leaves a residue like Liebig’s meat ex- tract, which is wholly soluble in water. The amount of this residue is 3.5 per cent, which would give 907 lbs. ‘daily to be dis- charged into the basin. As it is wholly soluble, its addition to the sea-water is of no moment. The tank in which the occasional dead hogs are treated, as well as other fresh matter, yields a soup-liquor of almost precisely the same density as that from fresh trimmings above, and giving a residue of less than one hundredth of a per cent variation. Its smell, when fresh as it is discharged into the river, is sweet. When evaporated to dryness it redissolves in water. Its daily amount averages 864 gallons, and the total organic matter it contains amounts to 302.3 lbs. The proportion of carcasses of dead hogs arriving in the cars is not large, and its effect need not be very alarming. One of the most careful and competent of the observers of the Citizens’ Committee has estimated the residue of the soup-liquor at three pounds for each hog. The returns from Mr. Squire’s factory show an average of ten carcasses of dead hogs arriving by cars per week. As the fresh soup-liquors yield no deposit, and as the liquor from the scalding-vat largely redissolves in water after evaporation to dryness, — showing that it is composed in part like the soup-liquor, 232 — it will be seen that the amount of material that can reach the sea from the rendering apparatus and scalding-tank, to be borne out by the tide, must be small. In the testimony before the Board of Health on December 2, it was suggested that the soup-liquor which is discharged into the basin from Squire’s works may be spread as organic matter over the flats of the basins at low tide. The witness found the total 5.4 tons, or 10,800 lbs. per week. I have found less, as shown above, but the quantities undoubtedly vary somewhat from day to day, and I have found more in the scalding-tanks than was stated by the witness. He gives it at 875 lbs. per week. But it is not the quantity so much as the quality of this material that is the proper subject of inquiry. This soup-liquor is substan- tially a diluted solution of a mixture of extract of meat and glue, — wholly soluble when fresh,—or to within a trifling amount, in water. The same is true, though with a slightly greater quantity of light flocculent residue, of the scalding-liquor. [A sample of the soup-liquor from the dead-hog tank evaporated to dryness is submitted. It resembles glue. ] Let us take the two residues of evaporation with the estimated total amounts, — in all 11,175 lbs. It is assumed that this is dis- charged weekly into the basin. This is diluted with the water coming into Squire’s basin. How much does this amount to in a week? Mr. Ball, of the Joint Commission, estimates the mud spread on an average over the bottom of Squire’s basin to a’ depth of 2.7 feet, at 1,770,225 cubic feet. If the mud were water it would oc- cupy the same space. If the water were 10 feet deep (the maxi- mum full tide at the Boston Navy Yard is above 12 feet) over this basin at high water, there would come in with each tide 6,556,500 cubic feet; in 24 hours, 13,113,000 cubic feet; in 7 days, 91,791,000 cubic feet; convert this into pounds and we have 5,718,579,300 lbs. This is the quantity of water with which 11,175 lbs. of the almost wholly soluble matter of soup-liquor and: scalding-water is to be diluted. This would give for each pound of the organic material 511,728 Ibs. of sea-water. As twenty times its volume is sufficient, in the opinion of Dr. Letheby, of London, to absolutely destroy sewage, in a distance of twelve miles of a running stream, it is safe to conclude that the soup-liquor and scalding-water of Squire’s works are quite harmless 238 to the sense of smell with a dilution of more than half a million times its volume of sea-water. Experiment has proved that the soup-liquors and scalding-water when three weeks old, if diluted with one hundred parts of pure water, ceased to be offensive to. the smell. , When we consider the refuse that passes through every sink, laundry, bathing-tub, and water-closet of the hospitals, hotels, and dwellings of Boston and Cambridge, that comes from stables, from various manufactures, from ships, and from the streets, and con- sider the millions of gallons of the Cochituate and Fresh Pond water contaminated in this way daily, and then compare the scalding-water and soup-liquor of Mr. Squire’s works, for the most part soluble matter, discharged into and diluted with the millions upon millions of gallons of the sea-water of the harbor of Boston, it will not be difficult to assign to these instrumentalities of injury to the water their proper significance. But even these liquors Mr. Squire is treating, to remove from them whatever they can be made to give up, so as to leave the water free from all odor. With the completion of the changes of the rendering apparatus now in progress from open tanks to closed ones, so that the already existing arrangements for burning the exhaling gases may apply to all the tanks as they now do to a part, the estab- lishment will be in all respects as well conducted as— and in some respects better conducted than—the works in New York which I have visited, and which have the sanction and approval of the New York Board of Health. Different Views of the Agency of Miller's River Basin in pro- ducing the Sulphuretted Hydrogen. In the inferences from the analyses of Professor Thompson, sub- mitted with Mr. Ball’s report to the Joint Commission a year ago, there seems to be a possible misapprehension of considerable mo- ment. Professor Thompson finds in the mud of Squire’s basin, in the form of sulphuretted hydrogen, 414 pounds of sulphur to the 1,000,000 pounds of mud, and ascribes this sulphur mainly to blood serum, “ of which sulphur forms from 1.3 to 1.9 per cent.” Now the total quantity of mud in Squire’s basin, as already 234 mentioned, is estimated by Mr. Ball to be 1,170,255. cubic feet, or, in round numbers, giving to the deposit a specific gravity of 1.5, about 160,000,000 pounds, This would give 66,240 pounds of sulphur for the total amount of mud in the basin. As the dried serum is less than 5 per cent of the blood, and as the sulphur in the dried serum is on the average only 1.6 per cent, we can readily estimate the total weight of blood, corresponding to 66,240 pounds of sulphur. At the rate of 1.6 per cent of 5 per cent, 2,000 pounds of blood would contain 1.6 pounds of sulphur, and 66,240 pounds of sulphur would require 82,800,000 pounds of blood, which is a little more than half the total estimated weight — water included —of the entire mud of the basin, ac- cording to Mr. Ball. If we assume that the blood of an entire year of slaughtering had been retained in Squire’s basin, and that for that year 800,000 hogs had been slaughtered, we shall find that, with this estimate, each hog must have yielded 276 pounds of blood. The misapprehension which must have been at the basis’ of the inference, as to the enormous quantity of blood in Squire’s basin, is obvious. . As a matter of fact, the blood discharged into the water in times gone by was, substantially all of it, carried out by the ebb tide, — except during the period of the dam under the Bridge Street Bridge in 1871. During that time, undoubtedly, whatever was thrown or came into the basin that was heavier than sea-water, including the matters from all the slaughter-houses on all the basins, the deposits of the dye-house, the heavier sewage and refuse of every kind, deprived of the current of the retreating tide, was largely retained in the great cess-pool which the erection of the dam had created. It is one of the curiosities of investigations of this kind, that equally zealous observers sometimes arrive at the most contra- dictory results. Professor Thompson finding the enormous amount we have seen above of sulphuretted hydrogen capable, in his judgment, of indefinite evil effects, in Squire’s basin, ascribes it to blood from the slaughter-house. In the fact of the presence of sulphuretted hydrogen his results coincide with the observations of Mr. Merrick and of Dr. Jackson, and the testimony of the pho- tographs. I may add that I had no difficulty at any time in ' \ 235 warm weather that I have visited the Squire basin at low tide in obtaining the most abundant discoloration of lead papers on exposure to the air. But Mr. Munroe’s efforts in this direction, as given in his statement before the Mayor and Aldermen, Octo- ber 7,1872, were made in an unpropitious time. He found but little sulphuretted hydrogen in the atmosphere of the basins at the time he made his observations. He occasionally observed tat- nishing of silver and discoloration of lead-paint surfaces by the atmosphere and the mud, but he was fully assured that in no way could the discoloration of paint, such as had been observed in a single night, have been produced by exhalations from the Miller’s River basins. It must have been caused by the rendering process. The danger of inhaling, even when greatly diluted, the offensive gas given off from the average mud of the basin is pointed out by Professor Thompson, — but Mr. Munroe experienced neither nausea nor irritation when inhaling the air of the basin in which the sulphuretted hydrogen gas was.present “in large quantity,” he himself stirring the mud to facilitate its escape. The latter gentleman conceives that ‘the Miller’s River basin was proved not to be the cause of the nuisance.” The former is convinced that if the mud of the basin were buried six feet below sand and gravel “it would not prevent the escape of noxious gases.’’ Professor Thompson thinks it would not be safe for men to work at dredging the basin at any time when the “ temperature is much above the freezing-point, unless the basin is kept constantly flooded.” This period of danger must include the time (October 5) when Mr. Mun- roe made his observations near the surface of the disturbed mud, and found them to produce no ill éffect upon the human organism. These contrasts in the honest convictions of two careful gentle- men, having, as they felt, an important duty to discharge, may serve to show the difficulties that surround this subject. With the completion of the changes now in progress by Mr. Squire, the vapors from the rendering tanks, which many per- sons regard as the sources of the agency that produces the black- ening and nauseating effects experienced about Miller’s River, will have no outlet, except through a furnace fire, and will, of course, be destroyed. With the filling of.the basins, the sources of the sulphnretted hydrogen about Miller’s River will be buried some ten feet below the surface of the ground. 236 Rinsing of Dressed Hogs. The rinsing of the dressed hogs in Mr. Squire’s establishment carries an amount of blood into the sea so inconsiderable in quantity that it must be considered altogether unohjectionable. The rinsings of the Brighton Abattoir are of the same character, amd they have been observed strewn along the shore against the Abattoir, in the shape of clots of blood, when a favoring high water, and the rinsing of the floor at the winding up of the day’s slaughtering, united to make the deposit possible. The blood and offal of Mr. Squire’s establishment are now carried away daily in air-tight tanks, to be converted elsewhere into fertilizer, in the same manner as they are from Mr. Toby’s hog-slaughtering works in New York. [I submit a map, furnished me by the New York Board of Health, at my request, showing in the red areas the sites of the slaughtering-houses now carried on in. the city of New York. Those in the neighborhood of Fourty-fourth Street on the East River are for cattle. Those between Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Street on the North River are for swine. ] Smell of Live Hogs. In regard to the last branch of the inquiry, — the smell of the live hogs, —it is proper to say that careful examination prolonged through a whole night in the rooms in which the hogs are con- fined failed to reveal a trace of sulphuretted hydrogen, the gas that produces the discoloration and nausea, as is well known. Within the building the smell of the swine has already been ren- dered almost without offence by the free use of powdered charcoal on the floors of the pens; and experiments are making which it is hoped will result in meeting all the reasonable demands of good neigborhood in regard to the peculiar odor of swine attaching to the moving railway trains. This smell is not made a subject of complaint by the New York Board of Health. See Note A, p. 36. Preparation of the Sausage Cases. . This work, which. is necessarily offensive in the immediate apartment in which it is carried on, is conducted in a small closed room, in Squire’s establishment, and is so carefully and skilfully manipulated that it gives no offence, and would not be known unless the room were actually visited. 237 Z The Smell ascribed to Squire’s Works by Residents on Chestnut and Mount Vernon Streets, Boston. The smell of cooking putrid meat is described by persons re- siding on the west slope of Beacon Hill, Boston, on the Back Bay, and in Charlestown, as having been perceived on the night of the 31st of July. That it could in no way have been connected with Miller’s River basins is demonstrated by the course of the wind, which was that night from the southeast. On the nights of June 9th, 10th, and 11th there came extreme illness to two persons re- siding near the foot of Chestnut Street, which was ascribed by the family physician to the nauseating smells from Squire’s works, or at least from that neighborhood. On the 9th and 10th the wind, recorded at the Harvard College Observatory, was from the southeast, on the 11th it was from the west. It is clear that if the offensive odors on the several nights had a common source, it could not have been in Hast Cambridge. It must have been from the immediate neighborhood. The following explanation of these special annoyances is sug- gested : — The maximum heat of July 30, 1878, was 93°; of July 31, 82.6°. On August 1 there was a thunder-shower. On the 9th, 11th, and 12th of June there were slight thunder-showers. The heat and the muggy weather of these months, as is well known, cause in most families an unusual amount of waste from the larder and table — cooked and uncooked — to find its way into the drain and the sewer. The water in which meats are boiled, that is, the meat extract, ready to undergo rapid putrefactive fer- mentation, is poured into the drain. Meats are purchased at the ‘shops supposed to be sound and found to be unsound. The boil- ing arrests the change, but the putrid juices are poured into the ' sink and reach the sewer. It is well known that such weather frequently so impairs the excellence of meats that their prices are appreciably reduced. This kind of water is to a certain extent a diluted, acid, offen- sive soup-liquor. Like that, if allowed to stand in warm weather without plentiful dilution with water, it must ferment and yield the kind of gases described as the smell of cooking putrid meat. Among the principal offensive volatile ingredients that are rec- ognized — in water in which, during hot and muggy weather, meats 238 and vegetables have been boiled — are traces of volatile fat acids, like the smell of cheese, rancid butter, and tainted meat, together with the smells that characterize boiled cabbage and onions, some of which contain sulphur, and acetic acid. The liquor also con- tains lactic acid. These smells, when diluted, we complain of less, because we are more familiar with them. It is when the liquid from which they proceed meets sulphides of dock mud, or the feces of vaults, and sets sulphuretted hydrogen free to mingle with the smells due to kitchen waste, that the offensiveness is intensified. When now the mouth of the sewer is laid bare by the retreat of the tide, the air from without enters. This air of the river- bed is cooler than the air.over the hot waters received as they are poured from the boiled meats into the sewer. But the coolness of the outer air is appreciably greater (and these smells are uni- formly worst late at night) as the night advances, and the con- trasts with the temperature of the air of the sewer correspondingly greater. The sewer air is of course lighter, and will find its way up through any opening into houses, areas, and streets.* This smell would be likely to be mingled, after a time certainly, with the dock smell. Such has been observed in Charlestown, where persons have gone up through the fog-layer of offensive odor near the dock, to a clear and fresh atmosphere above, to find later the kitchen-sink smell issuing first from sinks and traps and followed soon after by the effluviim of the dock. It is easy to see why members of the Citizens’ Committee of East Cambridge have sometimes been annoyed by what is recog- nized as the smell of boiling putrid meat, — such as was illustrated a year ago by experiment before the Mayor and Aldermen of Cam- bridge,—as they have approached Squire’s works, although the ‘wind was with them. The fact was, at such time the offensive va- pors came from the sewers. The mouths of the sewers had been laid bare by ebb tide. The wind acted to diminish the pressure over the traps or sinks through which the smells issued. It is probable that the annoyance which appears so oppressively * The traps of most houses— which are merely sections of tube like the letter S in shape, turned on its side thus «1 — are known to be frequently emptied by the siphon action of the trap, and so provide a channel for the gases of the sewers to enter houses. _ All such traps should have a vent at the summit communicating by a tube with the kitchen chimney, or a flue by its side, or carried to an elevated point outside the house. amypo™ A : \ 239 af joe in the Worcester Depot, at times when the wind is southerly! wilt?" find in these considerations a ready explanation. The troubles on Newbury Street and other points on the Back Bay are obviously of the same type. It certainly does not require special elaboration to explain why it frequently has happened that offensive odors — especially that of the smell of boiling putrid meat — has diminished in intensity as the observers have neared Squire’s establishment. Under a portion of the slaughter-house there is a mass of dock mud, derived from the sewers formerly and now discharging there, and more or less from the materials to which contributions were made from the slaughter-houses and sewage of Cambridge and Somerville in Squire’s and the other basins in former years. All this mud Mr. Squire proposes to remove, after the filling of the basin up to the bulkhead around the works so as tosmake it possible, then thoroughly disinfect and retain the open space under his works. With the completion of the changes now going on in the basin; the drain to be introduced will carry the matter now going into the basin to the reaches of the sea, as it is done at the Brighton Abattoir. Why is the Nuisance becoming more and more intense Year by Year ? The parent material and the extent of surface for the exhala- tion of offensive gases are steadily increasing. Parallel with Charles Street, there has been in recent times an increase in the length of horizontal, or nearly horizontal, sewers on the side towards Charles River. This is especially true of. the sewers draining Chestnut Street and Mount Vernon Street. A large number of private and some public buildings have within a short time been erected between West Boston Bridge and the ' Milldam. The sulphuretted hydrogen of the mud by the outlet of the Chestnut Street sewer, as given by Mr. Merrick, takes rank with that from the mud from the neighborhood of Stony Brook, from South Boston Flats, from the Gore Street and Medford Street sewers emptying into Squire’s basin, though it falls much below that from the mud of Broad Canal. With the increased extent of horizontal sewers in Boston and Cambridge, the regions drained have been covered with dwelling- houses provided with kitchen sinks and water-closets. 240 With the mouths ofthese sewers opening upon steadily deepen- ing areas of festering mud, it is natural that, with favoring condi- tions, offensive smells should occasionally force themselves into the dwellings and the spaces about them. The unequal settling of new made land, and especially the greater settling of houses as compared with the open areas about them, not infrequently cracks the drains, and provides openings for the escape of gases from the sewers. The longer the slightly inclined section of the sewers, giving opportunity for larger accumulations of offensive kitchen waste, and the more offensive the dock mud, the greater is the probability of annoyance when the reeking and acid sewage issues to be mingled with the mud. General Conclusions from the Foregoing Investigations. 1st. In taking a general review of the case, one is impressed, in ‘the first place, with the fact that the processes at Squire’s works are continuous and regular, while the annoyance to the sense of smell, both in the neighborhood and at a distance, is intermittent and irregular ; in the second place, that the time of annoyance is generally at night, and more frequently late at night, and when the tide is out; in the third place, that annoyances at the same time, and of the same kind, are sometimes greater at the more distant points than in the immediate neighborhood of Squire’s works ; and, finally, that at such times the annoyances are quite as great to the windward as to the leeward of the Miller’s River basins. 2d. Miller’s River has been a source of greater annoyance, in the way of offensive smells, than any other point about Boston, for the reason that it consists of a series of long, narrow, settling basins, open to the wind on all sides and surrounded by dwellings, while in most other localities the dock deposit is usually open on but one side, and the neighboring dwellings get the effects only when the wind is coming from one quarter. 8d. The impression that one receives in going through Squire’s works is that of the thoughtful care and cleanliness with which the processes are conducted. 4th. In former times, when the blood and refuse of Squire’s and the other slaughtering works were thrown into the basins, they contributed in some degree to the total filth derived from various sources, — mainly the sewers emptying into Miller’s River. 5th. The soup-liquor, or meat extract, has no offensive smell. 241 It is derived from the digestion, in steam-tight tanks, of the trim- mings of pork, and from the occasional carcasses of hogs arriving dead. It is separable, after the process is completed, from the fat above, and the bones, gristle, and heavy matter below. It yields, only after standing a long time, a trifling flocculent deposit, and may be said to be substantially soluble in the sea-water into which it is discharged while fresh. It is entirely removable with the ebb tide. 6th. The hot water, which is used over and over again in scald- ing a thousand hogs or more, becomes at the close of the day’s work a reddish-brown dirty liquid, which is but little offensive to the sense of smell. The heat has coagulated the traces of blood. The remaining material in suspension and in solution is chiefly scarf:skin, and light particles of dirt which have been gathered and held by the products of perspiration. It is largely soluble in sea-water, and contains only light, flocculent matter that would immediately and without offence be borne away on the ebb tide. The total amount of organic matter reaching the basin from Squire’s Slaughtering Works is diluted with sea-water in the ratio of one of organic matter to above 500,000 of sea-water. Tth. The gases evolved in the reduction of the trimmings and carcasses of dead hogs are not permitted to enter the air. What are not condensed by passing through tubes surrounded by cold water, or absorbed by passing over surfaces of slacked lime, are ultimately burned under the boilers. 8th. The vapor attending the rendering of fresh fat in open tanks is to most persons not offensive. In Paris it is conducted in open copper kettles. The heat employed in Squire’s works is derived from steam of 60 lbs. pressure, or about 300° Fah., and is too low to produce acrolein or other offensive products. The open tanks of Squire’s works are soon to be wholly, as they are already partially, replaced by closed tanks, which will conduct all the gases produced, of whatever kind, into the furnace fire. 9th. For the past year, the blood and waste, formerly thrown into Squire’s basin, have been removed in air-tight carts, to be converted elsewhere into fertilizer. 10th. The offensive smell that has discolored buildings and pro- duced nausea occasionally in Hast Cambridge and Somerville comes up at times from the basins on Miller’s River when the atmos- phere is favorable, that is, when it is warm, quiet, and muggy, — 16 242 just as it does from other deposits of dock mud, as, for example, in the basins above Canal Street in Charlestown ; from the deposits in Broad Canal and its branches; from the Cambridge flats on either side of West Boston Bridge; from the areas near the mouths of sewers at the foot of Beacon Hill; from others on the Back Bay; and generally wherever, around the skirts of Boston Harbor, sewage and organic filth, mingled with sea-water to con- stitute a mud, are exposed to a warm atmosphere. 11th. The nauseating and irritating odors that are described as apparently coming from the cooking of putrid meat have their origin in part at the bone and soap-boiling and rancid fat-render- ing establishments,— not the pork-slaughtering works, — near Miller’s River basins, and in part at openings of the sewers, into which has been thrown from kitchens the cooking-water in which meats and vegetables, more or less tainted by the hot, muggy weather of the season, have been boiled. These, coming up mingled with the dock smell, have been observed to the windward of Squire’s Slaughtering Works, which has led some persons to think that the odors from these works would force their way against the wind. They have been observed in Chestnut and Mount Vernon and Charles Streets, on the Back Bay, and in: Charlestown, and ascribed to Squire’s works, when the wind was demonstrably from the east and southeast. 12th. The smell of the living swine after they reach the pens strewn with charcoal is scarcely offensive at any considerable dis- tance. / 13th. The discoloring and nauseating smells of public complaint do not come from the processes pursued in Squire’s works. . 14th. Squire’s Slaughtering Works are conducted with as much care and cleanliness as are the Hog-Slaughtering Works of New York, which are declared by the Board of Health of that city to be no nuisance. Solicitude for the Future. The situation of the cities about the mouth of the Charles and Mystic Rivers is‘ somewhat peculiar. It has obviously been the persistent plan of nature, by wearing away the gravel islands at the entrance to Boston Harbor, to fill up the anchorage ground, and virtually carry the mouth of Charles River farther-out to sea. The sea-walls erected and erecting by the general government have partially arrested the execution of this plan. But the task has been taken up by what may be called the “ current of events,” 243 5 of which we are the directors. We leave the sewage near the mouths of the sewers, or availing ourselves of the collision be- tween the effluent and returning tides, which provides for the arrest of whatever of solid refuse is thrown into the river and borne out on the ebb to be brought back with the flood and spread over and left upon the settling areas; we are doing, by the in- evitable consequences of increasing population, an injury akin to that against which we are, through the general government, striving to protect ourselves. In some respects the injury we do is more difficult to repair. While the shifting sand and gravel only threaten the convenience of commerce, the ill-controlled and accumulating sewage menaces the health of the cities. This is the kind of danger which, as is well known, rendered necessary the construction of the great trunk sewer inside the Thames embankment for the reception and removal of the sew- age of London. It has led Paris to forbid the pollution of the Seine. It has moved the city of Glasgow on the Clyde to con- template enormous @xpenditures to rid the river of the filth derived from that city. It now occupies the earnest attention of some of the best minds of the city of New York. The annoyances of whatever nature from the establishments on Miller’s River having ceased, the basins having been filled up and adequate sewers having been provided, it may be proper to re- mark, that, although the immediate neighborhood will have relief, the great question of annoyance from the sewage of Boston, Charlestown, and Cambridge, distributed over the settling areas of the inner harbor and laid bare at low tide, — which annoyance has at times characterized, and indeed may be said to have polluted and poisoned, the atmosphere of the municipalities on the shores of Boston Harbor, —will remain to challenge the care and solicitude of the guardians of public health. Adjourned to Tuesday, December 9. Norr’ A.— The following experiment was performed after the hearing was closed - A car-load of swine, on the arrival of a train, was run upon a side track, and, after the other cars were discharged and removed, a solution — one per cent strong — of a con- venient form of carbolic acid was sprinkled over the swine and the interior of the car. The peculiar odor of swine was immediately and completely destroyed, and two and a half hours Jater it was possible to perceive the swine-odor at only one point in going round the car. This experiment assures the possibility of so treating a train loaded with living hogs as to render its transit along the railway, and its discharge at the place of its destination, practically inoffensive. 244 SEVENTH DAY. December 9, 1873. Cross-ExaMINATION OF Proressor Espen N. Horsrorp. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Are you aware of the locality of the outlet of this sewer which has discolored the building of which you speak? A. It comes into the basin, but I do not know at what point. Mr. McIntire. That I suppose we shall have to show. Mr. Derby. 1 understand from Mr. Squire, and I think I have been told the same thing before, that it replaces an old sewer that remains there and comes in at the head of the basin. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say it is the gases that come up from the basin that have blackened them? -A. I have no doubt of it. Q. The heated gas passes up into the sewer in the manner you indi- cate ; perhaps the tide closes the lower end of it, and the water inside being colder than the gas causes it to rise and issue from the openings of the sewer above. A. The water is probably below the mouth of this sewer at ordinary times, and the rising of the gases from the basin through the sewer causes the discoloration I have spoken of. Q. Did you notice those other houses on the northerly and easterly side, nearer the establishment, — those that are between this house and the establishment? .A. My impression is that most of them are painted with Spanish brown, and that color is not affected by the gas. Q. Don’t you find that the north and east sides of the houses next to Mr. Squire’s are discolored? -A. I have not noticed it. In the neigh- borhood of Sixth Street they are discolored more on the side toward the basin than on the otherside. On Fifth Street there are houses not discolored on the side towards the works, but very deeply on the side towards the basin. .Q. As far as your investigation of the state of affairs on the 31st of July went, you ascertained that the wind came from the direction of Broad Canal and Back Bay, — from the southeast. Have you examined the houses on Spring, Charles, Lime, Otis, and Thorndike Streets, on the southerly side of East Cambridge, — houses facing to the south and the east, — to see whether there is any discoloration there? -A. I have noticed some discoloration, but nothing like that in the neighborhood of the basin. Q. But if I understand you, Professor, your idea of the vapors and gases of the 3lst of July is that they came from the neighborhood of Broad Canal and Back Bay, or from that direction. The wind being from the southeast would sweep the whole area of flats that extend from Canal Street Bridge up for a mile and a half. Well, now would n't you think it rather singular that these buildings right on Cambridge Street, at the corner of Fifth Street, and along Cambridge Street, the buildings on the southerly side, and along from Fifth to Fourth, and along Fifth, from Otis across Cambridge to the establishment were the most discolored ? Would n’t you think it a little singular if these vapors arose from Broad Canal, and passed over entirely those buildings on Charles, Otis, and Thorndike Streets without coloring them at all and came up to Cam- bridge Street and colored those near the establishment? .A. Whether it 245 would color the houses or not would depend upon the kind of paint with which they were coated. Lead paints only are discolored. Q. If you found all these houses from this one nearest the canal along the street facing to the south till you came to Cambridge Street entirely free from discoloration, would you then attribute the gases which arose on the 3]st of July to Broad Canal? If you didn’t find any color until you got up to within three or five hundred feet of Mr. Squire’s estab- lishment, would you say the gases arose from Broad Canal? A. My opinion would not be governed by that circumstance in the face of an easterly wind. I could not say without knowing more. @. Well, the wind, as I understand you, was from the south or south- easterly direction. Now, if it came from Broad Canal, it would blow right across the marshes and strike upon the southerly side of these houses. If these houses were free from any discoloration, should you say then that the vapors arose from Broad Canal? A. That produced the discoloration ? Q. Yes, sir? A. If there were houses directly in the vicinity of Broad Canal and not affected that night, I should think it required additional study to find out precisely what the fact was. They may not have been painted with lead paint. @. There are no houses on Broad Canal. But you go across the marsh directly, perhaps a quarter of a mile, before you meet with houses. Then there are parallel streets up to Cambridge Street. Now, on Cambridge Street, we find the most discolored houses are on Fifth Street ; on this night, the night of the 3lst of July, we find that the most intense dis- colorations are on Fifth Street, from the establishment of Mr. Squire to Otis Street ; that takes it up to the buildings on Cambridge and Fourth Streets, —the houses on the northerly side. I ask you, if, in the face of the*fact, that the houses along the line of Charles Street that are the nearest houses to Broad Canal, not being discolored, would you then attribute the gases which produced the discolorations to Broad Canal? A. My answer would be,. that, the houses not being far from the corner of Gore and Sixth Streets, the discolorations might have been the effect of the easterly wind deflected from the basin. Mr. McIntire. Professor, I don’t think that is hardly an answer. ” Professor Horsford. If I understand the point you wish to develop, it is whether I can account for these buildings being discolored with a south- east wind. Mr. McIntire. That is not the point. What I wish to get at is, how you will explain the fact of the discoloration of these buildings which are within a few hundred feet of the establishment, while those nearest Broad Canal, from which you think these vapors emanate, are not dis- colored at all? The nearer you get to it, the less discolored they are. A. Allow me to state that I consider the question of the wind as settled. If I understand your question, you are seeking to find out what direction the wind was from the spots on the sides of the houses. Now, those boards yonder settle the matter as to where the wind was. : Mr, McIntire. Well, if you will answer my question, we will pass on to the boards. If the wind is.settled as coming from the southeast, and if you, as you say you have, made up your mind that these gases must have come from Broad Canal or that vicinity — Professor Horsford. Which I have not. ° 246 Mr. McIntire. The winds coming from the direction of Back Bay and Broad Canal could not come from Mr. Squire’s works. Now, how do you account for the fact that all these buildings nearest Broad Canal were not discolored? A. Below Mr. Squire’s block, I think near the junction of Sixth and Gore Streets, there is an open place, and with a moderate easterly wind I can see that the vapor of the basin might easily have been deflected through there and produced these effects. Q. Then your idea is that all these discolorations must have come from the basin? A. Not entirely, but chiefly. Q. Well, now we will say something about these boards. These boards were taken, as I understand it, from a fence at the widening of Bridge Street, right there upon Craigie’s Bridge ? The Chairman. 1 would like to know precisely where these boards came from. Mr. McIntire. They came from Bridge Street, near Craigie’s Bridge, just where they propose to have the outlet of this big sewer. (Zo wit- ness.) Well, if these boards were discolored on the night of the 31st of July, and if these gases which discolored these boards, which you think are a part of the same which discolored the buildings up towards Sixth Street, would n’t you naturally expect to find the buildings between these streets and Craigie’s Bridge, and along up Cambridge Street on the south- erly side, more or less discolored until you got up as far as the discolora- tions went? A. I am not clear that that would be a fair deduction. Every additional street and every additional house breaks up the wind and scatters the current of gas, and its effects are less noticed. Q. But, as I understand it, you assume that these boards were dis- colored in a single night? .A. Substantially. Q. Well, now, if there was hydrogen and sulphur enough in the air to color those boards to that extent, would you not expect to find that the houses for some distance from there, with a free sweep of the wind, would be discolored? .A. Where they were exposed as these boards were, I should. Q. Where you interpose a street, and let the gases pass directly up a street, it is not broken. Would n’t you naturally look for discolorations on the sides of the houses on such a street? A. I think so. Q. If you did n’t find that the houses were discolored along the sides of such a street, how would you account for it? A. With regard to that, I should base my opinion upon the data that I could collect. I do not think you give me data enough for the consideration of that question. It would depend upon the force and direction of the wing! I can conceive that upon the margin of the dock aneffect might be rogfted that would not be noticed farther up the street. The high board fenée, the sea-wall below, and the buildings there, would tend to deflect a southeasterly or easterly breeze. Q. Do you think that these gases and vapors travel for a longer dis- tance over water than over land in a moist atmosphere? A. If the land is covered with houses, so as to break up the current, it‘will be more dis- sipated. If it is a dead level, I know no reason why it should not pass over landeas well as over water. Q. Do you think it would travel over open Places? A. I know of no reason why it should not. Q. If I understand you, you say that the mud in the Squire Basin is not so foul as the mud at ‘the mouth of 4 great many sewers that you examined in different localities, — Broad Canal, Stony Brook, and other e 247 places. .A. The mud outside of the bulkhead is spoken of. The mud at the outlet of the Gore Street sewer, which is in the Squire Basin, is worse than the average mud of the basin. It is under a portion of the building that I was not able to reach. The mud at the mouth of the Medford Street sewer, also in the Squire Basin, was worse than any portion outside or under the building. Q. But you didn’t find it so intense? .4. As in some other sewers ; no, sir. Q. Did you examine that matter to see if there was any animal mat- ter init? A, No,sir. JI have no doubt that there is animal matter dis- charged at the mouths of sewers. Q. Iam not speaking of the months of the sewers? A. I mean in the mud there. Q. You didn’t examine? A. I suppose you mean with a micro- scope. The presence of this sulphuretted hydrogen is perhaps sufficient proof of its presence. Q. Would n’t you find something besides sulphuretted hydrogen? A, Yes; if you look at the table you will see that the amount of ammonia given is enormous. There are two columns devoted to that statement. Q. Well, this large amount of sulphuretted hydrogen und large amount of ammonia in the water would be apt to get into the atmosphere, more . or less, as I understand you, in muggy weather? A. Yes, sir; a certain amount of ammonia. QY. Did you try any tests upon the kettles in Mr. Squire’s establish- ment? A. I did. I exhibited them here yesterday. The tests show only minute quantities of sulphuretted hydrogen. Q. You did n’t get such results there as Dr. Sharples or Mr. Munroe? A. I got a little reaction for sulphuretted hydrogen, but I do not think it was clear that it came from the vapor or gas of the tank, because the vapors of the dock were coming in at the doors and windows. It is true that sulphuretted hydrogen escapes in the melting of the fat from the meat, just as it does in the kitchen when the cooking of meat is going on. Q. You take the gas from the trying of the fat from the open kettles and close tanks; take the smell of the hog, the smoking of the bacon and the steam of the scalding-tank, and the scent from the hog when he is opened, as I understand there is quite an appreciable odor then ; when all these odors go into a muggy atmosphere, would you expect to find the odors in that establishment as strong as you would expect to find them out- side, where they become mingled and are kept down by the atmosphere ? Would you expect to find the odors as strong in the establishment itself as outside, when they had come together? A. I should expect to find them strongest where nearest their source. I should expect if they min- gled together in the factory they would be strongest there. Q. How mingle together in the factory? The odors pass up to the top of the building and go out. There is the smell of the animals when they are opened, that takes a similar course. Might they not combine and be perceived at a distance? A. It is a physical impossibility for the odors shut up in the hollow enclosure of the works to produce extreme results atadistance. There is a physical impossibility of the odors getting there. Q. You don’t think it is possible for these gases to arise and become more intense in the upper atmosphere than they were where they started form? A. Even if they could get down, I don't think I can say that the 248 smells can be any more intense at a distance from the works than near them. The dilution with air would tend to destroy them. Q. Would not you say that all these smells together would be more in- tense than any single one by itself? 4. I think by a mingling the free ammonia might neutralize the sulphuretted hydrogen and the acid smell. Q. Then there would be a certain mingling of the smells? A. I said that if they were mingled they might be neutralized. I think the ammonia would neutralize the offensive acid smell. Q. What would become of them if they arose together? A. They would ultimately oxidize in the air and disapptar from the sense of smell. There are circumstances under which, with currents, they might come down ; but they go up at a higher temperature than the surrounding air, and why they should come down after that I am unable to see, unless by some special disturbance of the atmosphere, which the very circumstances of the case preclude. Q. Take the smell of the open kettles that passes up through the ven- tilators into the outer atmosphere. Do you understand that this render- ing odor don’t come down? A. I suppose it is possible for a current of air to bring it down. I have noticed the smoke from the chimney of the glass-works float off horizontally for a long distance. I do not remember that I have ever séen it come down to the ground. The vapors of Mr. Squire’s establishment are not visible. The rendering smell and all these odors and vapors have a tendency to go up, notwith- standing the muggy atmosphere which may prevail. They are warmer than the surrounding atmosphere and would therefore rise. A muggy atmos- phere would not often reach up so high as the top of Mr. Squire’s chimney. Q. Perhaps it reaches as high as the ventilators? A. Possibly it might. Q. Then, if I understand you, you say that this rendering vapor, after passing through. the ventilators of the building, by its warmth rises in the atmosphere, notwithstanding it is muggy, and that it would be more intense right there than it would be at any distance. The farther off it gets the less intense it is. Do you think that would be the same in re- gard to these rendering kettles of ‘Barry and others? 4 I think so. The only way in which an intense smell can be maintained is by a very gentle current running along ina vein. Ihave myself known a very slen- der vein extend to a great distance, especially when the wind is moving very gently ; but that it should be more intense at a distance remains to be seen. Q. You would not believe, then, the remark of Mr. Derby, that the smell of those kettles of Barry and Reardon could have reached to Charlestown? A. I have not yet seen anything that has led me to believe that they did. Possibly they might. That they have come along the street into Kast Cambridge I think probable, but that they have reached Mt. Vernon Street, in Boston, I have seen nothing to convince me. Q. You have exhibited some tubes here with the water in the different states of the tides in the basins. Did you collect these samplés yourself A. With the exception of one of them. Q. Well, the water in the basin does not look quite so clear as that ? A, When it is settled it becomes clear. The mud settled out shows the amount of mud the water contains. Q. You tell about the acid liquor that was discharged from the distil- lery. Have you examined.that liquor to see what amount of acid there was} A. No further than to test it with test-papers. I found it was acid, that was all. 249 Q. It was extremely diluted, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. What does Mr. Boynton use his sulphuric acid for? A. Mr. Boynton, thinking to prevent the decay of scraps of animal matter on his premises, I understand, treats them with sulphuric acid, regarding it as the best thing he can do to make that product harmless. I have no doubt that the effect, so far as he is concerned, is good. Its effect upon cer- tain undecomposed sulphur compounds is to set free sulphuretted hydrogen. Q. I understand you that when this acid is put into the basin it sets free sulphuretted hydrogen, sometimes more in bulk than the mud itself, Well, now, I would like to ask you whether you would think there would be any advantage in running these acids through a sewer which would discharge upon the flats where these discolorations were made, — whether there would be any difference in discharging them through a sewer, or into the Squire Basin, in the result, in its effect upon the animal matter there, and upon the condition of the people? A. Are you assuming that the liquor is acid as it goes out ? Q. Iam assuming that you are to put all the 45,000 gallons from Sortwell’s, all of Boynton’s, and the acids from the Bleachery and the sul- phides into a common sewer, and, running them down to the point where these boards were taken, whether that place would be free from smells, or whether it would not affect the mud there in the same degree or in a greater degree than it does now in the Squire Basin? A. I have no doubt the effect would be in proportion to the amount of mud and acid brought together. Q. Then you, as a chemist, would not advise a sewer of that kind to be emptied into that place? A. The question of sewage I should con- sider a question by itself. Q. Supposing these acids which are poured into the basin should be poured into the sewers, would you advise that the sewers be emptied at the place where these boards come from, at Craigie’s Bridge? A. It would be better to have it discharged there than where it is now, because the amount of mud would be less there, and there would, of course, be léss_ gas evolved. Q. But you would not have a sewer discharged above the level of the water there or anywhere else? A. That is a new problem, and it is im- possible to answer your question in a single word. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Would you carry it into the channel? A. If there was mud there it would be objectionable. If there were but little mud the effect would be trifling. If the amount was large the effect might be correspondingly great. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Supposing this was emptied into the water itself, the tide being high, would it produce any effect upon the flats above and below at the rising and going out of the tide? A. Not appre- ciable, I should think ; it would be too diluted on reaching tide-water. Q. Do you detect any scent yourself from the live hogs? A. Simply the live-hog smell, as it is called? I did. Q. That is not agreeable, is it? A. No, it is not dgreeable, but it is not nauseating. In the pens where the charcoal was spread it was ex- tremely reduced. I may say, with regard to that, that I have undertaken to show that it can be greatly mitigated. I have sent to England for a preparation of carbolic acid, which I hope may be successfully used for that purpose. 2 250 Q. I understood you, in describing the effect of warm atmosphere upon the vapors of the sewers, that the water at the mouth of the sewer being colder than the vapors inside, they would give off gases which would rise through the sinks and traps and affect individuals, and that that might have been the cause of these gases and discolorations on par- ticular occasions. Was I correct in my idea? A. The smell of the cook- ing of putrid meat I tried to explain. It perhaps needs to bea little elabo- rated. It is evident enough that if you pour a large amount of boiling water into a sewer the temperature of the air over the water will be above that of the general atmosphere ; that is obvious. Now, at night, when the sun has gone down, radiation causes the whole surface of the earth to cool off. The covered sewer does not cool so rapidly, because it is encased. The cooler air is the denser air. The cooler air outside would press upon the warmer air of the sewer, and the effect would be to drive that warmer air out wherever there was a crack, — that is, supposing the mouth of the sewer to be open. Now, the opening of the mouth of the sewer will do another thing. If the hot waters and acid extracts of one kind and another have been poured into the sewers during the preceding twelve hours in unusual quantity, when the tide goes out of the basin all these acid liquors that have passed from the sinks into the sewers would go down, and if there were dock mud at the mouth of the sewers the acid liquors would be precipitated upon this dock mud and set free sulphuretted hydrogen ; that is inevitable. Now, upon the gases at the upper part of the sewer there is increased pressure; if the wind is blowing up the sewer it further increases the pressure. Under certain circumstances the wind over the traps and houses would lessen the pressure and facilitate the escape of gases from the sewer ; and when blowing in the direction from the mouth of the sewer this would force these gases out. I alluded in what I said yesterday to the gases at the Worcester Depot. I have inquired of those who live in the neighborhood, and I find that in the cellars there, the gases come up from the sewers in the immediate vicinity ofthe depot ; and those who have had occasion to be in the depot during the summer and autumn state that there has been a most intolerable stench in that locality. LIascribe it to the atmosphere gently pressing in at the mouth-of the open sewers. It is probable that imperfect traps and sinks have facili- tated the escape of the gases. Q. Do you think that is the reason of the most offensive smeils ex- perienced on Mt. Vernon and Chestnut Streets? 4. I should say that when this gas is produced by the outflow of the sewage at the sewer’s mouth, and a favoring wind is blowing, it would carry some of the gas up from the mouth of the sewer, over the sea-wall and along into the streets and avenues above the sewers as well as below. Q. Well, then, as I understand you, you think that it does n’t improve certainly the scents which arise from the sewers to pour in hot water or any hot substance? A. So far as increasing the temperature of the air is concerned, it would not. Q. It gives rise to more gases? A. Yes, sir, and makes them lighter. Q. Well, then, I understand that most of these liquors that are poured off from these establishments are hot liquors? Mr. Derby. 1s that so? Q. (by Mr. McIntire). The water from the scalding-tank is, and the soup-liquor is more or less heated? .A. When I have collected the soup- liquor it has been pretty cool. It must stand some time to settle clear. 251 Q. Well, then, these hot waters running into the sewers would make them smell very much worse than if these waters were cool, would they not? A. Yes, sir; I think so. Q. Do you think it would have any effect upon the sewers itself, — the cement, or whatever it was made of, suppose it to be brick. A. I think not, sir. ‘ Q. Well, then, a sewer carrying away these substances in the state that they are poured out, would not naturally be as inoffensive a sewer as that which carries out the washings and scourings of families? A. It would be less offensive. This soup-liquor is substantially sweet. Q. If this sweet liquor remained long in the sewer it would begin to become acid? A. Yes, sir. But it would flow away at once, of course. Q. Well, I will go on to the scalding-tank. A. Thescalding-tank liquor will tend to neutralize any acid that is in the sewer ; that would be its effect. Q. The acid from Mr. Sortwell’s and the Bleachery, being added, would increase the offensiveness of the sewer, would it not? A. As acid liquors they might. The liquid from Sortwell’s is cold, that from the dye-house would become cold, even if it started hot. The effect of both in a sewer would be trifling. Q. Did you ever get the odor of the close tank? I mean the pure, unadulterated odor, before it was run into the apparatus? A. I have not got it directly from the tank. Q. You have never tested it then? .A. No. Ihave no doubt that there is considerable sulphuretted hydrogen evolved from it. Q. Do you know anything about that apparatus for consuming the gas? A. I have seen the outside of it, and seen its operation. ‘TI be- lieve I understand how it works. Q. Well, whether you understand the theory. Can you tell us where the gases pass off from the water? .A. I understand there is a still, and then a pipe passes out from the still in which the steam is condensed, and from which the uncondensed gases have arisen ; and there is a place where the condensed water passes off through a trap to the basin. The gas is discharged upon shelves covered with lime. Q. Does the gas pass up through this lime chest and over the lime into gasoline, and from there through the furnace? A. It does. I do not recol- lect the detailed construction of the condenser. The gases that are con- densed in the still or coil of course acquire the temperature of the sur- rounding water. Q. Are you aware that there is a notion among some chemists that, when employed as experts, they are acting in the same capacity as a lawyer occupies toward his client? 4.. It may have been said. Q. Do you hold that opinion? A. No, sir. Q. Never have expressed it? A. No, sir. I have said that I thought the relations of experts in the courts of law admit of great improvement ; that the relation needs modification, in my judgment. Q. In what manner? A. Well, sir, I should say that the system which prevails in Germany would be a great improvement upon our sys- tem, where the expert stands in relation to the judge, and not to the counsel on either side. If you speak with regard to what I have had to do for Mr. Squire, I would like — Mr. McIntire. TY would like to know whether you hold that opinion. Professor Horsford. I understand what your inquiry is. I think it is 252 but fair to say that in going into this matter with regard to Mr. Squire, I was a little doubtful whether I~could be convinced that the establish- ment was inoffensive. It’seemed to be so large, and there were so many difficulties in making the investigation, and I had so little time, that I could hardly venture to undertake it. When I first went there, however, I was impressed with the cleanliness of the establishment and of the business, and I was surprised at the inconsistency of the charges made against it. The idea that any offence could be observed at such distant points as was maintained seemed to me to he exceedingly problematical. The case interested me as a scientific problem. -I had no definite impres- sions, as a general thing, from anything that I had read. Perhaps I should except that I did see in the papers that reached me while abroad, that there had been a great deal of trouble with Miller’s River. Mr. McIntire. I understood that several years ago, in a convention of ; chemists in Boston, you yourself expressed this idea, that the relation of the expert to the party for whom he works is the same as that of lawyer to client ; something of that, — that he should write in his interest. Professor Horsford. J think that is the general popular impression about it. That I think is wrong. I think the chemist ought to be in relation to the judge, rather than to the client. I did express my opin- ion as to the fact that exists. Then too, I think I expressed an opinion as to some proposed legislation about it, that impressed me as being injudicious ; that is all. I would like to answer more fully a question in regard to a matter about which J think there is a little obscurity. There seems to be a conviction that the offensive gases may escape from the close tanks after the new arrangement of Mr. Squire is applied. I think: that is the conviction of my brother Sharples and Professor Mun- roe. Now, of course, in the introduction of an apparatus into an estab- lishment, both the operatives and the apparatus have got to get used to each other. There will be accidents at the outset. The condensation of the steam in this coil by surrounding: the coil with cold water reduces that steam to a temperature corresponding with the water outside. When that steam is so condensed it will hold a certain amount of the gas that will condense with it, in proportion to the temperature of the con- densed water. Tlie colder the water the more gas it will hold. Now if this water went out saturated, the gases might be driven out of it by warmer water. But if it went out cold into other water not warmer than itself, there is no reason why these gases should go out, ‘espe- cially if they go into a larger volume of water, because there is the additional water present to receive and hold them. I do not see why, when this apparatus is fairly in operation as Mr. Squire has planned it, it will not do away with the odor from the tanks. I think there can be no: objection to his establishment on that ground; I do not see how the apparatus can be inefficient. I will say that the rendering of fat in Paris is in open copper kettles. The exaction which is made here that the rendering shall be done in close vessels is a thing that is not required in that city. Q. (by a member of the Board). Is that on a large scale? A. No, sir. It is carried on in a great many places. There are quite a number of abattoirs there, seven or eight of them large ones. Q. Do they try their lard in these establishments? A. I think it is removed to separate places, but the trying is done in Paris. a 253 Q. Do you know the temperature at which they render? A. That is a matter which must be the same there as itis here. Above a certain temperature uudesirable chemical changes would take place. I do not think it exceeds three hundred degrees. I may say I speak with megane to Paris from reports rather than from examination. Q. (by a member of the Board). You have heard testimony that this rendering-smell has been experienced in Cambridge seven thousand feet from the establishment, and that at that distance it has produced nausea. That is in evidence here. There is no evidence.as to the effect it has produced at the Monument and along High Street. We have, however, evidence as to the effect it has produced on Mt. Vernon and Chestnut Streets, something like ten thousand feet away. Now, to what do you ascribe the origin of these smells? Or do you think that this smell which is so offensive and produces nausea is generated by the vapors arising from the basin? A. The smells that have been observed in Old Cambridge, I am inclined to think, are due mainly to its own sinks and drains. They are the consequence of dimihished pressure, a muggy atmosphere, low tide, and the direction of the wind at the mouths of the sewers. I cannot help thinking that it is the chief explanation for those in Boston. The connections with the sewers have been cracked in somé places on the new land by the settling of the houses, thus providing openings for the escape of the sewer odors. Besides these, there are smells from the Back Bay and the Charles at low tide. In Charlestown I think they have a similar explanation. Indeed, I find it beyond my power to conceive that the proper rendering odor should be noticed at any considerable distance. I can conceive that from Reardon’s, Barry’s, and O’Neil’s, the smell arising from rendering rancid fat and soap grease should be observed at a considerable distance when it goes in a vein. But that any'kind of smell goes from Mr. Squire’s en- closed establishment to Boston and affects the people on Mt. Vernon and Chestnut and Newbury Streets, requires more investigation than I have given the matter, to enable me to say that I think it is possible. On the nights specially complained of, the wind was adverse. Q. The question that I asked you was in reference. to this rendering smell, — the smell which is described as the odor of boiling fat or putrid meat, and goes as far as seven thousand feet in one direction and more than seven thousand feet in another direction. My question is whether these peculiar smells which the witnesses have testified to are distinct from the smell that arises from the vapor of the basin? A. I think they are. The rendering smell of fresh lard is distinct from that of boiling putrid fat or meat, and both are distinct from the odor of the basin. My inquiries have made me distrust the convictions of many persons who ascribe to Squire’s works odors that obviously came from the sinks or drains in their own neighborhood. I have no doubt about the misapprehension in Charlestown. I have conversed with physicians in Charlestown who have given me this information: they have gone up the hill through the fog bank in the neighborhood of the wharves, into the clear air above, and smelled first the sink smell issuing from openings in the sinks or sewers, and afterwards the dock smell. Q. Twould like to have a little explanation of what you said yesterday about the state of the barometer in cases where exhalations from the basins, from the docks, and from the sewer-mouths affected the people in 254 the different neighborhoods. A. The barometer being low, and the air muggy, the exhalations would rise more directly than when the air was denser and clear. The gases which were smelled were originally in a solid or liquid condition. In order to get into the gaseous condition they must overcome the pressure of the atmosphere. If you take that off they will escape more readily, just as the taking off the atmosphere will enable you to boil water at a lower temperature. Suppose that the barometer is at such a point that it just holds down a quantity of gas which is just ready to overcome the pressure of the atmosphere. The moment the barometer begins to go down, the restraint is removed and the gas escapes. A muggy atmosphere is usually accompanied by a falling barometer. Q. Whether, if the heated gases should rise in the atmosphere, the barometer being low, it would not again settle down when they became cool? A, I think they would be diffused on rising, and descend again only with great difficulty. Q. Can it in any way account for the rendering smells which are com- plained of around this neighborhood? .A. I do not think it can, sir. I think the fact of a constant breeze, from any quarter, such as that from the east and southeast on the night of July 31, would be fatal to such a theory. I think if you distribute a given quantity of the gas, as much, for example, as might arise from all the establishment8 on Miller’s River, > together, over an area of two or three miles in diameter, after it has once ascended, it could not get back to the bottom of the atmosphere, except in such a diluted state that its effects would not be perceived. Q. Does the muggy atmosphere, hugging the earth, have any effect on the falling vapors in such cases? Would that not dissolve them and make them more intense than before? A. Would it increase the offen- siveness of the atmosphere, the little that did come down? Assuming that it could come down, I think the solution of the gas in the fog might make it more offensive. I cannot conceive that it could come down, if you will allow me to say it. Q. Whether, in your opinion, there is any mode of propagating odors otherwise than by the transmission of material particles? A. I do not know of any other, sir. @. Whether there can be any propagation of odors except in the direc- tion that the wind blows? A. I do not know of any, sir. There is sucha thing as a diffusion of gases in a narrow, closed chamber, but as for any odor outside Squire’s works moving against the wind, it is a new doctrine to me. The Chairman. Can chemistry thoroughly analyze all odors? Can you tell us, and give the name to it,— what is the cause of it? A, Chemistry has not determined all possible odors. @. I noticed in your three bottles, yesterday, a peculiar smell, to my nose. I would ask you whether there could not be a compound of these odors arising, which would cause these troubles which we are all affected by? A. Ido not think it possible. The distances are too great. @. But if the odors from the several causes are intermingled they will rather neutralize than intensify the odor? A. The ammonia of the hog-smell would tend to neutralize any acid vapors. @. (by Mr. McIntire). Whether there is not a difference of tempera- ture between the water of the basin and that which runs from the still ? A, I suppose there may be a little difference, but I do not think it suffi- cient to make any difference with the water issuing from its small outlet. 255 Q. I think you decided ‘that the soup is entirely dissolved in the water and all taken offf A. Pretty nearly, sir. I have something here which will, I think, illustrate it; it is, the soup-liquor evaporated down. I find that the amount which remains undissolved after treatment with water is very small. Q. Do you know that Mr. Sharples has given particular attention to this matter of soup? 4. I have heard his testimony. Q. I should say, then, that your testimony don’t agree with his? He said that he could not get this soup out of the water ; he did n’t know of any process by which it could be got out. I think he testified that if it could be separated by evaporation it would make inferior glue. A. He said if you could only combine it with something producing a solid, you might separate it. But all its compounds are soluble in water ; there- fore, when you take it with its large dilution and empty it into the basin to be diluted by the enormous quantity of water there, to me it is impos- sible to see how it can be deposited on the bottom of the basin. @. Tonly want to call your attention to the fact that you and Mr. Sharples don’t agree as to organic matter going to the bottom of the basin? .A. I do not see how a body that is soluble in water, upon dilu- tion with a larger quantity of water should lose its solubility. @. I have been informed that you are interested in a bone-boiling es- tablishment? A. I am. Q. Do you use close tanks or open kettles? A. We use close tanks. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You spoke of some vapors that might possibly arise from the works of Mr. Squire. Let me ask you, with regard to those vapors, if, when reaching the upper atmosphere, they do not be- come oxidized? A. They are destroyed by the air which purifies itself. Q. So that they would not be in a condition to recur to the earth ? A. I cannot conceive of a gathering together, to any extent, of the vapors that have been carried up into the higher atmosphere, and their subse- quent descent through the air. Q. Well, then, do I understand you to say that there are no vapors that you have detected as coming from the establishment of Mr. Squire which could occasion these results which have been spoken of by people as occurring during the night? A. The change of the color of the houses is to be ascribed to the odors from the basin. The rendering odor, in my judgment, is not a serious thing, and its existence at all, with the use of close tanks, is, I think, hardly probable. I will say that in my visits there, which have been very frequent, certainly, within the last two months, I find perhaps less odor than might be presumed to be present in the sum- mer season. But J have not found any odors belonging to the processes of Mr. Squire’s establishment that could be perceived at any considerable distance from the works. I will say that at the unloading of the cars I have smelled the hog-smell farther than anything else. But, as legiti-~ mately due to the processes in the establishment, I have found no serious or offensive odor of which complaint is made. I think the smells of which complaint is made have settled down now upon the odors of the cooking of putrid meat, the rendering of putrid fat, as in treating soap- grease, which are not pursued at Squire’s works, and the smell of the basin. Q. Permit me to ask you if ammonia is not carried into the sewers by the fats and meats which come, from the kitchens and the sinks? A. Not by itself, I think, sir. I think the characteristic odor of sinks is acid. . 256 \ The solid excrementitious matter would become of an ammoniated char- acter, undoubtedly. I should say that the prevailing characteristic of the matter that would come from the kitchen would be acid. Q. With regard to these soups going into the stream, whether they were cold or hot, would it be a difficult matter to reduce them in tem- perature? would not a block of ice thrown in at once affect it? A. It could be cooled without difficulty and without much expense. Q. Your attention was drawn, sir, to the sewer to open at Craigie’s Bridge? I understand you that at the extremity where it would be car- ried in you believed there was not so much mud; is it not so, sir? A, J believe it is. Q. Your idea would be that it would be better to carry the drain to deep water, and not deposit the matter upon the flats? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have said that these gases will ascend and be oxidized? Would they oxidize as fast in a light atmosphere, the barometer being low, as they would if the atmosphere were heavy? A. I do not think they would. Mr. Derby. J bave no more questions, sir. Testimony oF Mr. Cuartes E. Avery. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you reside? A. I reside at 19 Chester Park, Boston. : Q. Have you made the study of chemistry a specialty more or less? A. Yes, sir ; I have studied chemistry nearly all my lifetime, I may say, and be- sides that, I have undergone a course of education on that particular subject. Q. Have you been a practical chemist more or less? A. Entirely so. Q. Have you been called upon to examine these works? A. I was called upon by Mr. Squire about five weeks ago, to inquire into this matter, and to make a thorough ‘investigation. Q. Did you have an occasion to make a suggestion as to the use of charcoal before you made this investigation? -A. It was adopted at my suggestion. I drew the matter of disinfecting his works to Mr. Squire’s attention, and suggested the use of charcoal, and he adopted it. ! Q. Will you now have the kindness to submit your report and its re- sults? A. I have made the examination, the result of which I will sub- mit in writing. The Chairman. Whether you could not present the results without taking so much time as to read a report? It is hardly worth while to have a repetition of facts. Mr. Derby. I have read a portion of his report, and I think it could be read in one half the time that it would take to bring out the facts by an examination of the witness. Mr. Avery then read as follows: — The hogs are bedded on charcoal ; the passages of the hog-house strewn with it. This is perfectly effectual. I have taken it from under a herd and found it still had the odor of fresh charcoal. I have followed them up the inclines, driving them before me, yet the odor of swine was slight. I have covered a pile of animal matter, in intense decomposition, with. one inch of charcoal powder. Casual visitors were asked the nature of the heap, and on close inspection presumed it to be all charcoal. This power A 257 of destroying odors lasts indefinitely. It is selfrenewing. If witnesses testify that the hog odor out of doors is as bad as when no disinfectant was used, it proves that the odor complained of does not originate in the hog-house. . -The hogs are driven, a few at a time, into a pen, strung up by the heels, by a clip resembling a pile-driver, killed, and passed into the scald- ing-tank, The blood is carried away in carts. These are not disagreeable in smell. The faintest trace of putrid blood would be discernible. The scalding-water was tested with a neutral solution of permanganate of potassium, dilute and concentrated. If the water were at all rank it would be instantly browned and precipitated. The test proved the water inoffensive. The lard-pans were sweet, the odor slight. I found a trifle of sulphide of hydrogen came off, — not enough to smell it. All fresh meat cooking gives this gas and sulphide of ammonium. (See Watt’s Chemical Dic- tionary, articles “ Flesh ” and “ Fibrin.”) These kettles cannot give rise to any considerable odor, for this reason : it would spoil the lard to have putrid gases generated in quantity in its midst. Fats greedily absorb odors. Milk, cream, and butter are ex- amples. Hence the cleanliness required about dairies, the care of the housewife to scald out the refrigerator. I refer to Piesse, “ Art of Per- fumery ” : — “ The fat body has a strong affinity or attraction for the odorous body or essen- tial oil of the flowers, and it therefore absorbs. it by contact and becomes itself perfumed.” (p..36.) | “Tn the perfumer’s laboratory, the method of obtaining the odor is by absorp- tion, or, as the French term it, enfleurage, —that is, by spreading a mixture of pure lard and beef suet pn a glass tray, and sprinkling the freshly gathered flowers all over it, leaving them to stand a day or so, and repeating the operation; the grease absorbs the odor.” (p. 90.) “The pneumatic process consists of forcing a current of air into a vessel filled with fresh flowers, and then passed into a second vessel containing grease; it there yields up its smell.” (p. 159.) The lard, then, is one of the most delicate means we can employ to collect odors. Were a foul odor like that complained of evolved in the pans the lard would be worthless. Piesse (page 54) says: “This fat being melted by a steam heat or bath, the kind of flowers required for the odor wanted are carefully picked and put into the liqnid fat, and allowed to remain there from twelve to forty-eight hours; the liquid fat has par- ticular affinity or attraction for the otto.” If an odor of such offensive- ness, in quantity enough to disturb three cities, were generated in either the closed or open tanks, what would be the odor of the lard and oil? I discharged the steam from the closed tanks into the air of the room two minutes each ; I heard a dead hog was in one. The steam had been on an hour or so, and the stench, if there be any, should then be greatest. Though I put my face in the steam jet, I could perceive nothing offensive. If four minutes will not scent a room, four years will not a city. I had before supposed that mischievous workmen might let loose foul gases, but became convinced of my error. The soup is strained ; the solution that goes into the tide is overboiled glue, or jelly. When the tanks are discharged a smell like a hotel kitchen 17 i 258 is noticed, — not so strong as in many, — an odor of broth. I cannot see how the discharge of broth from a factory should pollute the basin more than the discharge of like broth’and jelly after they have been through the bowels of the people of Cambridge. The gases blown off are treated in a condenser to extract the water, with lime, then carburized with gasoline and burnt under the boilers. Simple discharge as a jet over the boiler fires would be sufficient. I have charged meat and offal horribly putrid on the hearth of a re- verberatory furnace ; a lively fire was on the grate; standing at the chimney top, my face in the escaping gases to leeward, I could not tell if the furnace was empty or charged with a putrid mass. No odor except that of burnt matches from the sulphurous anhydride given off by the coal was discernible. Besides, boiling destroys putridity. (Angus Smith, ‘“ Disinfectants,” p. 56.) “If it is a dry heat it arrests putrefaction at all temperatures. Even if moisture be present the disinfecting action is powerful, perhaps all-powerful if the temperature of 140° Fahrenheit be continued long.” The oil when warm and freshly let out is but slightly odorous. Three of us held a discussion as to what a hogshead filled with it contained. It stood in a dark corner. The odor given off by fats, especially rancid fats, at 140°, appears to be valeric acid and velerate of ammonium, (See article “‘Soap,” Richardson & Watt's Chemical Technology.) A very delicate test for the sulphides of hydrogen, etc., is found in the factory itself. These bodies combine with the red blood globules, or rather the hemeetoidin thereof, in such a manner as to prevent their change from arterial blood to venous, and vice versa. They are use- less as blood. If the factory hands were in the focus of production of great quantities of these gases, they would be pallid, thin, and miserable. They are, as a fact, ruddy and healthy. Angus-Smith says: “Sulphide of hydrogen may kill like a cannon shot.” If it blackens a quarter of a mile away, where would be the workmen, shut up in the room where it is generated 1 The operations of the factories are continuous day by day. -The odors of East Cambridge are highly capricious and intermittent. Tbe prosecu- tion has shown no reason for this; has omitted or rather failed to show the emission of odors, quantitatively considered. It has been said that these factories gave out gases odorless where formed, but intensely pow- erful by contact with air. Sulphide of hydrogen is not of this nature ; oxidation destroys it. To test this theory of odorless stenches I produced the active principle of fresh air — ozone — in the room over the kettles and tanks and opening into it. No offensive odors rose from below, or I should have perceived them. No new smell was developed by the ozone, save its own. Smoke and the gases of combustion destroy foul odors and prevent putridity unless the quantity of putrid stench overpowers them. They will not develop worse by combination. Carbonic oxide, sulphurous anhydride, and creosote are the most powerful of volatile disinfectants. Mr. Squire’s smoke preserves his ham. Smells of East Cambridge. It appears from.the testimony that the factory smells of sour swill, of the sulphides of hydrogen and ammonium, of mercaptan, of live hog, of 259 rendering, of boiling putrid meat, of frying. It smelled thus on the 31st of July. This was the odor complained of, — the usual stench. The source of a smell cannot be inferred from its odor only. Dilute odors do not resemble that of the same body in a concentrated form. Piesse (page 171) says: “It is difficult to ascertain the reason why the same substance, modified only by the quantity of matter presented to the nose, should produce an opposite effect on the olfactory nerve ; but such is the case with nearly al odorous bodies. The ottos of flowers in a con- centrated form smell positively nasty.” They are modified by combination with other odors. They affect the nerve of smell as a single impression, as light affects the nerve of vision. We do not see the qolors of the rainbow in white light. Piesse (page 108) says: ‘Two distinct odors are procurable from orange-blossoms. This quality of fragrance is not peculiar to the orange-flower, but applies to many others, especially rose, — probably to all flowers.” Who ever perceived two odors to the bridal wreath or rose before the chemist separated them? Piesse (page 59) says: “‘ Bouquets are mixtures of the extract so compounded in quantity that no one odor can be dis- cerned as predominating over another” ; and (page 219) : “There are cer- tain odors which, on being mixed in due proportion, produce a new aroma, perfectly distinct and peculiar to itself.” The testimony of the prosecution is then devoid of that precision it would be supposed to have by those not knowing these facts. Vide Piesse, page 46: ‘To the unlearned nose all odors are alike.” It cannot aid the investigator. The Sulphur Gas. This would render the investigation difficult were it not for one thing, precise, definite, scientific, —a thing having no bias. The paint and silver of East Cambridge were blackened by a sulphur gas. We will assume it to be the gas which holds the most sulphur for its weight, which has the greatest diffusive power of any foul gas, — sulphuretted hydrogen. Subsequent facts bear us out in so doing. Sulphuretted hydrogen gives a test when present one part in 100,000. T can smell it when one part in 40,000 is present. It kills small animals when present one part in 1,000. I will assume one part in 10,000. Four square miles were affected by gases of which this was a leading one. The stratum of foul air was at least 100 feet deep. Here are 11,150,000,000 feet of air. One part in 10,000 gives 1,115,000 cubic feet of sulphuretted hydrogen required to give the stench. Now, this wmount could n’t possibly come from Squire’s factory. The hogs killed in East Cambridge per day are, say, 2,500. These weigh about 250 pounds each. We will suppose them to have no fat, which holds little sulphur, no bones ; that they are all readily putrescible matter. Three fourths of all meat is water. We have then remaining about 156,000 pounds of pure fibrin, the matter of flesh. This holds more sulphur than albumen, about one and a half per cent. Therefore, we have 2,300 pounds | of sulphur in the fibrin, which would form 25,000 feet of sulphuretted hydrogen gas. Since putrefaction is sensibly constant in the amount of gas evolved for short periods, this would be five seventeenths of a cubic foot per second. I have made here no allowance for the destruction of gas by oxidation after it got into the air, nor for the free sulphur and 260 fixed sulphides formed. If all the meat received in the factories in one day went into gas by putrefaction during that day, it could not produce the effects observed, not even were it all discharged at once. On Mr. Squire’s premises of twenty acres, allowing a stratum of air thirty feet deep to be mixed with it, that would be one tenth of one per cent. Where the Sulphur Gas comes from. These gases come from the reduction of the sulphates in the mud and sea-water to sulphides by contact with fermenting and putrefying matter. The oxygen of the sulphates oxidizes the carbon of the body, which re- duces it to carbonic-acid gas; and this, combining with the base of the sulphate in presence of water, releases the sulphide of hydrogen. I took mud from the sewers and basin, filtered off the water in it. It gave an instantaneous test for sulphides. I then added dilute acid, — hydrochloric. Bubbles of gas were given off, which proved to be sulphu- retted hydrogen. Free sulphur was set free, — milky sulphur. I have had this sample of mud analyzed, to find quantity of sul- phur present in various states of combination. There is about 1} per cent. There is about 10.2 per cent of organic matter present to assist in the reduction of the sulphates. Here is an adequate source of sulphur. Twenty acres would hold about 1,750,000 pounds of sulphur, which could make, say, 19,000,000 feet of sulphuretted hydrogen ; and this is subject to renewal by fresh mud by the sulphates in the sea-water. 4 The Intermittency and Intensity. Finely divided and porous bodies, like mud, clay, charcoal, etc., store up gases and condense them. The mud of Miller’s River and the soil about there store these gases. If there comes a fall of pressure of air, or. an increase of heat, these are given off. A rising tide assists by dis- placing the gas mechanically held in the mud and soil. So these flats give off their odors capriciously and with extraordinary intensity. Ferment and Putrid Gases. Yeast is always going down Miller’s River from houses and the distillery, if I mistake not. The flats lie open to the air, which, as every lady knows who puts up preserves, of itself starts fermentation from the seeds it carries. This, on exposure to the air and heat, runs into putrefaction. I knew the mud must ferment. James D. Dana (“System of Mineralogy,” p. 725), the first authority in-that science perhaps, says: ‘The conditions favor- able to the formation of naphtha are the following: 1. The diffusion of organic material through a fine mud or clay. 2. The material in a very finely divided state. 3. The material excluded from the atmosphere. “There is reason to believe that no more heat was required than what was afforded by the natural temperature of the region and the process of Sermentation.” I knew ferment oils were volatile and powerfully odorous. So I put a trifle of yeast in a bottle of mud from the Squire Basin. . I took it down to Professor Babcock’s office to open it. It blackened a test paper. He took out thirty to forty grains on a spatula and put it in another bottle for analysis. It remained exposed perhaps four minutes. The odor was diffused through a large suite of rooms, all of them. contain- ing, maybe, 25,000 cubic feet of air. The symptoms produced in me 261 were faintness, dizziness, oppression of the chest, and constriction of the throat. I had to lean against a bench to sustain myself. Professor Bab- cock asked me in surprise if I felt it as much as that, and without my speaking alluded to the odd feeling about the throat ; since then the mud has putrefied and this has lost its force. The mud fermenting from yeast in presence of air, it would naturally form acetic acid. The mud was acid by test and smelled of acetic acid. Hence probably the odor of sour swill of Dr. Shaw. Sulphuric acid comes from the bleachery being non-volatile, dilute solu- tions concentrate themselves on exposure to air and sun. Weak acid will destroy clothing. There is lactic acid in household refuse. Acetic acid is generated by the mud, also carbonic acid; acids come in from the dis- tillery, from sour, peaty soils, and tan-yards. The action of these acids on the putrid mud gives the smell of rendering or boiling putrid meat. Angus Smith (page 94) says: “Acids and acid metallic salts eek as chlorides of zinc and iron send out a very disagreeable fatty acid, which seems to be the same that comes over with ammonia when putrid matter is distilled. For this reason chemicals such as these ought never to be poured on strong or slightly diluted putrid matter.” T have hitherto shown that grease readily absorbs odors to give them off on a pure air. Various witnesses testify that the odors were strongest at Miller’s River: ‘“ After it entered a room it was difficult to get it out ; that the smell hung to clothing with extraordinary tenacity.” Had Mr. Squire’s factory been absolutely new and clean, fresh from the carpenter’s hand, but smeared with grease and lard, all absolutely pure and sweet, it would, situated as it was in the focus of the stench, have undergone enfleurage and retained the scent next morning. The only surprising thing, to those who know the attraction of lard for an odor, is that the smell has gone away yet. A very large manufactory of perfumery exposes a surface of 18,000 feet of absorptive fat during two or three months of the year (Piesse, p. 57). There are only a few houses as large as this. Mr. Squire’s fac- tory exposes a much greater greasy surface than this. The smell about the factory after a night of stenches proves nothing. Note the Parallel. About the year 1854 strong smells began to disturb the Houses of Parliament and bench of judges ; the evil grew worse the next year and the next. At first the trouble was laid to an old graveyard; then to the bone-factories, which were suppressed. The smell grew worse and the sewers were accused. They were flushed, purged, and purified by chemi- cals ; they were trapped at the outlet and ventilated through sieves filled with charcoal, —a precaution still used. The evil grew intolerable in 1856. Committees were appointed to report to the House of Commons on the cause of the nuisance. Able chemists were employed for two years to investigate the matter. The odor was nightly intermittent, — as one report says, “‘ The entire surface of the river became pestilential in less than twenty minutes.” The copper coal-scuttles of the citizens, scoured bright one day, were black the next. They were thrown out of use, — placed in the lumber- room. Silver was black as the kettle; paint was discolored, and lead test-paper blackened far from the river. The members of Parliament and 262 judges were nauseated, seized with vertigo, faintness, irritation of the throat, and oppression of the chest. They were forced to discontinue their sittings. The chemists employed were August Hoffman and Edward Frankland, the highest names in Germany and England ; Heury Letheby, perhaps the best expert or specialist on these matters of sewage, William Odling, Spencer, and Witt, all chemists of high repute. They reported that the smell came, not from fresh sewage, which was comparatively clear ; not from Thames water, which was but little fouled ; but from dock or river mud. The smell was not a dock smell, but one peculiar, intense, and terrible. The gas was not all hydric sulphide or ammonium sulphide, but came from a compound of iron, carbon, and sulphur, and was probably its vapor. ’ The evolution of the smells seemed to be determined by a rise in the temperature of the water above 60° Fahrenheit, a change in barometric pressure, by incoming tide, and other causes not so clearly made out. Competent engineers reported as follows regarding the sewers and sew- age. In fine weather the solid matter sinks to the bottom of the sewers, especially where the fall is slight, and there remains. The effluent mat- ter then is not very unpleasant. Rain follows, and the sewer contents are flushed into the river. Once there, the solid excreta sink along the shores, in the eddies and back currents. Even in brisk currents they sink one foot ina minute. The sewer-water is fresh, and is lighter than salt. Sewage-products peculiar to the drains of lower London were car- ried by the incoming tides up stream, to form shoals. The sewage of Boston may and must enter Miller’s River, whilst in that sluggish basin little or none can ever get out. The English reports say “the filth has accumulated for centuries.” Finally, the Thames was dredged; the shores embanked and lined with quays to form a great park or driveway ; all the sewers of London were intercepted by main sewers following the river’s bank, leading into vast reservoirs far down stream, at Barking. Here the sewage was disinfected, and at low tide led in pipes way under the sea, and there discharged. The sewers alone cost $15,000,000, but the trouble was gone forever. From testimony here presented, these odors begin to appear in the second week in June, and end quite late in the season; that they come from Miller’s River or its vicinity ; that those basins are shallow. At 54° putrefaction in air ceases (Angus Smith, p. 55). When the air rises to 54° or above it begins. When the temperature exceeds 60°, according to the investigations, it begins under water and in mud-banks. Any putrid scrap, then, will get in bad condition as soon as the tem- perature gets up to 56°, anyhow. If these odors are produced by any body in contact with air or surrounded by it, they must begin when the temperature gets up to 56°, and end when it falls below it. If they come from mud-banks, they will begin when the temperature of the water gets up to 60°-61° Fahrenheit, and end when it fall slower. I submit the mean heat for the weeks ending on certain days for 1872 — 73, as ob- tained from the observer of the United States, and the reports of Pro- fessor Weir Mitchell on the monthly temperatures of the tidal lower Mystic Pond and the non-tidal upper Mystic Pond. It appears from the exhibit that shallow waters are warmer than deep ; that the tidal pond in summer is as warm or warmer than the fresh-water 263 . pond. That if the material giving the putrid odors is in contact with air, the strong odors should begin in April, and end about November 1. That if the material giving the odors is in contact with shallow tidal water in cur harbor it will begin in June to emit them, and end in Octo- ber. Reminiscences of the odor may occur at any time under a very low barometer, but are less likely in the spring, as the reservoir is then nearly empty. You have been already told that on the 31st of July, 1873, at the time’ of the smell there was a low barometer, — the odor occurred from ten to four at night, — the time when the daily fall takes place. There was an in-flowing tide displacing the gases mechanically held in the soil and 'mud. The smells are nocturnal to a considerable extent. The water is cooler in the day than the air; the latter, charged with vapors from the still warmer soil, passes over the water, is cooled, — cannot hold so much vapor. We say it is “moist from off the water.” It takes up lit- tle vapor in its passage. In the night, as Professor Mitchell’s observa- tions show, the water is warmer than the air, often warmer than the. water in the day-time. The cool air has dropped its moisture, as dew on the grass and leaves, or as mist or rain. Passing over the warm water it becomes itself warmer, can hold more vapor, and greedily sucks up the foul water of the flats and their noxious vapors. The vapor of the water aids the escape of the imprisoned gases; it carries them with it. The observed nuisance corresponds in every respect with the stench from pu- trid sewage-mud, as developed by experiment and observation, and it is a physical impossibility that it should come from the factory. Mr, Derby. I shall confine my examination to the written report un-- less Mr. Avery wishes to make some further statement. Mr. Avery. I would state with regard to sewer gases at the South End, that when the wind blows from the east we people at the easterly end are troubled with sewer gases coming up into our dwellings. My friends on the westerly side are not troubled then. When the wind is west they make the same complaint. I will show the action of the so-called sewer traps by a model which I will bring you. It is professed that the trap will keep a level of water, so that the gases will not get by it into the house. In fact, however, the water siphons over it by a peculiar action, and nearly all runs away, leaving a free passage for the gases. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I understand you to say, Mr. Avery, that you turned off the cocks from the close tanks and put your head in the steam and did not perceive any bad odor? A. I smelt nothing, except a slight ° odor, such as one would perceive at’ the dinner-table. Q. Do you know how long these dead hogs had been in the tank? A. I visited his establishment very soon after the steam was let on, be- cause everybody knows that the most odious gases from putrid meat are evolved very soon after heat is applied. Q. I do not think you understood the testimony of Dr. Sharples. He testified that his mercaptan smell came from these same hogs. He opened the same tank that you opened and smelt it there. A. Well, it is smelt in different senses. The natural mercaptan smell is like a strong smell of garlic or onions. Q. I understand you also to say that these odors are changed when 264 they are diluted largely? A. It changes the odor itself. In some cases it makes-so large a difference that the original offensive odor is changed to a very pleasant one. ‘ Q. Might they not be so changed that they would be quite disagree- able? Would not the converse of your proposition be true? A. The converse case is never known except in direct chemical combination. _ _@. Talso understood you that if different odors were mingled together, ‘if there has been a mixture of odors, that the predominant odor would still predominate? A. It destroys the others and modifies that, or you may say that it masks it. Q. So might not the rendering odor mingle with others, and produce a disagreeable odor, whereas, if you smelt the rendering odor by itself, it would perhaps be agreeable to the nose? A. The mixture would not be- come any more disagreeable than the original odor. Q. It is not probable that the rendering odor could be mingled with other odors and increase its disagreeability? Well, suppose you have a rendering odor very strong, and in the same room we should let loose some sulphuretted hydrogen? Would it be as agreeable as the smell of the rendering odor alone? -A. There would be in that case, if these two odors met, a new body formed, which is much less volatile than either of the others. It would be a viscid oil, which is evaporable. There would be a new odor unlike either of its constituents. Q. You state as an abstract fact that a commingling of odors produces an entirely new odor? And if I understand you, you say that the new odor will be more agreeable to the smell? A. I did not say that. I said that the new odor would probably be more disagreeable than its con- stituents. Although a supposable case might make the odor more agree- able. Q. In this case you say that if you mixed several odors you would form a new odor ; that is, a simple odor, and not a mixed one? That is one position ; the other position is, that if you get several distinct odors mingled, one being more intense than the other, you would retain the im- pression of that odor alone? A. It is that odor modified ; you get the impression of a single odor just as you would get the impression of a single light by a combination of lights. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). If I understand you, you said that two dis- agreeable odors united might produce an agreeable odor? Is not the converse of that true, that two agreeable odors united might produce a disagreeable odor? A. It might be so, but it is unlikely. Q. Well, why should n’t it be so? A, Because where two bodies join, as a general thing, they form a body that is less volatile, that is more condensed than the original primary bodies, and since it is more con- densed it is less volatile and less likely to be noticed. If you go on you will reach, finally, a solid combination. Q. (by Dr. Derby). The question is with regard to agreeableness. Do you mean to say that an odor depends on its volatility? A. I do not mean to say that. Q. (by a member of the Board). Whether or not two odors may not commingle and form a disagreeable odor? A. It is not a chemical fact. It is merely a supposition that any chemist or anybody else might make. I do not know of any such case. Q. But you do say that two disagreeable odors may unite and form an agreeable odor. I think you so stated? A. I say that may be the case, \ 265 but that is equally a supposition. I stated that when you did combine them, you formed something less volatile, and therefore something less likely to smell disagreeably. Q. You merely state that volatility is an attendant element to odor? A, Yes, sir. Q. Would it be the case that the odor from the rendering of lard would take up other odors and diffuse them? .A. I do not understand that the odors from lard are lard itself. I spoke of the lard absorbing odors ; lard itself does so. Q. Is it true that the odors from boiling lard will not take up other odors? .4. When the vapor passes off it usually carries with it a cer- tain proportion of any volatile thing that may be along with it. Q. Do the odors of boiling fat or lard smell of the substance itself? A, They contain valeric acid, valeric ammonia, mercaptan, and glycerine. Q. I understood your inference to be that this house could not be the source of these gases ; because, if it were so, the meat itself would absorb them and be unfit for the market? Suppose that in the room in which the rendering is carried on there is an escape, to somé extent, of gases, so that the room becomes greasy. Then at certain conditions of the atmosphere that grease would take up the odors and confine them ; that at certain other conditions of the atmosphere, that grease would give off gases which would be diffused about the room. Then the room would smell very badly, would it not? .A, It would smell strongly to persons not acquainted with it. Q. Suppose that the lard should absorb, in the course of manufactur- ing, some of the gases that might be circulating in the atmosphere? A. The lard, after it is rendered, is put into casks, so that it is not in a posi- tion to return anything that it has absorbed. Q. It would be likely to absorb something that would injure it, and it would be carried away with the lard when it left the establishment. Sup- pose a large amount of lard to be manufactured during one of those very bad periods for the evolution of those gases which are supposed to come from the dock. If that were barrelled up holding such an amount of this offensive gas, would n’t it be likely when it was cold to have a very offen- sive odor? A. If it were merely the lard that had been in contact with the air, in the kettles, the surface exposed is only a few square feet, and the absorption would be so slight that it would not amount to anything. If you were to scrape up the grease off the floor, which would expose so great a surface to the stench, as compared with the lard in the kettles, it would be badly charged with the odor. , Q. (by Dr. Derby). You were speaking confidently in regard to the various odors, including the smell of the dock, the smell of the hog, and the smell of the rendering. I ask you, as a chemist, whether you are able to distinguish chemically between these different odors; or, to put it another form, whether you can chemically distinguish between the odor of a rose and the odor of a hog, dead or alive? A. It would be impossible so to do, because the amount of some odors is so very small that you cannot catch hold of it. Then, too, the formulary or combina- tion is such that some materials may be combined with but small changes in their molecular construction, and form very different odors. For instance, the oil of lemon and the oil of rose smell very differently, but have almost the same chemical formulary. ‘ 266 ‘ Q. Can you express in chemical formula the difference between the smell of a rose and the smell of ahog? A. If I could collect vast quan- tities of the odors of the rose, I should be able to test it; but no one, so far, has made such an investigation. Q. Do not chemists admit that they are unable to distinguish between such odors? .A. I detect the hog odor by the sulphur odor, while the odor of the rose is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. I think that I could readily distinguish between the two. I could test the fact of sulphur being present in one and not in the other. Q@. Can you express by chemical formula the difference between the smell of a rose and the smell of a hog? -A. We cannot express chemi- cally with any certainty any of these delicate odors. They puzzle the ablest chemists to-day. I might be able to distinguish them chemically, by being able to detect something in one that I could not in the other, but it seems to me no one can tell what it is. Q. (by the Commission). I suppose you could show that the element which forms the dock smell was chiefly sulphuretted hydrogen? A. I know that sulphuretted hydrogen is the principal agent in these gases, and in the London gases. It is one of the principal gases in quantity, though not in odor, while the excessively small quantities of these other gases will produce tremendous effects. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). J understand you to say that this gas from the rendering tank don’t rise? .A. They probably rise, but as they have no odor to speak of, you would not smell them. Q. Well, you spoke of going up stairs with your ozone, and being un- able to distinguish any there. I only want to know whether you mean to have us so understand it. The chemists on our side testified that this Oe did rise. I only wanted to know whether you differ with them ? . Ido. Q. You have carried out certain calculations about the gas that would arise from the mud. How much mnd do you calewate it would take, such as there is in Miller’s River basin, to fill the area that you calculated to the extent that it would nauseate? .A. I took twenty acres for the calculation, and presumed there would be two feet of mud upon the sur- face, and I calculated seventy pounds per cubic foot of mud. I showed that the sulphur of those twenty acres of mud would make nineteen mil- lion feet of gas, — enough to produce that smell about eighteen times over. Q. What was the percentage at which you detected it? A. I detected it at one part in 40,000. Q. You say that that number of acres of mud at that estimated depth would fill the atmosphere eighteen times over with one part in 10,000. Well, when this gas passes out of the mud, you cannot get it out of it again? A. No, sir; but it is perpetually renewed. Q. You don’t mean to say that the acids that come in at one portion of the dock or basin are spread completely over the whole basin, and that the gases arise from the whole surface? A. At the same time that the action is going on, the action of the sulphuric acid upon the mud, there is carbonic-acid gas resulting from the reaction of the basin whenever the sulphates is reduced to sulphur. Suppose that on the night you speak of, the 31st of July, these acids affected the whole of the basin, I think that to a certain extent these would flow into the atmosphere and 267 fill. I think that probably gave rise to some of the putrid odor. I think the mud had been stirred np, and the sulphuretted hydrogen set free, and it was then given off all at once. Q. How long do you think it would take to give off all this gas? A. It might take a longer or a shorter period. It would depend on the atmosphere, on the intensity to which it was charged, and a thousand other things. Q. You heard Professor Horsford testify that these gases would be carried by the wind in a certain direction from which the wind blew. Do you think you were perfectly fair in that computation, when you took an area of four miles that would be saturated by these gases? A. The testimony was that when the wind blew, the gases affected buildings or people a mile and a quarter away. Furthermore, I under- stood from various testimony that these smells were smelled at the same time on Charles Street, on Back Bay, at the Observatory in Cam- bridge, and very strongly in the houses at Miller’s River. I based my calculation upon those statements. I was not calculating on Professor Horsford’s testimony. Q. About the oil, are you familiar with the process of rendering oil at the establishment? A. I examined it. I think Iam familiar with the particular process in this case. The lard is put into bags or cloths and piled in tiers from the floor up to the ceiling, eight or nine feet high. Then it is pressed and the oil runs out into pans, from which it runs into hogsheads. I examined one hogshead of it in the dark, and I was unable to say what it was. Q. Did you smell anything from it? A. I smelled a slight smell, but I did n’t know what it was. Q. Well, now some of this oil is very sweet. I don’t know but that it is sold for sweet oil. Take such a stench as there was on the night of the 31st of July to have pervaded the whole atmosphere and the factory itself, would not that oil in these pans as it runs off take up these smells? A. It would not take it up very fast. Q. What would be the thickness of the oil which is on the bottom of these pans? A. I could not testify, for I don’t know. Q. Well there is a broad surface, — almost the whole of it is surface. Would not that oil take up these gases, and if run into the tank or hogs- head would it not be almost completely filled with the foul odor, so that it would be almost unmarketable? .4. How long would it be exposed to the air ? Mr. McIntire. As I understand it, the method of pressing out the oil is a very slow method. The oil simply drips out, and is caught in these pans. It is collected in these large open pans and runs off very slowly indeed. Now it must be exposed ; a large quart of oil would be exposed for half an hour at least, we will say for an hour, to that excessive stench. Mr. Derby. Which excessive stench ? Mr. McIntire. That which was smelled upon the outside. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I ask you whether the oil would not take up those odors, and would not be almost unmarketable on account of it? 268 A. It would become unmarketable if sufficient surface was exposed. If the depth was one inch, one one-hundredth of it would be surfgce and absorb ; but if you mixed it with the rest, the odor would not amount to anything. Q. Did you read thoroughly that report in regard to the smell which pervaded the Parliament building? .A. I examined all the books I could get, and I took extracts from such as the “ London Spectator,” ‘‘ Times,” “ Saturday Review,” and the monthly magazines. I made it a study for aweek. The smell was attributed first to a graveyard, and that was removed. Then it was supposed to be a sewer, and finally they came to the conclusion that it came from the mud of the river. It was next sup- posed to be a rendering-smell or a bone-factory. Q. Inregard to the sewage; you told us about its filling up the river. Your idea is that a large amount flows into Miller’s River? A. I am in- formed that nearly all the dead dogs and cats of Boston float up there. I saw some of them going up myself. Q. It would be the same thing in Charles River? A. Undoubtedly it would. I know it is, because I am familiar with Charles River. Q. Well, should you think that it would be a proper place to build a sewer down Bridge Street and drop it right under the bridge there, and pour out all the sewage of these manufactories, — forty-five thousand gal- lons of acid matter going into it from one establishment in a day, — both on account of the sewage filling up the place and on account of the effect, which the acid would have upon the flats? Do you think it would be proper to allow this establishment to enter into such a sewer? A. If it were discharged into deep water, I should say it would. If it were discharged into shallow water, I should say it would create a great difficulty. Q. You state that the sewage floats up the river and fills up the shal- low places. You don’t mean to say otherwise than that you would take the sewer down the river to the mouth of it? A. It ought to be carried out as far into the Atlantic Ocean as you can get it ; therefore, the nearer you get it to the mouth of the river or the deep running water, the bet- ter it is decidedly. Q. In regard to the traps you speak of. You say that these traps, though well enough in theory, are poor in effect? Therefore, would n't you say it would be a bad plan to pour such matters as come from these establishments into the sewer? A. I should think that whoever suffered from these things, it would be their own fault. Every place should have a ventilator and a cesspool. Q. So that it would be dangerous to have the factories of this kind running into such a sewer without such a ventilator and cesspool, would it not? A. It would be no more dangerous to have the factories run into it than to have the sewage drained in there, because these sul- phates do not become sulphides until fermentation takes place. Q. Wait a moment. Professor Horsford said that under certain cir- cumstances the fermentation takes place when it is in the drain, when the mouth is covered with water and the gases are driven up through the traps and cesspools. Now, if such is the case, the fermentation would of course be increased a great deal with the increase of the sewage, would it not? A. I merely say that the greater amount of sulphu- retted hydrogen is to be found in the fermentation of the flats and 269 not directly in the sewer. The sewer gas will blacken, but it is in small quantity. 7 (A bottle of mercaptan exhibited.) Q. What is in this bottle? A. I should think it was mercaptan. I would be very much surprised from its effects upon me, if it were not. Mr, McIntire. Mr. Sharples says he has smelled the same odor at the close tanks. The Chairman. I don’t think this is relevant to this case. Mr. McIntire. I think it is relevant with regard to the sewers, — whether these liquids shall be poured into the sewer. Re-direct Examination. Mr, Derby. I will ask one question with regard to the sewer. I would ask you, Mr. Avery, whether there is anything in the soup or in the scalding-tub which is so obnoxious that it would be impossible to carry it through the sewer to deep water? A. I will answer that question in this way. I cannot see, for the life of me, why a little pure gelatine should be worse when run into the sewer than the same gelatine after it had passed through the bowels of any person in Cambridge. It seems to me it is worse after it has passed through that operation than when merely pure gelatine. Q. You see no difficulty in carrying it through the sewer? A. I see no serious difficulty in carrying it through the sewer, though I should prefer a smaller sewer than I understand they are building there. @. Is the pressure of the oil in a limited space? A. Yes, sir. Q@. Whether you can say that enough of any odor would be absorbed by the oil so that there would be a possibility of its emanating from the oil while it is in the factory, so as to produce a vapor which will be no- ticed outside? A. The commercial oil has a slight odor; but still, in the dark I could not tell a hogshead of oil from anything else. Q. How often have you examined the Squire establishment? A. I have not examined the factory except in October and November, so I can- not say what might have been the state of affairs there in the hotter months. TESTIMONY OF CHartes A. GoopRIcH. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You are foreman, I think, in the works of Mr. Squire, having general charge there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been requested at any time to take a carriage and go -around over Cambridge and ascertain where the deleterious smells origi- nated? A. I have, sir. @. When were you so requested? A. About the 26th of June I first remember. @. Can’t you refer to your book and see the date of your first entry 1 A, J went once on the 17th; that was voluntary, however. Q. That was previous to the systematic visits you made? A. Yes, sir. The 24th is.the first entry. Q. Who went with you when you made these examinations? A, Sometimes I went alone, and sometimes Mr. Graves, Pike, or Lowell went with me. 270 Q. What was your duty and where did you go on these explorations 1 A, My duty was to ascertain where those smells came from. Q. How far did your investigations extend? A. Through Cambridge, — East Cambridge and Cambridgeport, — portions of Somerville, Charles- town, and Boston. Q. How far in Boston did you come? A. Along the Milldam, up to Parker Street, and through Charles Street. Q. Before you come to these places, begin at Charlestown and state what places there you had occasion to inspect? .d. In Charlestown, mostly on Canal Street. Q. Is that the street that runs along by the water, sir? A. Along by what is called the Mill Pond, I think. Q. Was there filling going on there? A. Yes, shee has been, last summer, some. Q. Was there any place along there where refuse — the city was carried out? A. Yes, sir, a great deal of refuse matter of various kinds has been deposited there. Q. Daily or frequently 4 A. Yes, almost daily ; decayed fruit and vegetables of various kinds. @. Have you noticed decaying oranges or anything of that kind 4 A. Yes, sir. . Q. Are there not many teamsters, who do business in Boston, who go out at night and stable their horses on the Charlestown side? A. Yes, sir, I think so. Q. Now, come over, if you please, to Cambridge, upon Prison Point Bridge. Has there not been filling going on there? .A. There has been, sir, . Q. I will ask you if, at any time during the past summer, you have noticed offensive odors coming from these places? A. I have. Q. I will take you now over to the basins of Miller’s River, and ask you whether there have been smells there? -A. There have been, sir, at low tide, almost invariably. Q. Now, sir, in its vicinity there are several —six or eight — render- ing establishments, where putrid tallow and where rancid fat and grease from the houses of Boston are brought out and rendered? A. There are. Q. How many places can you particularize, giving the place where they are situated? A. O’Neil’s, situated between Milk Street and the Fitch- burg Railroad. Q. Are there vats where the grease is brought and where it is ren- dered? A. There are, I believe. Q. There is another place in the rear of Cambridge Street, above the distillery, to the west of Mr. Squire's? A. Yes; that is Rear- don’s. Q. What other places are there? A. There is one near Boynton’s works. Q. You have spoken of 'three ; is there or has there been any other ? A. There is one on Pearl Street, Cambridgeport, and vane are more or less soap-works in the vicinity. Q. There are some places there where at times you pee smells. Can you put your finger upon any of these? A. There are four. Q. One was purchased by Mr. Squire? A. Yes. 2°71 Q. What other place is there? .4. There is one in the rear of Med- ford Street. Q. You have in the course of your visits been to Broad Canal? A. Yes, sir. @. You have found offensive smells there? A. Yes, at low tide. @. And on the West Boston. and Craigie’s Bridges? 4. Yes, at low water. @. On Charles Street? 4. On Charles Street likewise. Q. At times in the night? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far up toward the South End did you go? A. As far as Parker Street and the Stony Brook sewer. Q. Have you kept a record-book of your journeys? A. Yes, sir. Q@. What did you enter on the 17th of June? A. I first noticed the smells before I commenced my regular trips. I was passing down Cam- bridge Street and I got a horrid stench as I went by Reardon's place ; the worst I think I have any record of. Q@. What was that smell? A. TI should call it rendering old, putrid, rancid grease; sickening in the extreme. This was from Mr. Reardon’s on Cambridge Street, East Cambridge, west of Mr. Squire’s establishment. Mr. McIntire. There is no, such place in East Cambridge. The one referred to, doubtless, is nearly half a mile from East Cambridge. Q. (by Mr. Derby). It is defined on the map. It is in Cambridge? A, Yes, sir. Q. Very well, now please tell us what you found there where the smell came from? A. I had my wife with me. I went to the house and left her, saying to myself, “I am going to find where that comes from.” I drove back to the place and all around it, as nearly as I could, and finally I got out and went up to the building. There was one or more men there at work. Q. What hour was that? A. I think between half past ten and eleven o’clock. Q@. Now describe that smell, and state whether you had smelt it pre- viously? 4. I had and have since. @. What did you observe there? A. I found that they were at work there, to all appearances, blowing off their tanks, I should judge. @. How offensive were the odors? f visiting 880 the works a few weeks ago I received a fatty smell at the corner of Sixth and Cambridge Streets. It was the same smell which I have in my own kitchen when the cook tries out the soap-grease. I did n’t get, in any respect, the rancid or offensive smell. I found it proceeded from these open kettles in Mr. Squire’s establishment. Q. Did you go up and view these open kettles above the top of the close tanks? A. I did. They had melted lard in them, They were pretty nearly full. , Q. Did you smell any of the gas which comes from the close tanks ? -Did you turn on the gas? A. I think the worst thing I experienced was the scrap from certain close tanks, which was on the cart. The cart was open and the top taken off, and a part of it was shovelled for us to see. I smelled nothing else then, but that was the most offensive of all. Q. The scrap had, been put into a cart to be carted off? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was in the evming or day-time? A. In the evening, at half past seven o’clock. ‘ Q. Do-you know whether any of those foundries on Broad Canal, or near there, pickle, as they call it, their castings in sulphuric acid? A. Iam not familiar with the process. JI understand they undergo an acid pro- cess. Q. Is that acid poured into the canal? .A. I presume it would be. Q. (by a member of the Board). Fifteen or eighteen months ago you say you were annoyed by a bad smell which you found proceeding from your own sewer. Will you be kind enough to say whether that smell was perceptible at any considerable distance from your house? A. No, sir, it was not. The cellar into which it came was tightly closed except a little hole in the chimney and another which went out on -the outside of the flue. They were intended as ventilators, originally, and took away the most of the smell. It didn’t penetrate to all parts of the house ; only sometimes it was perceptible in the room above. It was not notice- able outside of the house. I noticed another fact, which I think had some bearing upon this. These smells were’uniformly stronger when there had been a heavy frost, or the ice had formed over the docks. That seemed to imprison the gas down at the basin, and throw it up into the sewer. Q. So that it came into your house? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Do I understand that you are one of the present Board of Aldermen? A. No, sir. I have served as alderman for two years. : Q. I would like to ask Mr. Merrill, as being conversant with the state of affairs, a similar question to that which I put to Mr. Brastow at our last meeting, whether he regards it as the true policy of Cambridge at the present time to encourage the erection in East Cambridge of new estab- lishments of equal magnitude and of equal character with those of Mr. Squire, North & Merriam, and the Boynton Packing Company? A. I don’t regard these establishments as all of the same character. Q. Well, take the best? A. The best I do, sir. I regard the loca- tion as peculiarly appropriate for such an establishment. ‘The land is low, ill-drained, is not suitable for residences, and will never be occupied as residences except by persons who in connection with such a business are obliged to live in such a locality. I am an owner of land close by this establishment. I never expect to have it of any value except 381 for such purposes, that is, for the residences of men who work in these factories. The New England Glass Company was formerly as objection- able, and as great a nuisance, if I may use the word, as anything that has been there, and J think more dangerous to health, in consequence of the use, under great heat, of metallic oxides, litharge, and arsenic. They erected an immense chimney and produced an immense draught, for carry- ing the fumes to such a height in the atmosphere, that before they reach anybody they‘are diluted sufficiently not to be noxious. I have seen a column of smoke, evidently tinted with these fumes, on a day when it was perfectly quiet, rise as high from the top of the chimney as the chimney itself, making 400 or 500 feet, forced up by a column of hot air. I could not agree wjth the statement I heard this morning, that Mr. Squire’s establishment is as perfect as it can be. I think the erection of a chimney like that of the New England Glass Company, and the intro- duction into it of a column of heated air, might produce sufficient suction to carry off almost entirely, if not entirely, the hog smell. I have seen similar operations in the coal reigon. The fire-damp from our coal-mines in Pennsylvania is carried off by means of long shafts cut through the solid rock 500 feet deep. At the bottom of the shaft a fire is kindled and a draught is created which carries off the gases and furnishes pure air from outside. I think that might be done here without any great ex- ense. Q. (by a member of the Board): Are you aware that the slaughtering establishments in New York have taken down most of their tall chim- neys in order that the gases may not be distributed over so large a sur- face, as I understand it? A. I don’t know it. I don’t think it is suffi- cient to put up a chimney. It must be very large and very tall. I don’t think then it would be very valuable unless a column of hot air is kept constantly going up it. I know that an exceedingly small pipe in a house will conduct away the smell from a water-closet from a great dis- tance, and keep it perfectly sweet all the time, the pipe being carried into a kitchen chimney., I can show that in my house, where there is never the slightest smell from a water-closet from which a four-inch pipe is carried 75 feet horizontally into the chimney. Q. I suppose you have no doubt that these noxious smells would con- tinue if only the heat of an ordinary chimney is applied. A. I think the heat from the furnaces in operation there would be ample to produce a powerful draught from these pens. Q. You think it is simply a question of draught. It is not a question of heat enough to destroy these gases? A. Not at all. The heat would not destroy them at all, unless a burning heat were applied. Q. You don’t think it necessary that they should be consumed? A. I think it is desirable, certainly ; but the next best thing is to distribute them in the atmosphere at such a height that before they reach any one they would be so diluted as not to be noticed, as in the case of the New England Glass Company’s works. I am not aware that any deposits have been complained of since that chimney was erected, either in Cambridge or its vicinity, or in Charlestown. Their chimney is 220 feet high, and, as I say, this column is carried up still higher ; then the wind takes it, and before it reaches the ground it is so diluted that it becomes practi- cally harmless. Q. (by Mr. Frothingham). You have been on a visit to Charlestown ? A, Yes, sir, ~ ; 882 Q. Have you been there when these odors were in their most offensive aspect, and have you perceived them? A. No, sir, I have not. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). How far is your land that you own from Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. It is what is called “ Brick Bottoms,” on Linwood Street, about 1,000 feet. Q. What effect upon the value would the removal of this slaughtering and packing establishment have upon your property? A. I think it would make real estate there fall, and be for years unsalable. I know they have had the effect to enhance its value within the last five or six years. I will say, with regard to my land, that I have sold most of it recently. I still own one or two lots, but not anything very important. I don’t consider that I have any pecuniary interest in this matter. I think it unwise, if I may be allowed to say it, pending this filling, to suppress any of these establishments. I think if after the filling is fin- ished, there still exists what may fairly be called a nuisance, there should then be an investigation made as to where that nuisance comes from. I have recently signed a petition for the annexation of Boston to Cam- bridge, or Cambridge to Boston, which you will, and one principal reason why I did so was because I recognized the necessity of a comprehensive system of drainage, which I believe can only be carried out by the two cities acting together. There should be but one interest in the matter; I believe our interests and those of Boston are identical. It is absolutely essential that this drainage should be provided, and it can be carried out with greater facility in this way. Re-direct Examination. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Did you examine, sir, the apparatus for the com- bustion of the gases in the establishment ? A. I did, sir. Q. Did it appear to be effectual, or otherwise? -A4. There seemed to be a stream of gas going into the furnace and being consumed with a bright flame. : Q. You understood the nature of the apparatus? .A. I think I did. Q. Did you think it effectual for burning or destroying the gases? A. I think it effectual for burning it. It is rather a question for chem- ists to say whether it is destroyed. I am not chemist enough to say what gases are given off from the trying of fat. I was not aware that there was any gas. I have a conviction that, if it is desired, I would state as to what I suppose. I did n’t suppose there was any true gas brought out at a pressure of sixty pounds steam. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You think no deleterious gases would be produced at the temperature which is used? The Chairman. What is your question ? Mr. Derby. T asked him whether he ‘thought that deleterious gases could be produced by a pressure of sixty pounds of steam, and he says he does not. The Chairman. But he is not an expert in that business. Re-cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You speak about land being low about there. Do you know of the relative height of the land in East Cambridge and 383 the top of Dana Hill, where you live? Take it at the corner of Fourth and Otis Street, sir, is not that about as high as in the city of Cam- bridge? A. No, sir, it is about as high as Dana Hill. Q. Well, it was, before it was taken down, the highest point in the city ? A. I was not aware of it. My impression was that it was not. Q. They have taken it down about fifteen feet. You speak of a chim- ney, and.the warm atmosphere passing up the chimney. Is not the advantage inside the chimney from the fact that, when you reach the top of it, there is a cool atmosphere that precipitates the matter down the chimney inside and not outside of it? A. I have no knowledge of that. Q. Don’t you know that in these high chimneys not so much of the soot goes out into the atmosphere on account of the cooling of the smoke before it gets to the top? It falls down the chimney rather than outside of it. Is not that the fact? A. Iam not aware of it. I believe that the longer the chimney the more the smoke would condense and form soot as it passed along. Ifthe column of air became cold at the top of it, it would not go; it would reverse. Q. Are you sure of that? 4. I feel quite confident of it. Q. You speak of metallic vapors passing out of the top of the chimney ; you say you see them. What makes you think that? -A. From the color of the smoke. « Q. Might that not be caused by the height of the chimney and the cold atmosphere at the top changing color, and not of the smoke changing as it passes through? .A. That may be so, but it is not my opinion. Q. Well, now, if I should state as a fact that none of the lithargic fumes go up the chimney at all, —and we can prove it, if you wish, — would you then say that the smoke was colored by the metallic vapor? A. I should know better. I know that the smoke is colored by metallic oxides. I know that you cannot make flint glass without lead. Q. You say that the great quantity of metallic vapor is from the melt- ing of the metal itself. If I should tell you that that vapor does not go into the chimney, but passes off in a low chimney, would that alter your opinion? .A. It would, so far as that was concerned. Mr. McIntire. Well, we can show, as a matter of fact, that none of that metallic vapor goes into that chimney at all. Mr, Merrill. I know, of my own knowledge, that the fumes from the pots go into the chimney. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). If I should. tell you that none of the vapors from the pots go into the chimney, would that alter your opinion? A, Yes, that would affect my opinion somewhat. Mr. McIntire. Well, that is a fact, that none of the vapors from the pots, from the melting of the litharge or anything from the melting of the metals, passes off into that chimney. If it is necessary to prove that, Mr. Magoun is here and will testify. Mr. Merrill. I used it only as an illustration, to show what Mr. Squire could do with a chimney; that he could produce this effectual draught in a chimney constructed like that of the New England Glass Works. I believe that it is possible to remove what is really the most objec- 384 tionable odor about this establishment, that is, the live-hog smell; in this I believe a draught of air could be carried through these sheds with a con- stant tendency in one direction up a large chimney through which the odor would be carried, and that the smoke and heat of the furnace under the boilers would be sufficient to create this draught. Q. (by a member of the Board). Have you estimated the quantity of hot air passing up a chimney on the present plan of Mr. Squire’s? A. I only estimate from the observation I made the other night as to the number of furnaces and the quantity of fuel’ burned. Q. How much volume? A. I could not tell. Q. Do you know the quantity of air necessarily passing up a chimney for each ton of coal consumed? A. -No, sir, 1 do not. I should sup- pose that the furnaces I saw in operation would require a volume of air 30 inches in diameter at least to produce a sufficient draught to keep the fire burning brightly. Q. Do you think the total quantity must be about fourteen tons? Do you know the temperature of an ordinary chimney with an ordinary ‘draught? A. It depends upon the rapidity with which the water in the boiler takes up the heat. Q. Do you call 300° Fahrenheit a minimum, and does it vary up to as high as 600°? A. I don’t know exactly what it would be without knowing the style of boiler used. I have just put a boiler in operation in Essex Street where it was difficult to get heat enough into the flue to produce a good draught. It took me nearly three weeks to get it in operation, because the heat from the fuel was so thoroughly absorbed by the water that there was nothing left to dry the chimney. Q. Then acertain amount of heat remains in the smoke and is neces- sary to create a draught. Should you think that a double quantity of air passing through the chimney would reduce its temperature to one half that of the smoke itself? If you have a common flue with a tempera- ture of 400° and admit a quantity of air of a lower temperature, would you not reduce the temperature of the whole and diminish the draught? A. That would not be my plan in this case. If I was called upon to make a plan for this chimney, I should place a cast- iron column inside of this chimney, of the requisite capacity to create the draught from the furnace. Then the heat that would be evolved from the outside surface of the cast-iron pipe would heat a column of air around it, between it and the brick chimney, and produce a constant upward draught. It would not be powerful enough to carry these boilers, but enough to carry these odors up to the top of the chimney. Q. Have you estimated the cubic contents of the hog-pens and hog- yards which you would remove in that way? A. I have not, except by my eye. I had reference to this idea when I was present, and I am satis- fied that such a thing could be done. Q. Upon what data is your opinion based that any practical fire could be kept burning so as to completely ventilate the hog-yards, making an upward draught from the pens to take away the hog-smell up the chimney ? A, Well, sir, such an opinion as I have expressed this morning is formed and founded upon experience. It must be. I have had, outside of my own business, more experience in the matter of heating and ventilation. than in any other matter, and have tried many experiments in heating 885 and ventilation. I have used this same contrivance that I now speak of in several buildings, and know that it has worked well. I know that an amount of ventilation that people don’t believe to be possible can be got out of a very little heat, properly applied in the right place. TESTIMONY OF Dr. Espen JACKSON. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You reside in Somerville? 4. Yes, sir. Q. Are you in the practice of your profession in Somerville and East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you practised medicine in the neighborhood of Mr. Squire’s works? A. Four years. The Chairman. Where did you graduate? A. Iam a graduate of the University at Cotherton, Vermont. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). How early did you hear any complaints of the odors in the vicinity where you practise? .4. I think my attention was first drawn to them in the fall of 1871 and the spring of 1872. Q. Now, what have you noticed in the way of stenches in the general neighborhood yourself? A. Well, I have perceived two stenches, — one arising from the bone-boiling establishments and another from the basin. Q. Have you been into Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I have, sir. Q. And are yourself acquainted with the processes pursued there? A, Yes, sir. Q. Now, sir, whether either of the offensive odors which you have per- ceived — the smell from the basin and the smell from the bone-boiling establishments — was perceptible in or about Mr. Squire’s establishment ? A, No, sir. Q. From your observation what is the cause of the smell in the basins ? A. The accumulation of animal matter and the matter from the distillery and bleachery. To my mind, it is generated sulphuretted hydrogen. Q. Have you noticed any irritation of the throat among your patients, to any extent? A. None at all, sir. Q. Any nausea? A. No, sir. Q. How frequently have you been in the general neighborhood at night ? A. Very frequently in 1870, 1871, and a portion of 1872. Q. Have you had patients in the vicinity of any of these establish- ments? A. Yes, sir. s : Q. I wish you to compare the immediate neighborhood of Mr. Squire’s establishment with a wider territory within the range of your practice, and tell me whether sickness is more or less prevalent in the vicinity of his works than at a distance from them. A. I hive not seen any great difference, sir. Ishould expect that there would be more sickness around Mr. Squire’s works than in other parts of Cambridge, owing to the fact that a large part of the land to the west and northwest of the establish- ment is four or five feet lower than the other land. People have built houses upon that marsh. Their cellars are flooded a great portion of the time, and there is an accumulation of matter which naturally gathers around such habitations. Then there is another thing; until within a year or two nearly every house around on that marsh has kept a piggery. I believe in 1872 the city of Somerville passed an ordinance forbidding the keeping of pigs or goats. Some of these families have kept fifteen or 25 886 twenty pigs, and the &tench has been unbearable. I wonder that there has not been more sickness than there has been. I think, in the fall of 1871 or the spring of 1872, I noticed that the basin above was very filthy, and I reported it to some of the authorities verbally. I live in Union Square. In going down to that region I often walked upon the Fitchburg Railroad, and, in passing the basin, it has been a common thing to see dead animals there. One day I counted six dead animals lying there. I reported the fact verbally to the city authorities. After a second report I think Mr. Houghton set about burying them, and I think fifty or sixty were buried in one day. The basin is certainly in a very filthy con- dition, and I should not have wondered to have seen more sickness. Q. Do you know whether these pigs that you speak of as being kept by the inhabitants so numerously were fed on the city swill? A. They were, the most of them. There was one especially that I remember. I think it was the piggery of Mr. McGow, near the basin. He used to keep twenty-five or thirty pigs, and they were fed entirely upon city swill. The common disposition of swill in Somerville, up to 1872, was for boys to go around the city and collect it to carry away. It became a perfect nuisance. I think it is only since 1872 that there has been any removal of this material by the city. @. Have you noticed whether the smells from the basin are perceived very generally? A. I have noticed them invariably. They prevail more in the night. I think I have not smelled any bad smell except at low tide, when the atmosphere is dense. With regard to the bone-boiling es- tablishments, I have had attention called to one of them. @. Have you observed that these bone-boiling establishments and grease-rendering places have been in the habit of lighting their fires at night? A. I don’t know that they have, but I think so. I have often noticed, in passing down over the “ Brick Bottoms,” that very oppressive bone-boiling smell. Q. Well, now, what in your opinion is the remedy for the evils of that district? -A. I think, sir, that if a proper sewer should be built for these slaughtering establishments, the distillery, and bleachery, that their refuse matter may be turned into, and if the basins be thoroughly filled, that will remedy the trouble. : Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you traced up any of these odors? A, Never, sir. : Q. What do you mean by bone-boiling places? A. I mean such places as Mr. O’Neil’s and Mr. Reardon’s. I did smell an unpleasant smell at Merrill’s when I used to pass up on Bridge Street, when he tried out this unpleasant lard. TESTIMONY OF Brap. R. THRockmorRTON. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where is your place of business? 4. In the city of New York. Q. What is your business? A. I am a commissioner of lumber. Q. Does it take you to the North River, in the 20th and 16th Wards? A. It does, very frequently. Q. You have traversed these wards a great deal? A. I have. 387 Q. They are the wards in which the slaughtering of the city is done, more or less ? A. Yes, sir, the 20th Ward more particularly. Q. You have seen those slaughtering-houses down in that ward} A. I have. : Q. You have seen the ship which has been spoken of in this case at the foot of Thirty-eighth Street, on which the trying of grease has been conducted? A. Ihave. Q. Will you state, sir, how far the trying of grease on that ship was smelled? A. I have smelled it as far as Sixtieth Street and Fifth. Avenue. Q. That would be how far? A. A mile and a half from the ship. Q. That was when they were rendering what? A. Putrid matter. Q. Have you perceived it on North River? A. As far as Striker’s Bay, as far as Ninety-seventh Street. Q. What would be the distance? A. Two miles or a mile anda half. : Q. You have distinctly smelt the smell of putrid grease that distance ? Has that business been discontinued? A. It has, for some months past. Q. Have you experienced that putrid smell since it went away? A. I have not. Q. Do you know where it has gone? A. I believe it is on the Jersey shore. Q. Now with regard to these slaughtering-establishments, do you know whether they kill at night as well as by day? -A. In the day as well as in the night. Q. Whether they kill summer and winter? A. Summer and winter. Q. Have you seen work going on there in both seasons of the year? A; Yes, sir. ; Q. You have of your personal knowledge? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ever since this grease-trying ship has been removed, there has been no offensive smell in that part of the city to which you refer? .A. There has not. I have not perceived it. Q. You have not heard any complaint? 4. No, sir. Q. Is there rendering carried on on a pretty large scale in these wards? A. I believe there is. Q. Do you find any offensive smells coming from any of them} A. No, sir, I do not. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say you don’t know ‘whether they have gone to the Jersey shore or not? A. I know they have left Thirty- eighth Street. They were on the Jersey shore some two months ago, or in_ July. *@Q. Do youknow whether they rendered on the Jersey shore at that time? A. I believe they did. Q. Don’t you know that the New York Board of Health have jurisdic- tion over the Jersey shore, and that they can prevent anything of that kind there as well as on the New York side? .4. That may be, but I am not certain. Q. You seemed to state it so confidently, that they did render upon the Jersey shore? .A. I was so informed. Q. Don’t you know that the New York Board of Health forbade them 388 to render on the Jersey shore a year ago early in the spring? A. I believe that they have rendered there since that. ; Q. Then you don’t know, as a matter of fact, that that ship has rendered any since the early spring? .A. No, sir; not since the early part of July. ; Q. Did you experience any smells yourself? .A. I did experience them in the early part of July. Q. Do you mean to say that it came from that boat? .4. Yes; be- cause I have been there. Q. At what time? A. In the early part of July. Q. You are sure that is the date? A. There is no mistake. Q. (by Dr. Derby). When were you in New York last? A. I was in New York on Monday last. Q. You say that at the present time there are no offensive odors proceeding from the hog-slaughtering establishments between Eleventh Avenue and the North River, on Thirty-ninth, Fortieth, and Forty-first Streets? A. None, sir. Q. You are there continually? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you the bad odor of the vaults? A. No, sir. . Q. Nothing from the carrying of dead horses around in that neighbor- hood? A. I don’t receive any of that smell now. Q. How far are you from the dock? A. My business calls me into the vicinity of Thirty-eighth Street. Q. There is nothing offensive about that neighborhood? A. No, sir. Testimony oF Hon. Henry O. Hovenron. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You are the head of the Riverside Press estab- lishment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been Mayor of Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. And an Alderman also? A. Yes, sir. Q. I wish to ask you if you have paid a visit to Mr. Squire’s estab- lishment? A. I made several visits to Mr. Squire’s establishment while I was Mayor ; and I have made one visit recently. Q. How recently were you Mayor? A. I was Mayor in 1872. ' Q. During your term you made several visits, and since then you have made one visit. Well, sir, now compare the condition of the establishment when you first visited it, during your term as Mayor, with what you found it to. be a fortnight ago. Have you seen any improve- ment or not? A. I think there has been a great improvement in the arrangement of the establishment ; and a great many of the offensive things about it which I noticed when I first went there are entirely re- moved. Perhaps I might say with truth that all of them are removed. Q. What opinjon did you form of the establishment as to cleanliness 4 A. That it was in admirable condition. I don’t see how such an-estab- lishment could be in such condition as I found it, in that respect, the last time I was there. _ Q. Was it in full operation in all its departments? 4. I am not able to say whether it was in operation in all its departments. It seemed to ‘me in the same operation as when I visited it as Mayor. When I went there as Mayor, I frequently went without invitation. Q. Were there hogs in the pens? A. Yes, sir; some, but not a great number. 889 Q. Were they slaughtering? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the rendering process going on? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you examine the machine for the combustion of the gases 1? A, We did. Q. How did that work? A. It seemed to work very well. I am not a chemist, and am not competent to judge of that. Q. It was during your term as Mayor that the investigation took place in reference to the Miller’s River nuisance by the Joint Commis- sion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now I desire to ask you, sir, to what you trace the unpleasant odors which prevail in the general neighborhood of the Miller’s River valley, and what is the cure for the evil? A. My opinion was, from the investigation that I made personally with regard to it at the time that I was Mayor, that the great difficulty with regard to that locality was the low ground and the open basins there, which were the receptacle of every imaginable kind of filth ; not only the filth that was thrown in from the borders, but from the tide which came up there. The efforts that our City Council made when I was Mayor, and especially my own efforts, were directed to having that basin filled up, as the best thing to cure the evils. You may remember that in the Legislature that year Cambridge urged very strongly that this basin should be filled up. Our feeling was that if that basin was filled up and properly drained, and the establish- ment managed in a proper manner, as I believe it is now, that it would do away with the difficulty. Q. Do you still hold that opinion? A. Yes, sir. Q. That if the work which the Legislature has prescribed — the filling of the district and the building of the sewers—is completed, Mr. Squire’s establishment, in its present condition, will not be ob- jectionable? A. I felt then,— and said so in the address which [ delivered to the City Council when I left the office, —and I feel now, that Mr. Squire’s establishment, properly managed, is a very desirable thing, in many respects, to have there. I think that all that region must be given up to business, and the way for the city of Cambridge is not to destroy that business, but to have proper sewerage and drainage, and then encourage all manufacturing business on the line of the Grand Junction Railroad ; and by that means they will develop the: necessity for drainage, and we shall get it, and the means from the manufacturing establishments to pay for it. It seems to me that this is a matter which the citizens of Cambridge are very much interested in. Here is a com- bination of the facilities of all the railroads of the country by means of the Grand Junction Railroad, and it is the natural place for the location of business. When we get that business, the necessity will soon be apparent, -~ which I think” is apparent now,—for having a sea-wall on Charles River, and a large trunk sewer within’ that sea-wall, and that all these establishments must be drained into-deep water; and then the more we have of them the better. The river will be improved ; and we can use the money which this new wealth and these establish- ments will bring in to build boulevards and parks in other places. But the natural tendency of the manufacturing business is in that quarter, because of the facility of transportation, and because the land is good for nothing else. I was very glad to make this last visit to Mr. Squire’s establishment, because it confirmed my theory that, with proper drainage 390 ‘and a proper carrying on of the establishments of that kind, the business could be carried on there now perfectly unobjectionably. I only hope that we may have a great many more of these establishments, or those of a similar character. I don’t care to have them all hog-slaughtering establishments, but they should be manufacturing establishments. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). It is hardly worth while, then, to ask you whether ‘you think Mr. Squire’s establishment should be suppressed at the pres- ent time? A. I think it would be a great calamity, sir, to the city of Cambridge. I am free to say that. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did you ever smell the rendering smell? A. Well, I never could get in the way of distinguishing one smell from another. There was a smell when I passed these basins that was very objectionable to me ; and since this hearing has been going on I have smelt the same smell at the west end of the West Boston Bridge, — within a few days,—I think it was a week ago to-day that I perceived it. Icame in on the cars, and the stench was almost insufferable. The wind at the time was south. I remember that from the fact that I rode in a carriage with my children, and we put the window down on the south side to keep the rain out. That stench must have come from the basin on the left side of the West Boston Bridge. It could not have come from any establish- ment on Miller’s River. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Could it have come from Mr. Squire’s? A. It could not, because the wind was south at the time, and blew the rain directly into my carriage. That smell was perfectly sickening and in- tolerable. It is what I take to be the dock smell. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You don’t get any of these smells at your house, do you? .A. Yes; we get smells at my house of a very offensive character, but I never anticipated that they came from that source. The smells that I get on Dana Hill come from Brighton or from down towards the river. Q. While you were Mayor we had quite a hearing before you and your Board of Aldermen as a Board of Health in relation to this establish- ment, or such part of it as is in Cambridge, didn’t we? A. Yes, sir. Q. At that time the Board of Aldermen as a Board of Health resolved that the Squire establishment as then conducted was a nuisance? A. Well, my own recollection is not quite in accordance with that. I know that the Cambridge Board of Aldermen as a board insisted a whole year on the necessity of the filling of these basins. I don’t think they indicted Mr. Squire's establishment as a nuisance in just that form. They felt that all these basins should be filled, and all the efforts of the city government, so far as I remember, were directed to that end. Q. Don’t you now remember that some such resolve as this was passed : -— “That this Board, as a Board of Health of the City of Cambridge, believe that the business of trying and rendering pork and lard, as at present conducted in the slaughtering establishment of John P. Squire & Co., in East Cambridge, s0 called, is, sometimes, a source of noxious and offensive odors. Therefore, - “ Ordered, That the Committee on Health ascertain and report to this Board what action shall be taken to remove said nuisance. “ November 20, 1872.” Do you remember such a thing as that being passed? .A. I think there 391 was. I could not say that it passed, but I remember that such an order created a great deal of discussion. Q. Don’t you know that it was passed, or that some such order was passed, and that there was a report of a committee upon that order ? A. I don’t recollect that fact distinctly. It may have been so. Q. This is the signature of the City Clerk of the city of Cambridge A. I should think it was. Q. And that appears to be a copy of anorder? .A. I never undertook to carry in my mind the orders that were passed. I remember the dis- cussion of an order of that sort. ; Q. Well, now, if that was so, if at that time the local Board of Health resolved that — Mr. Muzzey. They did not resolve any such thing. They say that, once in a while, there are offensive odors, and they inquire how they can be avoided. There was no verdict of nuisance. It was quite the other way; they refused that. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Jf it was as I have stated, that the Board of Aldermen at that time resolved that this place was a nuisance, is there anything that you have seen since that time in your visits to this estab- lishment that would make the difference of things there so essential as to make it not a nuisance? A. I have answered your question. Q. I don’t ask you whether it is a fact or not that this resolve and order was passed, —I will put in proof of that; but if it was so at that time, has anything been done since to essentially change its character ? A, It was a gratifying surprise to me to find, on my late visit to Mr. Squire’s establishment, that those things that were objectionable before are to a very great extent removed. Q. Now will you please tell us in what respect the changes have been made that would remove the nuisance? Just mention them. A. One thing I noticed was the shed made, by which the hogs are received from the cars directly, instead of being driven in the open air. Further- more, he has disinfectants in the pens, and the smell does not seem to be so strong When I was there before, the blood in the slaugh- tering-house fell through the open floor into the water. I was very much nearer to it this time than I was ever willing to go before. It seemed to be all taken off by conduits away from the floor. Everything was orderly about it. The scalding seemed to be better. I think there was none of that disagreeable smell, or almost none of it. There was a live-hog odor, which you cannot escape from. But the greatest improve- ment seems to be the taking away the offensive odors of the works. You remember that at that time a great deal of stress was laid upon the fact that the hogs that died on the cars were rendered at the establishment. Q. Do you know that there has been any change in that respect? A. J was going on to say that the night we were there they told us that dead hogs were in one of the tanks. They were put in for the purpose of giving us the effect of it. @. Whether at that time he didn’t have an apparatus which commu- nicated with the close tanks, and ran off the gas and everything into the water of the basin? Do you remember that? A. I think there was. Q. That was the apparatus he had then. Now he has an apparatus by which he claims to burn the gas? A. Yes, sir. 892 Q. Now, beyond that change in the apparatus, was there any change that you saw in his rendering of pork, grease, or lard, or whatever it might be, in his establishment? A. At the time I used to visit the place, when I was Mayor, I never looked so much at these little matters of detail as.I did at the general conduct .of the business, because I thought the matter we wanted to remedy was the whole difficulty. I know that one of the things that attracted my attention, and which I saw myself early in the morming, was that on the borders of the basins we would find hogs in various stages of decomposition. I found then, on my examination of Mr. Squire’s establishment, that there was nothing espe- cially objectionable, except that the whole business was not done with the order and system and neatness with which it now is. I did not consider particularly this matter of running off these smells into the river. All that I knew about that was from the testimony at the hearing before the Board. I never examined this matter. Q. Well, in other words then, there was hardly anything that was seen by you in the establishment that would cause those odors any more then thannow? .A. I think there were more odors in there at that time ; the system was not so good. There is a difference between the establish- ment then and now, as there is a difference between the modes of cook- ing, perhaps, in a hotel where they are very careless and throw their slops all about, and the cooking in a hotel where everything is looked after in all its details. That was the difference that impressed me; that is, it was not so cleanly around about in past years as now. Q. But you yourself saw nothing in the apparatus that you saw then and the apparatus you see now, which is used, that would make any dif- ference in the odors? A. The thing I especially noticed was this matter of burning the gas. I didn’t give much attention to that. I supposed there were other people who knew more about that than I do. Q.. (by Dr. Derby). You speak about the sewer being built through this region, through the Miller’s River district, as if it were competent to remove the sewage. I would like to ask you whether you feel quite cer- tain that the sewage resulting from the slaughtering of 800,000 or 1,000,000 hogs per year could be conducted without offence to tide-water through a submerged sewer 7,000 feet long? You speak pretty confi- dently about it? A. I am not prepared as an expert to answer that question, because it is a matter that I have not had anything to do with. But I will say this, that we must have sewerage in Cambridge in order to make it a habitable city. I trust that if there be science enough to give us that, it would give us sewerage that would carry all these things to deep water. Q. Were you aware of the fact that the sewer is below tide-water ? A. I am aware that it is very low there. I suppose there are difficulties a es case ; but if that is the case our condition in Cambridge is deplor- able. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I would inquire where the 7,000 feet sewer begins and terminates? A. From Milk Street to Craigie’s Bridge. By routes four, eight, and nine it is 7,000 or 7,200 feet. Mr, Derby. From our establishment I believe it is only 3,000 feet. Dr. Derby. Well, Mr. Houghton has spoken of the dedication of the whole valley to such business as is now carried on there by Mr. Squire. 393 Mr. Houghton. My idea would be to have a very much larger sewer and a longer one. Q. Well, is it your opinion that a sewer of any size, below the level of the tide, carried a great distance to deep water, could safely convey the sewage resulting from the slaughtering of a million of hogs per year? A. It is a question of which I am not competent, perhaps, to judge. I had supposed that if this matter became troublesome the solid matters would be kept from the sewer, and that there would be some mode devised by which all it would be absolutely necessary to carry off in the sewer could be carried off. I have only judged from analogy. I supposed that if a city like London —a place situated upon a river so much like Charles River —could get rid of its immense sewage, that Charles River might, when it is so near as in this case, be made to accom- plish this end for us. Q. Then you would trust to a sewer all this matter of health? A. I have not entered into any of the details of the plan. I am not able to suggest what would be the best plan. I have suid generally that we must have sewerage that will drain Cambridge. Dr. Derby. I only want to call your attention to the fact that this branch sewer is also within the level of the tide, and must be controlled at its outlets by gates, I suppose, like those on the Back Bay. Mr. Houghton. I believe almost all of our sewers are in that condition now, sir. Dr, Derby. Yes, sir. But whether you had considered the fact of the slaughtering of this enormous number of hogs; whether the matter dis- charged ipto the sewer from these establishments would not, at certain stages of the tide, be retained for many hours in this sewer, and it would become an elongated cesspool ; whether in your opinion that would be very offensive to the citizens of Cambridge and those living on the line of the sewer ? : Mr, Houghton. I can only say that I think these are all considerations of the greatest importance, and I have not considered them sufficiently to give an opinion. Dr. Derby. 1 have called your attention to it because you testified so freely in your opening remarks that, in your opinion, the sewer would be the remedy. You seem to have assumed that such sewerage could be ob- tained. Mr. Houghton. There are some difficulties that come from them occa- sionally, but we do get what sewerage we get in that way; that is, they are pretty nearly all built with flood-gates, like the Oxford Street sewer. If we can carry off the ordinary sewage in that way, I don’t see why we could not that which arises from a manufacturing establishment of this kind, provided nothing goes into the sewer except that which is proper for sewers ; if the solid matters are kept out of it, and it is not allowed to be blocked up. Dr. Derby. This is rather extraordinary sewage, not ordinary. It is so extraordinary that in most places it is required that these establish- ments shall be by deep tidal currents, as in the city of New York. The establishments of New York are on the banks of the Hudson River, which is a sewer of enormous capacity. Mr. Houghton. This problem, I suppose, has been decided in Paris and London, — has it not, sir? 394 Dr. Derby. To a certain extent. Q. (2 y a member of the Board). Do you know the grade of the sewer? A. It is about thirteen feet. Mr. Muzzey. J think the mean low tide is ten feet, sir. Dr. Derby. In all these plans the sewers are below the level of the tide. Mr. Derby. I believe the engineer reports that they can be made effi- cient. Dr. Derby. He reported the best that could be done. He did not re- port that they would be efficient for removing the sewage of slaughtering establishments. Mr. Derby. We would like to be referred to his testimony, if you have it. Dr. Derby. It was his testimony given to the Board in another regard. . Mr. Derby. Was it printed 4 Dr. Derby. No, sir. Mr, Derby. We entertain no doubt that a sewer can be built thirty- five hundred feet in length which would carry off the sewage from our establishment. It would be about half the distance you suggest. Re-direct Examination. Q. (by Mt. Muazey). Mr. McIntire has put before you what he claims is taken from the record, and I have no doubt it is, of the City Clerk, a copy of the result of the hearing before the Cambridge Board of Alder- men. Last fall there was a reference of the subject to the Committee on Health, who were asked to inquire whether certain odors which, at times, were perceived, could be removed. Was not that about it, sir? In other words, did the Board of Health vote to suppress any manufacturing es- tablishment? A. I don’t remember any such action. Mr. McIntire. T have the action of that committee in this. Perhaps I had better put in the report of that committee. Mr. Muzzey. Perhaps, if you will allow me to examine the record of the whole case. TESTIMONY OF Patrick McCase. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you reside in East Cambridge, sir? A. In Cambridgeport. Q. Have you lived in Winsor Street? A. Yes, sir. @. How long have you lived there? A. I have lived there about four- teen years. Q. How near are you to the establishment of Reardon for boiling grease? A, About a hundred feet ; it may be a little more, but I guess it is about a hundred feet. Q. How far is it from your place of business? A. It is about one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty feet. 4 Q. Are your premises extensive}— how much land have you? A. About ten thousand feet. 395 Q. What is your business? -A. I deal in old barrels. Q. And you occupy ten thousand feet near Reardon’s? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the same side? -A. On the opposite side. Q. He is within what distance of your premises? A. About two hun- dred feet, I should think, from where my dwelling-house is, and about one hundred and ten feet from my storehouse. Q. What business is carried on by Reardon? .A. He makes out grease tallow. . Q. Is the melting conducted day and night, or both? A. I think it is both day and night. Q. It is conducted at night to your knowledge? A. There is steam and smoke there most of the night. Q. Do you know what he renders? A. He renders grease that is col- lected all through the country. It is carried there and rendered out in that place, and when it is rendered out it has a very disagreeable smell. Q. How disagreeable is it? How doesit affect you? A. I never took notice how it affected me. It leaves a smell that you can smell all over the neighborhood. ‘ Q. How many times during the past summer have you those strong smells? .A. About three fourths of the time I should think, for these last two summers. Q. Is the smell a strong one? A. It is fearfully strong sometimes, so that if you could see it, you could cut it, as people say. Q. How does it compare with the smell about the slaughter-houses or packing-houses? A. It is very much more disagreeable to me than the slaughter-house. At the slaughter-house there is nothing more than the smell of fresh lard rendered out, and I think that smell is not offensive to me or anybody else. Q. That smell from the slaughter-house is inoffensive to you? A. I never thought it was a- very bad smell. The Chairman, 1s there any-use of going into this examination ? Mr. Derby. JI want to fix it very strongly upon them. : Q. (by Mr. Derby). Are there many carts that bring grease there? A. A great many during the day, though I have never kept any account of them. Q. During the night you felt it very strong and offensive? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it perceptible at night or in the daytime? A. Both; it is worse during the night than the daytime. When I rise in the middle of the night, when I ought to leave my windows up to breathe fresh air, I have to shut them down tight in order to shut that air out of the place. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you ever been engaged in a like business with Reardon yourself? .A. I was some years ago. The Chairman. Have you ever been to Mr. Squire’s place? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there any difference between that and the other? A. A great deal of difference. Q. Have you ever got any smell at Mr. Squire’s? A. None that is disagreeable. ; Q. (by Mr. Derby). Have you found any smell at Reardon’s that is worse than the other establishment? A. I have found a smell that is more disagreeable to me than any other of them. ‘ 396 Axstract of Recorp oF Campripce Boarp oF HEA.ru. Mr. McIntire. I will now put in, in connection with Mr. Hough- ton’s testimony, this abstract of the record of the Cambridge Board of Health in 1872. I will say that the Board of Health is the Mayor and Aldermen ; the Committee on Health consisted of three members, composed of Messrs. Woodbridge, Sortwell, and Kendall. The following is a copy from the city records, under date of No- vember 20, 1872 : — “The resolution in relation to the establishment of John P. Squire & Co. was taken from the table and amended by inserting the word ‘ some- times’ before the word ‘arises.’ “The words ‘which are injurious to the public health’ were struck out by the following vote : yeas, — Aldermen Harding, Kendall, Sortwell, and Whitney (4); nays, — Aldermen Caldwell, Holmes, Snow, and Winnett (4), the Mayor giving the casting vote in the affirmative. “The word ‘considers’ was substituted for the word ‘ adjudges,’ and the order was then unanimously adopted by a yea and nay vote, being, as amended, in the following words : — “ Resolved, That this Board, as the Board of Health of the city of Cam- bridge, considers that the business of trying and rendering pork and lard, as prosecuted at the slaughtering establishment of John P. Squire & Co., in East Cambridge, so called, sometimes, causes and is the source of noxious and offensive odors. ‘Therefore “ Ordered, That the Committee on Health ascertain and report to this Board what action can be taken to remove the said nuisance.” The following is a copy of the resolution as originally offered, under date of October 30, 1872 :— “ Resolved, That this Board, as the Board of Health of the city of Cam- bridge, adjudges that the business of trying and rendering pork and lard, as prosecuted at the slaughtering establishment of John P. Squire & Co., in East Cambridge, so called, causes and is the source of noxious and offensive odors, which are injurious to the public health. Therefore, “ Ordered, That the Committee on Health ascertain and report to this Board what action can be taken to suppress the said nuisance.” The following is a copy of the Report of the Committee on Health, accepted, December 26, 1872 : — “The Committee on Health, which was instructed to ascertain and report to this Board what action can be taken to remove the nuisance, consisting of noxious and offensive odors, caused by the trying and ren- dering of pork and lard at the slaughtering establishment of John P. Squire & Co., reports, — “That the nuisance, of which the public has made complaint, although not confined to above-mentioned establishment, but shared by others, and especially certain smaller places, where the process of rendering is carried on, has been pretty thoroughly investigated in the case of Messrs. Squire 397 & Co., and to remedy any cause of complaint now existing, as far as pos- sible, ‘said firm have made arrangements by which, under contract, the blood and offal is to be removed in wagons from the premises nightly, and to confine the steam and odors in tight tanks. “In view, therefore, of these improvements and remedies, and also the recommendations contained in the Report of the Joint Commission to which the complaints in relation to the existing condition of Miller’s River were referred by the Legislature, “Your committee decides that any further action at present is unneces- sary. “For the Committee, “S. EF. Woopsripce. Re CAMBRIDGE, December 9, 1873. 1 “The foregoing are true copies. “ Attest, “Justin A. Jacoss, City Clerk.” Mr. McIntire. That we desire to put in asa part of our testi- mony. Mr. Derby. That report was accepted ? Mr. McIntire. It was about the last of the acts of that Board. TESTIMONY OF Henry C. Linco.n. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You reside in Boston? A. I do. Q. Have you works in East Cambridge, sir? A. They are in Somer- ville. ’ Q. Do you render Iard, sir, in close and open tanks? A. Yes, sir. Q. I would inquire of you whether you have near your plage an estab- lishment conducted by a man named Barry? A. We have. Q. What does he do, sir, in his works? A. He renders this grease that he collects from house to house. Q. Does he do a considerable business of that kind? A. Yes, sir. A. Will you state whether any offensive smells come from that process of rendering grease in that establishment? A. Very offensive smells. Q. From trying grease? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it sufficiently near to determine that it comes from that estab- lishment? A. It is; it joins us. Q. You have a place in Somerville, near Miller's River? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are those smells offensive by night as well as by day?! A. I could not say that. I am not there by day. Q. When you have been there by day you have noticed it? A. Yes, sir, when I am there by day. 'Q. You have carried on the business of rendering lard? A. Yes, sir, and I am carrying it on now. Q. I would inquire whether you have noticed any odors coming from the distillery? A. I have noticed some. Q. State what they are, — whether they are offensive. A. It is pecu- liar ; I don’t know that it is offensive. Q. It is distinctly perceptible? A. Yes, sir. @. Much of it? A. Quite a large amount. Q. You have business of trucking more or less in Boston? A. Yes, sir. ’ 3898 Q. You truck into the markets and from the depot of the Boston & Albany Railroad? A. I do. : Q. Will you state what is the relative cost of freight per ton 4 A, Their general charge is one dollar and a quarter per ton. Q. Is the charge different to a market at less distance? A. We don’t get a great deal of it done, but I think we could get it for seventy-five cents. Q. Would the distance be over a mile? A. It is a trifle over, I think. Q. And for going that distance it-costs you over a dollar? A. Yes, sir. Q. I put this question to you: Would not the cost of trucking freight from one of these establishments, if moved away from Boston, be increased seventy-five cents or soa ton per mile? A. I should n’t put it as high as that. I should say twenty-five or thirty cents per ton. Q. At your own establishment you are put to some larger expense ? A. These teams don’t prefer to go that distance. ‘ Q. And they prefer to make that difference in trucking? A. They do. Q. You have often passed Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I have, sir. The Chairman. It seems to me that this is entirely irrelevant. Mr. Derby. It seems to me that it is a question of public convenience. The Chairman. It a matter of private and not public convenience. Mr. Derby. It seems to me that the question of private convenience is also one of public convenience when the public are affected by it. In this matter of transportation public as well as private convenience re- quires it. I should be sorry if I thought we were laboring with a Board who would not be convinced. Cross-Examinatton. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). How do you render your grease there? A. We render in open kettles. Q. (by Mr, Derby). I would ask whether you have travelled up and down Canal Street, Charlestown, and found the smell offensive there ? A. I have found it very offensive. Q. More offensive than Miller’s River? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What do you render in open kettles and in close tanks? A. In open kettles we render trimmings and leaf lard, and in the close tanks sometimes both. Q. Do you think there is any difference in the odors that pass out in the open kettles and close tanks? .A. I do not think there is any difference. Q. Is there any difference in the quality? A. The quality is the same. Q. What is the quality you mean? A. It is the sweetness. Q. Then you don’t think that the rendering in close tanks produces a different odor from the rendering in open kettles? -A, I have never been able to ascertain any difference in the odors. / Q. Where does that odor go to? A. It goes out into the open air. Q. And you have never been able to ascertain the difference between those odors? A. Never. I tried several times in the last two months. 899 Q. How often did you blow off in the last two months? A. Within the last two months we have n’t blown off. Q. What do you do, then? -A. We let the steam condense in the tanks. Q. What do you do with it then? 4. It goes out into the slush tank. Q. What is done with it then? .4. The water partis drained into the Miller's River basin. Q. What is done with this matter? A. It is sold to Mr. Bradley. Q. When does he take it away? A. In warm weather it is taken away every day. Q. Is that offensive? A. It is if it lays there a very long time. Q. How often is it taken away now? A. Three times a week at this time of the year. Q. Then you have no method or apparatus which will carry it off ex- cept what you mentioned? A. I have not. Q. Do you consider that there is any more smell coming from your close tanks without apparatus than there is from Mr. Squire’s tank which has an apparatus which you have heard described? A. I would be un- able to say what the odors rising from his always were ; but I have been unable to find odors rising from ours that would be offensive to any one. Q. Do you think your method does away with the odor? A. I think we do. Q. And if the vapor is thrown off into the atmosphere it would give no offence to any one? A. I think not. Q. How long since you commenced it? .A. Two months, I think. Q. What was the object of doing so? A. They were finding so much fault about blowing off into the air, I thought I would try the experi- ment. I ascertained from outside parties that it would n’t be necessary to blow off at all, though I never found the blowing off to be offensive. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Did you go up to try the atmosphere? A. Yes, sir. I put my face close to it several times. @. And you found nothing offensive? .A. Nothing offensive. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). On Sunday morning, the 30th of November, wasn’t there a tank open there? A. I can’t say. If they were in a hurry they might have blown it off, though there was no occasion for it, at that time. Testimony oF Davip M. OLIVER. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you reside in Boston? .A. In Cambridge, sir. Q. But you conduct your business in Boston. Mr. Derby (to the Board). Iam going to introduce a new branch of testimony which will show that the rendering business is conducted on a large scale in Bostun without giving offence. Q. State if you please whether you render lard. A. I do. Q. How many hogs do you render in the winter per week? A. From four hundred to six hundred in the winter. The Chairman. Where is that establishment? .A. Near Fulton and Cross Streets, about three hundred feet from the Commercial Exchange. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You render in summer a less number ; how many do you render then? A. From three to four hundred a week. Q. You have conducted the business in that vicinity for about how long atime? A. About six years. 400 Q. And previous to that time? 4. I have been in the business thirteen years. Q. And you have been engaged in this business how many years? A. I have been rendering lard in this business part of the city six years, and have been in the business thirteen years. Q. I would inquire whether you have made any change? A. I moved into a new store this year, and put iu some close tanks. Q. Have any parties made complaints of your business? A. Don’t know that any parties made complaint, never knew of persons knowing it unless I told them of it, except in one instance ; never heard any com- plaint but that once. Q. Was that a Boston nose or an East Cambridge nose? .A. I think it is from East Cambridgé. Q. Whoisit? A. ItisMr. Hastings. He was there one day and said he smelt it. Q. You changed from open kettles to close tanks ; will you state why you changed? A. I thought it was economy. I thought we got better lard and it could be rendered at a less expense. * : Q. You did it from motives of economy and not from any complaint ? A. Yes, sir; I thought it was for my interest todo so. Never had any complaint. ; Q. Are there any other establishments in Boston that you know of? A. There are. Q. State how many.- A. There are four that I know of: one or two below me, and one on Ferry Street, and one on Fulton Street. _Q. (by the Chairman). How many establishments are there ? Mr. Derby. The witness speaks of four other establishments besides his, Q. (by Mr. Derby). You don’t know that any complaint 1s made in regard to them? -A. Never heard of any complaint of them. The Chairman. Where are they located? A. On Fulton and Ferry Streets, and at the South End; on Harrison Avenue, I think. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You can state the amount of business they do? A. They do about the same amount that I do, — one of them not quite as much, perhaps. The Chairman. How much do you do? .A. From four to six hundred hogs a week at this season, and from three to four hundred in sum- mer. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You try out lard? A. Yes, sir. Q. About the same as at Mr. Squire’s? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have done it in open kettles without difficulty? A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Ei you now do it in close tanks from motives of economy 4 . Ido. @. And you think open kettles just as good? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have been in the other establishments in the city? A. Yes, sir. Q. And never found anything offensive there? 4. Nothing; I never found anything offensive to me at all. Q. Any odors perceptible in those establishments, to your knowledge ? A. No offensive odors. Q. And you think the four other establishments, with one exception, do as much as youdo? A. Yes, sir. - 401 Q. Do they render in open or close kettles? A. They render in open kettles wholly. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What time of day do you do your trying? A. In the daytime. Q. Do you try your lard after it is rendered? -A. My lard is kettle- tried. Q. Where are those kettles placed? .A. In the upper part of the store. Q. Do you have a ventilator over those kettles? A. I do. Q. Tell me why the kettles are placed high over the tanks, instead of down? A. My kettle is not; it is on the same flight. I pump my lard up. Q. In regard to the conversation with Mr. Hastings, — he complained and smelt it ; did n’t you tell him that you had no doubt that he could smell it some? A. I don’t think I told him so. Q. Was n’t it words to that effect, — that you should be surprised if he should n’t smell it? A, I don’t think I used those words. Q. Do you blow these tanks off? A. I do. Q. Into the atmosphere? A. No, sir; into a tank filled with water. Q. At what time? A. About twelve o'clock. Q. How much water is contained in them’? A. Three or four hogs- heads. Q. Why do you blow it off there? .A. When I was arranging them I was told there was danger of blowing out the lard; and it was very ne- cessary to be cautious to see whether I blew out the lard. I had my pipe arranged to blow out at the side of the building, and after a trial I had it arranged in the cellar so that I could save the lard. Q. Do you find any lard on the water? A. Sometimes, though very little. Q. Do you get any odor from there? A. I never get any odor from there. If any of you gentlemen will come down, I will blow off the tank any time. The only smell is sometimes the water is like scalding-water and suds when a woman is doing washing. ' TrEstiMony oF LutHEeR P. WIaGIN. Q. (by Mr. Derby). What occupation are you engaged 1 in, or where do you reside? A. I reside in Boston. Q. Where is your place of business? -A. On Harrison Avenue. Q. What business are you engaged in? A. J am in the packing busi- ness, pork, lard, etc. Q. Do you render any lard, sir? A. I do. Q. How many hogs do you deal with a week, sir? A. On an average in a year about three hundred. Q. Your place, sir, is on Harrison Avenue? A. Yes, sir, at No. 470, opposite Ashland Place, a few feet above Dover Street. Q. You are very near Ashland Place? A. I am directly Gppeaite it. Ashland Place leads from Washington Street to Harrison Avenue, and is just above Dover Street. Q. Then you are three or four hundred feet from Washington Street ? A. I should think it was n’t more than that. 26 402 Q. How do you render lard in your establishment? A. In open kettles. Q. How long have you had it there? A. It has been there fifteen years to my knowledge. : Q. Whether it has been a subject of complaint to anybody? A. There has been no complaint to me whatever. The Chairman. No complaint to you from anybody during the whole fifteen years? A. No complaint from any one during the whole fifteen ears. . : Q. Have you ever heard of any? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Whether any offensive smells have come from it? A. No, sir. Q. You render in open kettles? A. Yes, sir. Q. You take lard and try it there without offence.to any one? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And are doing it still? I am, every day. Q. Do you know of a place in South Boston where rendering is done? A, Ido. Q. Where is that? A. At the corner of F and Sixth Streets. Q. Is it in a populous part of that district of the city? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much business is done there? -A. Well, I can’t say, but I should judge from what I know, about the same amount of business that Iam doing. Q. In South Boston, at this place? A. Yes, sir. j Q. And is that conducted inoffensively ? ‘.4. Never have heard of any complaint. , Q. It has been there how many years? A. It has been there longer than I have been in business. @. And to your knowledge there is no complaint? A. No, sir. Q. Is that section where you are located thickly settled? A. It is quite thickly settled in that vicinity. There is a dwelling-house in less than two rods; there is a family in the house adjoining my place and another dwelling-house not exceeding ten feet in distance from my place, * and also about the same from the other place in South Boston. Q. Quite a compact settlement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Never heard of any complaint? 4. No, sir. @. Do you know of any other place in the city? A. There is another place on Harrison Avenue, Curtis & Knowles, just above me. Q. What business do they do? .4. About the same amount I do. Q. Has that been conducted for any length of time? A. Yes, sir. Q. About.how long? 4. It has been there now about six years. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Where are the hogs slaughtered? .4. In warm weather they are slaughtered in. Cambridge. Q. (by Mr. Derby). In cold weather where are they slaughtered ? A. They buy them where they can, — what we’call railroad hogs, some of them, that come here from the West, Q. (by..Dr. Derby). At this season of the year where are they slaugh- tered? A. I have mine slaughtered in Cambridge principally, by’ the Boynton Packing Company. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do you know of this establishment and the , nature of the place? -4. Nothing more than what has been mentioned here. 403 Cross-Examnation. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say you render in open kettles? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And you don’t perceive any smell? .4. No, sir. Q. And in South Boston they render in open kettles? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And it is quite thickly inhabited about there? .4. Yes, sir; there is a dwelling within a few feet. ‘ Q. How many feet? 4. Don’t know precisely ; it is pretty well set- tled up. Q. Isn’t there a burying-ground there? 4. It isn’t a great way off. Q. The burying-ground occupies a great deal of the space around there? A. It isn’t a great way off. Q. Isn’t it rather sparsely settled there except the burying-ground? A. I think not ; it is pretty thickly settled. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I would inquire, sir, whether you have seen any paint turned black in the vicinity of your establishment from the render- ing of lard? A. No, sir, not from the rendering of lard, but I have seen paint blackened from the odor of the dock. Q. You have seen that, yourself? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whereabouts, — on the South Cove? A. Yes, sir. Q. Above Harrison Avenue, where the basin was open? A. Yes, sir. After they continued Albany Street through, they let the basin in there between Harrison Avenue and Albany Street, and before that was suffi- ciently drained I have seen it discolor paint. TESTIMONY OF CoLUMBUS TYLER. Q. (by Ur. Derby). You reside in Somerville, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. In former years you were in charge of the McLean Insane Asylum 3 A, Yes, sir, from 1847 to 1863. : Q. You remember the period when the upper basin had a gate upon it, shut in 1843? A. I can’t fix the date precisely. Q. Previous to that time had the river and basin been inoffensive ? A, They had been. Q. On the building of the Fitchburg Railroad in 1843 did you notice any change? A. Very soon. Q. Please explain what. -A. When those gates were shut. The Chairman. Where were those gates? A. Just above the Grand Junction crossing. That gate made what we called three basins, now known as Squire’s, North’s, and the basin above them. This gate was put in just above the Grand Junction crossing, and it was closed when _the tides were very high. After a few days, when that was closed, it filled up two or three feet higher than it used to be, and let the basin run off. That basin was the receptacle of dead cats, dogs, and every offensive thing which could be put there. Sometimes I think I have seen dead pigs there. Whenever the gate was shut, or soon after the gate was shut, we began to discover this bad odor of sulphuretted hydro- en gas. : Q. (by Mr. Derby). This was some thirty years since? .A. Yes, sir. All this matter continued to be brought there, and in a very short time this . basin began to be very offensive. Whenever the gate was shut at any particular time it would give offence in three days. The offensive air would come up into the houses, and it would be relieved only when the gate 404 was wide open. After the dye-works were put in the odors seemed to be terribly increased, whether on account of the peculiar kind of acids that were made, I don’t know; still the trouble seemed to be increased, and the odors were very much more intolerable when the gate was shut. I think now that the whole flats are saturated with this offensive matter. _Not long ago I was on the bridge between Cambridge and Somerville ; the wind was blowing in, and the tide was just coming in. The odor seemed to be just as bad coming from Charlestown way as from Somerville. The drainage from the Asylum is no small matter. We have five hun- dred people on an average, and the matter enters Charles River just above the Asylum grounds; that has been going on for ten years. I have also perceived the same odor in Boston, near Chickering’s factory, on Charlestown Neck, and in other places, — wherever the sewer empties and leaves the dockage at low tide. _ Q@. You have noticed this same odor? 4A. J have. Then we had another odor, very offensive, from Merrill’s place. He made sausages and tried out lard. He made such a bad smell that he was threatened to be indicted, and I think he was. Q. That is on the opposite side of the basin? A. Yes, sir. But he always kept good-natured and- promised to be better, but sometimes he tried out very offensive matter. One night, after the odor had been almost unendurable, I went to see him. He said, “It is nothing, if it is a little bad at times; but we never have cholera here.” After talking and threatening with him some time, telling him if he did not stop we would commence prosecution at once, he said, — and if you will permit me, I will use his own words, — “ As for trying out any more of that rotten sheep’s guts, I won’t do it.” We suffered from that odor very much, but we never suffered from any odor which we could trace to Mr. Squire’s. Q. The distance from your place to Mr. Squire’s is how much? A. About a thousand feet. Q. You did not trace any of the smells to Mr. Squire’s? A. No, sir; none at all. Q. And you have been in Mr. Squire’s place? A. I haven’t been in there for many years. Q. And in going to and from Boston in late years you have passed on both sides of the basin and perceived nothing offensive from his works ? A. Nothing from his works. Q. And you do smell the odor from the basins? A. Yes, sir. Q .What do you say as to the suppression of Mr. Squire’s works ? A. Always knowing how that gas escapes, — although’ think he may have added to it some,—I have thought he was very much abused. It is easy to say, ‘‘ That odor comes from Squire’s.” Every time an odor would come up people would say it comes from Squire’s. It is a very settled conviction among a certain portion of the community that this odor comes from Mr. Squire’s, but I don’t believe it. It was there long before Mr. Squire came, and the odor is the same now as then. Since Somerville has been emptying its sewage there these whole basins have become polluted, and I think they are polluted all the way down to Charlestown. Q. I would ask you, in regard to Merrill’s, whether this trying has af- fected the color of the paint? A. I don’t think it did. ' Q. Then you think it must have been something else? A. Yes, sir. @. How recently have you heard any one complain of Mr. Squire’s works? A. Continually. ; Xe 405 Q. But is more with reference to the odor than the works? A. It is the odor principally. Whenever any one smells that gas they say they smell Squire’s works. It is the smell of sulphuretted hydrogen gas. Q. How far back do these smells go? A. I don’t remember. Q. What do you think the effect would be of a sewer down to Craigie’s Bridge from these works? .4. It seems to me that that would be the only relief we can have. I think it was fortunate that it was not carried down the other way. I believe that if it had been carried down Charles River it would have been necessary to carry it the other way afterward. It is my opinion that this whole question of sewerage has just begun to be felt in Boston. I think that channel ought to be walled up and built over. Unless something is done under one general system, the nuisance will be terribly increased. Now, each town or city has its own system, or no system at all. Many of the towns are increasing in population, and all this matter comes down to be scattered over the flats; they are all polluted néw. I think a general system of sewerage is the only salvation Boston can have. . . i Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do I understand you to say that Charles River should be filled? A. I think Charles River should be walled up and filled to the channel. Q. How wide is the channel? A. I don’t know how wide that chan- nel would be. Q. When do you say you left the Insane Asylum? A. In 1863. Q. When do you say those tide-gates were put in? -A. Soon after the Fitchburg Railroad was built ; I think it was in 1843. Q. But didn’t the Fitchburg Railroad run along on its old track for some time before that ? Mr. Derby. Tt was in 1843, I know, because I was in the direction of it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did they put any track in in 1843, when that was putin? A. I didn’t say that. Q. As originally built it didn’t cut across the basins? 4. No, sir. Q. It ran across the old track along side of O’Neil’s there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, you won't say it was as late as 1853% A. I will say that when the Fitchburg, Railroad was started, then the gate was first put in, and soon after that we began to smell this odor. Mr. Derby. The Charlestown branch was first built in 1853, and the Fitchburg Railroad was built in 1843, — I was in the direction of it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you think there was enough animal matter put in those basins to make those stenches you speak of? A. I think it would be with the sewage emptying into them. At that time there was a large sewer came down from Prospect Street and drained that neigh- borhood. : ‘ Q. Did you hear Mr. Munroe of Boston testify the other day? A. I did. ‘ Q. Did you hear him speak of the magnifying of the statements in regard to the emptying of sewers? A. I don’t agree with him in regard to the stench and its cause ; I only testify to what I know. In regard to his knowledge, I should not vouch for it, I was in the habit of going by 406 those places every day, more or less. From the fact that we were so much annoyed by this whole thing, I- called upon the Board of Health and insisted upon'having those tide-gates kept open. Q. You never knew of any of Merrill's workmen being sick? A. He said they were all healthy. TESTIMONY OF JAMES GOULD. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you reside? A. I live at Lexington, now. Q. You formerly resided in Charlestown? A. Yes, sir ; Charlestown is my native place. Q. You have been engaged in manufacturing soap in former years? A. Yes, sir; from 1844 to 1854, adjoining the present site of the State Prison in Charlestown. My works were where the yard of the State Prison now is. . . Q. You had a lime-kiln built on the line of the railroad? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And you conducted the business ofemanufacturing lime and soap? A. . Yes, sir. : = 'Q. Since then you have been living at Lexington? A. For about twenty-five years. Q. And you have passed in and out upon the railroad? A. Yes, sir, daily for twenty-five years, except Sundays, until within three years, when I have come in only twice a week. Q. You are familiar with the establishment of John P. Squire &,Co.? A, Yes, sir. Q. Will you now explain to the Commission what these smells are, what occasioned them, and what they come from? A. Well, sir, the first and primary cause of the smell was the large quantity of sea-weed and rock- weed driven up and deposited in the basin. I have been there in my boyhood, when it has floated up after a heavy storm, and been driven up upon the flats and deposited there. My theory is that this deleterious sulphuretted hydrogen was formed there and left in large pools there, and caused the rapid decomposition of this matter which causes those odors. Q. Any other cause, sir? -A. I have noticed time and again that dead dogs and cats and different material calculated to make an offensive smell came floating down on both sides of the river, where the water was run- ning from the bleachery would stir it up and cause this tremendously foul odor. Q. Did the sewers or drains have anything to do with it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you noticed any kind of smells as you go along the road? A. The principal smell was from the bone-drying establishments. Q. Where were those? .A. Those were these small establishments. There would be more foul odors from one of those small establishments than there would be from a large factory. Q. How would be the effect of a smell from a small establishment rendering grease compared with that from a factory rendering lard? A. There is no offensive odor in the rendeyjing of lard. Q. I speak of these small establishments for rendering grease? A. One of those small establishments would make six times as much as a large factory. Q. Please state whether there have been any of these small establish- ments on the bank of the river. 4. There have been. ‘e 407 ’ Q. Where has the refuse matter from those establishments been car- ried? A. Deposited right in that neighborhood. Q. There has been a great deal of it done there within the last fifteen years? A. Yes, sir, and a great deal is done now. Q. Have you perceived anything offensive coming from Mr. Squire’s works? .A. I have perceived nothing but the smell of sweet lard. Qa. N othing offensive at all? A. Nothing offensive at all. @. If there is any other fact bearing on this question, you will please make an-explanation of it to the Commission. “A. I will state that I was carrying on the phosphate business at Charlestown two or three years ago, and had the material from North, Merriam, & Co., the blood and refuse matter, to work into my establishment. Q. Our inquiries here are directed to Mr. Squire’s establishment. You know of nothing offensive to come from there? A. Nothing offensive. Q. You have been there more than once? A. Yes, sir. Q. From what you know of this business, do you know of anything in that establishment that would give offence to the community? A. Noth- ing. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I want to ask you if you have smelt the live- hog smell on the Fitchburg Railroad? A. I have. Q. How often? .A. Whenever they have been on the track, or side of the track, at North & Merriam’s place. Q, Do you lay it entirely to North, Merriam, & Co.’s? A. I have frequently smelt the hog smell, but don’t recollect any particular case except where the cars have been standing near their place. Q. But you know the Grand Junction Railroad passes between these two establishments, one being on either side of the track. You don't mean to say you never smelt the hogs except when they were going into North & Merriam’s? A. I have no recollection of smelling live hogs except in those cases I have mentioned. Q. You don’t think the hogs that go into Squire’s are any sweeter than those that go into North, Merriam, & Co.’s? A. No, sir. The Chairman. The Board will now adjourn until to-morrow morning at 9 o’clock. Mr. Derby. And we hope to finish our case in one day more. The Chairman. That will close the evidence, then. Mr. MeIntire. 1 should like to say that the testimony may be closed on their part, but the evidence brought in here by the respondents will necessitate the bringing in of testimony in rebuttal. I would express the hope that the hearing of testimony would not be closed peremptorily upon the conclusion of the evidence for the respondents. The Chairman. The Board will not prevent you from entering any testimony you may wish. Adjourned. 408 ELEVENTH DAY. Saturday, December 20, 1873. The Chairman. Before proceeding, I want to state in behalf of the Board that we have been extraordinarily patient in regard to some of the witnesses who have been examined. I hope therefore counsel will be care- ful to tell us about subjects of which the Board may be supposed to know nothing. As to the opinions of persons about carrying on work in similar places we hope the time of the Board will be spared. Testimony oF Hon. Horatio G. Parker. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). You have been an Alderman of the city of Cam- bridge, and were City Solicitor, and had had official charge of the matters which resulted in the legislation of last year as to the Miller’s River valley? A. I have, except in a very few instances, helped to bring about all the legislation that was enacted. Q. And you are one of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of last. winter to superintend the building of the great sewer? A. I am, sir. Q. Now, I wish you would give to the Board your views, in your own way, of the subject which is now under consideration. .A. The first time that I was called to Miller’s River was on the complaint of an agent of an estate situated a little this side of Bridge Street Bridge. His com- plaint was laid before the Mayor and Aldermen of Cambridge, and as Chairman of the Committee on Health I was deputed to go to visit the place. That was my first introduction to Miller’s River. The Chairman. When was that? A. In June, 1870, I think, though I may not be exactly right. I went there and went outside the place. I did n’t go into Mr. Squire’s establishment then. I looked about for some time, and then I concluded that I ought to go and see this estate and see in what way it was affected by Mr. Squire’s works. I found that es- tate had seven necessaries dripping immediately upon the flats of Miller’s River basins. I concluded that he could stand Mr. Squire as long as Mr. Squire could stand him. The Chairman. I want to know what this has got to do with it? Witness. Just to show my experience in examining into complaints of this kind. Mr, Muzzey. The contest is between this establishment and the true sources of nuisance. The Chairman. I suppose every privy smells somewhat. Witness. I was going to show that the stench arising from the basin was terribly increased by the emptying of the privies into it. Mr. McIntire. There is no denial that the basins stink terribly. Mr. Muzzey. Mr. Parker will please proceed. 409 . The Chairman. Try and keep to the subject which we are discussing. Mr, Derby. We will try and finish this morning. _ Mr. Muzzey. The Board will recollect that we put in twenty witnesses yesterday. Witness. The same year, I think in August, another complaint came against Mr. Squire to our Board, and that was referred to me as Chair- man of the Committee on Health. I then went into a considerable investigation, making the examination personally and by means of the police officers and health officers that I had to aid and assist me. I made a report to the city government stating what were my views, — and the other members of the Committee on Health agreed with me as to what was the principal difficulty and trouble there, — and showing the number of drains which entered into Miller’s River, and the number of privies and the number of boarding-houses which discharged there ; and a copy of that report I have here in this volume, but if the Committee don’t wish to know the other sources which, in my view, principally cause this diffi- culty, why, of course, I am very desirous of being relieved from stating anything. The Chairman. You dou’t want to read the whole report ? Mr. Muzzey. We will put the report in. Wetness. What I wanted to read in that report is the part in relation to the amount of sewage drained into the basins. | Mr. Derby. It is very important to us. The Chairman. Please go on. Witness. This is in the printed proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, October 1, 1870. It is this : — “ Alderman Parker, for the Committee on Health, to whom were referred peti- tions asking for the abatement of a nuisance in Miller’s River, caused by sewer deposits and the collection of refuse matter from slaughter-houses, etc., made the following report : — “ Through the efforts and faithfulness of Henry Kinsley, the Health Officer of Ward 3, who has been for some time specially employed for the purpose, they are able to furnish the following information upon which this report is based : “ Miller’s River, so called, is properly no river, but an arm of the sea, having flats on each side of some portions of it, with quite a body of water at high tide, and when the flats are left entirely bare of water, and only a very narrow water channel left. The drains emptying into this recess of water are none of them carried beyond the edge of the stream, thus leaving their discharges upon dry land when the tide is low,—and the tide does not carry with it all the dis- charges made while the water is high, which are thus left on the flats exposed to the sun, and have their odors borne abroad considerable distances by the winds. The territory in Cambridge draining into this stream is bounded by commencing at the corner of Bridge and Third Streets, thence running south to Cambridge Street, thence west to Elm Street, thence south to Hampshire Street, thence west to Oak Street, thence north to Somerville line, thence east to the point begun at. In Cambridge there are seventeen common sewers which empty into Miller’s River. Five hundred and sixty-eight houses, containing seven hundred and six families, are accommodated by the drains. On Cambridge and Norfolk Streets alone, staules occupied by one hundred and twenty-five horses are also accom.nodated by the same drains. There are also in Cambridge ten private . 410 drains which discharge into Miller’s River. These private drains accommodate nineteen houses, containing twenty-three families. Add to these the private drains of Squire’s slaughter-house, North & Merriam’s slaughter-house, Boynton’s slaughter-house, Tinea & Chamberlain’s lard-works, and Sortwell’s distillery, and you have fifteen private drains so discharging. There are twenty-one privies which discharge directly into Miller’s River. These privies accommo- date sixteen private houses, containing nineteen families, and factories, slaughter- houses, etc., which regularly employ two hundred and twenty-six men. Of other causes of nuisance which drip into Miller’s River, we may mention five stables, accommodating fifty-four horses, hog-pens, in which are accommodated about ninety thousand hogs during the year, one slaughter-house, sixteen hundred cattle a year. From Somerville there are the lard-factory, with a privy for ten men, and six hundred private houses, all of which drain into Miller’s River. We should also mention the Bleachery in Somerville, the drainings from which are sure death to every fish and eel that reaches them, and also kill the ducks and geese that venture therein. Mr. Kinsley, in his report to the Committee, says:— te You will notice that I have mentioned drippings from the hog-pens. This is seemingly as great a nuisance as there is in the river. There are cords of it floating up and down the stream, — on flood tide it is carried up stream, on ebb tide it is carried to the basin formed by the filling in of Bridge Street, and what does not escape down the river settles in the dock. I have collected some of these drippings and put them on the flats where the sun strikes them. I find that when they have been baked by the sun they remain, and the tide will not wash them away.’ “Mr. Kinsley adds: — “«Tn watching the operations of things in the river, I am well satisfied that the great cause of stench from the dock is the filling up of Bridge Street, thereby leaving so small a space for the ebb tide to escape. The water rising to that point strikes the sides of the opening and is thrown back, forming an eddy by which the animal and other matter is carried into still, shallow water, and settles on the flats. I have no doubt that this matter is filling up the dock at the rate of one or two inehes a year. The same trouble exists where a similar filling has been made by the Fitchburg Railroad Company near Gore Street, and Somerville will soon have the same trouble to contend with that Cambridge now has.’ “Your Committee agree with Mr. Kinsley in his conclusions. The stream has been narrowed where bridges have been constructed, thus preventing a free ebb and flow of the tide, and the result inevitably follows, that while the causes of filth and nuisance are continually increasing, the means provided by nature for carrying the filth away are constantly being rendered less and less effective. Your Committee need not enlarge upon the serious magnitude of the unhealthful and offensive nuisance which Miller’s River now is to the inhabitants of the Third Ward. - The plain facts reported by Mr. Kinsley speak with a sufficiently emphatic and warning voice to those who have the comfort and health of the city in charge. The question is, What is the remedy? Your Committee do not be- lieve that the proprietors of slaughter-houses and other places of like nature are sufficiently caret They think they do what they sadly they however should do more, and train every man in their employ to exercise the greatest care to prevent, anything of an offensive character reaching the river. This your Com- mittee know is not done. They cannot point out exactly where the fault lies, but it lies somewhere. The hog-pens of the large slaughter-houses should not be permitted to remain longer as they are. It will be a large expense to change them, but changed they should be. Something can be done in this way, but the great trouble still remains. Miller’s River must serve for draining the large ter- ritory we have described. How can it be best made to perform this office ? Your Committee see but one way, which is to fill up the flats, making a narrow channel which shall always contain a reasonable depth of water, and extend all sewers out into that channel. There will then be no lodging or resting place for the offensive matter which to a considerable amount must be discharged by the thirty-two public and private drains now emptying into the stream. ‘his is a 411 very great and very expensive undertaking. But the inbabitants to be protected are a large proportion of the inhabitants of our city. The very hot and very dry sesason we have experienced this year has undoubtedly added much to the offensiveness of the nuisances mentioned. But the population in the vicinity of Miller’s River is rapidly increasing. The necessary causes of nuisance must in- crease, and the amount of offensive matter which must lodge and putrefy upon the flats of the river, if permitted to remain as it is, will largely multiply. Your Committee see no other course than the one recommended.” | The Chairman. How many hogs? A. It is put in here at 90,000. The great matter which was then complained of was the drippings from the hog-pens. We put the average of what would be a fair number every day, as we thought, then, — that is, we averaged it at 90,000 hogs during the year. Q. (by Mr. Derby). There were a great many kept in private pens at that time? A. We put in what we thought would be a fair average of hogs during the year. Q. (ly a member of the Board). Do they average 90,000 a year? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. Derby). It has increased very much then? A great. many are kept in private pens? A. Yes, sir. We made this estimate at that time from just over the line in Somerville.. It was the same in a very short distance and in a small area. The hogs and pigs I found in there were something like 500, regularly kept by people living right on the streets there. But this 90,000 includes the whole number of hogs. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). It must be for the year (we slaughter but 1,200 aday). A. It is during the year. , Dr. Derby. Then the number would be too small. Witness. We will call it too small then. ' Mr. Muzzey. I think it would be probably right to divide it by 300. Mr. McIntire. That was what we reckoned a year ago. " Witness. It is a subject that this committee has dwelt upon a great deal. The thing very much complained of then was the dripping from _ the hog-pens. I will say that an examination of this matter during that summer and fall brought me to this conclusion; and I stated it just about as I shall state it now. In my opening of this case before the Committee on Harbors, when we applied to the Legislature in 187] to fill up those basins, I made up my mind that there was a great deal of mistake about it ; that a great deal was charged to the operations of Squire’s slaughter- house which did n’t belong to it. I stated it then in this way: If you were to take the slanghter-houses away, and leave the basins as they are, more than nineteen twentieths of the nuisance would be left. I believed they would be awfully mistaken in regard to these odors. Why, I would be up at the square, and people would say, “‘ There is the odor coming from Squire’s slaughter-house.” Then I would go down there; but I could not trace it to Mr. Squire’s. I could not get at the top. of the chimneys, and smell to see if it would come out there. I have been in there many times, and I could not detect any such thing in there, but it would be the regular old basin-dock smell ; and I know very frequently that people were mistaken, and charged it to Mr. Squire when it was nothing that could be traced to or could come from his establishment. I know of many times when they were mistaken in that respect ; and I made up my mind that the thing to move for and accomplish was the filling up 2 412 of the basins, and, that being done, everything else could in time be arranged and cured, so that Mr. Squire could carry on his business without injury or prejudice to health. And he has very much improved the methods of carrying on his business since that time; and I wish to state that I think, if you remove Mr. Squire’s slaughter-house and let those basins remain, there would not be any perceptible difference in the complaints of nuisances from what there are now. It is generally asked, In what respect has Mr. Squire improved his place? Well, the first time I went upon those premises the hogs were yarded there, and those that were not yarded were in pens, and those pens not covered, and were washed out with water ; and that was what caused this large amount of hog drippings, as it was called. We felt that that was what produced a great deal of this nuisance. At that time a great deal of the blood went into the stream. I find that all that is stopped now. Then, following out the matter of pens, it seems to me that since they have commenced putting charcoal in the pens, if anything is washed into the stream, the charcoal being with it, so far as the nuisance is concerned the charcoal would do quite as much good as harm. Then in regard to taking care of the offal, that is improved. I think these slaughter-houses should be charged with their share of making this nuisance. In past years a great deal of the offal, blood, etce,, went into the basin. The first summer I went down there I stood upon the wharf when the tide was going out. You could see every minute or two pieces of flesh and clots of blood as large as your hand floating down the river. Q. All that you have n’t taken away has been disposed of at the estab- lishment? A. I should say so. @. And thus far you have taken away how much and at what inter- vals? A. I have taken away a few loads of it to satisfy myself of the feasibility of taking it away. Q. How do you take it from the wagon? A. The wagon is driven up in the shed. We have a suction floor which perfectly controls any smell or gas, or.anything of that kind, —it is taken care of and consumed. Q. Has there been any complaint made of your place? A. None at all. Q. Neither at Peabody nor Brighton? A. I would say, in Peabody, last winter, I took some material and converted it into glue, and I did it without burning up the gases. There was some complaint about the odor; but I put in a burner, and since then I have had no complaint. I believe that smell went a mile. @. And you have had no complaint since then? A. Have had no 27 418 complaint since then. The Board of Health came up and looked around may place, and I told them what I was going to do. ' Q. (by Mr. Derby.). You don’t propose to utilize the blood? A. No, sir. Q. Then, as I understand it, the tanking, which now goes to Mr. Bradley, will go to you; and, in addition to that, the soup-liquor 4 A. Yes, sir. Q.° Whose machine do you use? A. We are using Lockwood & Ever- ett’s process for superhéating, and in burning the gas we are using George F. Wilson’s process for utilizing all kinds of waste and converting it into fertilizers. Further than that, we have got a specialty in that neighbor- hood; so we prefer that, on account of letting it lie in package and removing it without complaint. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). You say, sir, the soup is deodorized? A. It is. Q. How is that done? A. By running. it through a solution of bone- black, oil of vitriol, and chamber acid. Bone-black and chamber acid make dried phosphate. Q. Isn’t there a great deal of gas? .A. There is no gas. We have pipes run from the condenser and burner, — large pipes attached to a suction-blower, — which, as that vapor and gas rise, take the whole of it and carry it away. Q. Is that gas combustible? -A. Not unless superheated ; then it will burn, in connection with air, the same as ordinary gas. We utilize it, in generating steam, under our boilers. It is a matter of economy to burn it up instead of letting it run off. i Q. It is combustible after being superheated? A. It is. We can see it burn in a blue flame. Our place is open at all times, and I invite the most sceptical to come and see it. : Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where is your place, sir? A. Within a stone’s throw of Riverside Park, at Brighton. i Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Hasn't that machine been condemned by the Board of Health of New York? A. It has, sir; and the reason was, because they were so economical of gas in the boilers that they did n’t run it ay it should be. It is just the same as though you were to con- demn steam-boilers, because they will blow up when the water gets low. It was false economy. = Q. Is there a meter in there? -A. Our experience is that a cast-iron meter would last not over three or four years. Our Argand-burner would last fifteen or twenty years. We utilize our waste heat, after it is in the boiler, for superheating the gases. It is not exposed to so high a degree of heat. Q. [have been informed that those meters would burn out in daily use? A. We can burn out a meter in half an hour. When there is no outlet at the top it would generate as high a heat as the old meter. We have got one now which we have been running a year, and it was exam- ined the other day and found just as good as it was when it was put in. Q. I have been informed that they would cost three or five hundred dollars? A. They do cost from three to five hundred dollars. The Chairman. What do you use for deodorizing? A. Bone-black, oil of vitriol, and chamber acid. ; Q. What do you mean by chamber acid? 4. Chamber acid is a solution of oil of vitriol and bone-black, 419 Testimony oF Everett L. Coxson (recalled). Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Were you present at a trial of an experiment under Professor Horsford’s direction for destroying the odors from the live animals? A. I was. @. What was used? A. Iam not chemist enough to know what it is. Q. Was it the same that he put into your hands? What was the effect? A. We first took three hogs into a tight place and, sprinkled them all over with this liquid. There was no hog smell perceptible after that. Then we took an entire pen, with perhaps forty or fifty hogs in it, —one of the regular pens, —it was full. I went in amongst them and sprinkled them thoroughly, and in that pen of fifty hogs I don’t think anybody could detect any hog smell. I could n’t detect a particle. Q. In consequence of the. success of that experiment, has Mr. Squire sent to Europe for a large quantity of the preparation? -A. I believe he has. Q. Do you know whether he has been notified of the arrival of it in New York? A. I think he has. Cross-examined. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did you ever smell ‘it before? A. I have smelt it some. Q. -Did not I understand you to say that the smell of live hogs is not agreeable to you? A. I don’t consider it disagreeable. Q. Do you consider it agreeable? .A. I don’t think it is disagreeable. Q. But is it agreeable to you? A. I don’t notice it ut all. Q. Well, if you do not notice it at all, how did you notice any differ- ence? A. Because it had a kind of sweet smell. Q. A sort of cologne smell, referred to by Mr. Derby? A. Not like cologne, but something like the smell of soapsuds. Q. How large a quantity did you sprinkle? A. Probably twelve uarts. ; Q. You put twelve quarts on these fifty hogs? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). Was that the condition in which it came or did you dilute it? A. It was mixed together. Q. How much of the’basis did you use to that twelve quarts? A. We simply took it and used it. Q. But did you dilute that stuff he gave you or was it prepared 3 A, It was prepared. Q. How much stuff did it take to prepare that twelve quarts? A. I don’t know. Q. Do you know how long it succeeded in deodorizing, in preventing the smell of the hog? How long after that was the hog killed? A. He was there perhaps half an hour. Q. How long after you put it on the other hogs were they killed? A, I don’t know. . Q. You don’t know whether it disappeared very soon after that 4 A. I don’t know. Testimony oF Proressor E. N. Horsrorp (recalled). Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). sWill you be good enough to give an account of this disinfecting agent? A. I brought with me from London a couple of * ' 420 cakes of prepared carbolic acid, a sort of soap. I do not know that that is its name, but it indicates its quality for removing odors. It was prepared for transportation in the form of cakes of soap. 1 dis- solved it in about a hundred parts of boiling water, — yes, much more than that, — probably one hundred and fifty or two hundred parts of boiling water, — that is the way the article was prepared. I immediately wrote to parties in London asking if it could be furnished in quantity, and they wrote me in reply that. it could, and that they used it for kin- dred purposes, in purifying stables, etc. I think it would cost about half a penny to a penny a gallon in the condition in which it is to be used. I thought it might be put on the hogs at some point between here and Albany, so that the smell exhaled in unloading could be pre- vented. But the delay of the notice of its having been received has . prevented its being tried. I hope to be able to make experiments of suf- ficient magnitude to justify me in speaking with confidence of its effects. Q. What was the result of such an experiment as ‘could be made? A. The smell was immediately relieved. We put three hogs into a room about twelve feet square, and sprinkled them, and it seemed to relieve the smell at once. Then we went to one of the large pens, and sprinkled the hogs with the material that remained, and it seemed to me that the odor of the swine was extinguished while I was there. I cannot help thinking. that the carbolic acid might neutralize the hog-smell. It arrests fer- mentation and the production of odors. Q. Have you engaged with Mr. Squire to pursue experiments for the purpose of destroying this odor? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. What confidence have you that you can find a remedy? .A. My conviction is strong that it will not be difficult to find a remedy. Q. Are you not in communication with persons in Europe who are pur- suing this investigation? 4. I am in correspondence with parties who are pursuing it there. This purifying of stables, etc., has been practised for some time there, and I think carbolic acid is the agent at the bottom of the experiments that have been made. Cross-Examination. : Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What is ‘the chemical effect of this deodorizer? A. It arrests decay if carbolic acid is used in weak solution. Q. What would be the effect of carbolic acid upon ammonia? A. It would form carbolate of ammonia. Q. Have you ever made the experiment? A. We have it in com- bination in gas liquor. Q. Is n’tit offensive to the smell? A. I think it is, when concen- trated ; but as diluted, it would be much less so. : Q. Do you think the sprinkling of car-loads of hogs two stories high with your preparation of carbolic acid, or any preparation, would so com- pletely deodorize them that when they arrived at Cambridge there would be no smell? A. I cannot say until I have tried it. I propose to do it at Framingham. I think it might effect that result. Q. Would this carbolic acid have any effect upon the meat? A. It would not appreciably. The carbolic acid is a very small proportion of the diluted solution. It is used for preserving meat. The Chairman. What would be the effect of this carbolic acid upon the animals, — I mean would it not be the occasion of suffering by getting into their eyes? A. Not severely. It is used as a toilet soap. 421 Q. What would be the effect of it upon your own eye? A. I do not know about that. I have not tried it. Q. What would be the effect of common soap? A. Very trifling in such diluted condition. The statement that it is necessary should be the justification for its use. Q. Would you like to sprinkle this soap upon your eye? -4. I should not like to put any soap in my eye. Q. Wouldn't the sprinkling of this matter on the animals be intense torture to them? A. Ido not believe it would be intense torture. I know that some of the finest and most beautiful cows we saw at Vienna last summer were washed with water containing soap every day. The eyes were cleansed with soap-suds. I have no doubt that the carbolic preparation would make the eyes smart a little if it got into them. TEsTIMONY oF Caprain THomas CUNNINGHAM. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Where do you live? .A. In Somerville, at the corner of Oak and Prospect Streets ; have lived there sixteen years. Q. What is your occupation? .A. It has been various. Previously to that time, I followed the sea. Soon after my coming to Somerville I was a partner with Mr. Sortwell in the distillery business. Q. Have you held important offices in Somerville? A. I have, from 1859 to the present time. I have been three years on the Board of Health, from 1860 to 1863. Q. How familiar have you been with the establishments on Miller’s River? A. I believe I know every individual on that territory. Q. Now, will you tell what has led you to form an opinion as to the _bad odors from that territory? A. Commencing as far back as 1859 or ‘1860, we were then troubled very much. I lived about two hundred yards from the upper basin, so that the east wind would bring everything from the basins or slaughtering establishments directly to my house. We have always since 1860 been: troubled, more or less, with the odors. At certain times it was so intense as to oblige us to shut the house up. Frequently it would make my wife sick. “In my official character as a member of the Board of Health I had occasion to search out these gases, and as an individual since that time, I have frequently traced those gases to their source. In the early part of 1859 or 60 a boat could float on the upper basin, or Union Pond, at low tide. Now at half tide the whole place is bare, and the sediment at the present time is from two to four feet deep, consisting of the most obnoxious mixture that could be accu mulated. ; The Chairman. What is the upper basin? -A. It is the upper part of the basin, —a continuation of the basin.. It is an extension of the Mil- ler’s River basins. There are various little private sewers and privies which empty into Union Pond. At Oak Street, where I live, there was a sewer put in by Mr. Amory Houghton at the glass-house, which emptied into the pond directly east of my house. At that time there was a slaughter-house kept by John O’Brien at the same place, and various other small places, and particularly Sortwell’s distillery, all draining into it. There is in addition a molasses sediment called “cistern bottom.” In a cistern of about sixteen feet diameter and six feet deep there will be a bottom from four to six inches deep, that the suction-pump would n’t 422 take out. Ever since 1857 that has been emptying into that basin, and I think I can give you an idea of what that sediment is. A gentleman was there one day from Arlington, and finding that it was vegetable mat- ter, he thought it might be a good thing for agricultural purposes. We sold him two or three empty hogsheads and got the boys to fill them out of this cistern-bottom. 1t stayed there three or four weeks. We began to smell an intense smell that we couldn’t trace. When that gentleman came to take his cistern-bottom away, we put a shovel into it, and it proved to be the most offensive smell we ever smelt. That has been ac- cumulating in that basin ever since. In that basin we have from four to six feet of sediment, and probably as much in the middle basin. There have been from sixty to seventy thousand hogsheads of molasses used at the distillery in that time, every seven of which will give a hogshead of cistern-bottom. There has also been a continual increase in all these causes. Mr. Parker has described the piggeries. One season, while on the Board of Health, we took an excursion around up through what we call the “Russian Empire,” and we found in Somerville twelve hundted pigs in private piggeries, all of which were emptying into and were the cause of a large accumulation of matter in those basins. The pigs were fed on city swill, one barrel of which Dr. Knight said would produce gas enough to poison a whole neighborhood. : Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Were those all private establishments? A. Yes, sir. Dr. Knight was on the Board of Health at that time. He didn’t care for the pigs, but he said it was the outrageous stuff on which they were fed. This stuff has continued to increase every year, and I have no doubt that the piggeries have contributed their share of filling up the basins. Indeed, I have no doubt that Mr. Squire has, too. In regard to the offensive colorings in 1860, early in April or the latter part of March I had my house painted white. On the 4th day of May, after a heavy, hanging atmosphere, I went out on my piazza, and there was a gentleman looking at his house, the color of which was changed from white to black, and when I went out I found my own house the same way. At that time it was hardly known in Somerville that such an establishment as Mr. Squire’s existed. I have found in all places border- ing on the basins discolorations of paint, which I have traced to the dock smell. In my experience as a ship-master I used to command a packet coming in at City Wharf, at which place a sewer emptied. I have had my vessel discolored outside frequently. In those days we used to have a vessel painted rather fancy, and sometimes when we came down in the morning we could n’t see a white spot on her. That is in my opinion the only cause of the discolorations along Miller’s River. It is a little re- markable that during all the time we have had a continued trouble in regard to the smell and the odors, but never did I hear the name of Mr. Squire till about 1870. Then they began to talk about Squire, and since then in Somerville and East Cambridge they seem to have Squire on the brain. They even pledge candidates before election to go against Mr. Squire. They seem to think that he is the cause of the whole thing. Now as to Mr. Squire. I have been in his place frequently ; have visited it this year and in 1872, as one of the Board of Assessors ; went there three times this year, and once last year, — twice in May, once in June, and once in September. I believe that, except one man, none had ever been in Mr. Squire’s place before. Some of these gentlemen had had 428 Squire on the brain before that. Well, we went there to find out the value of property. We went through it very thoroughly because there had been a dispute in regard to the valuation. After coming away it was the opinion of those gentlemen that they had been mistaken, and that Mr. Squire’s place wasn’t as much a nuisance as they had thought it. We found everything carefully neat, clean, and every effort seemed to be made to preserve things in that way. About eight years ago I was summoned, with twenty citizens of Somerville and perhaps Cambridge, by the Trustees of the McLean Asylum to prove that all the stench came from Merrill’s. They put Merrill under bonds not to do certain things, but the name of Squire wasn’t heard of then. The whole thing, in regard to Mr. Squire, seems to have come about since 1870, and I think Mr. Squire has been about there since 1856. 7 Q. To what source have you traced the odors? A. To the smell of the basin and to the grease establishments. Mr. Parker gave a very good description of the grease establishments in Cambridge, and we have a good many in Somerville, but not so many as formerly. Q. Well, but is there not just as much putrid grease tried out on Somerville territory as there ever was? A. I should say there was. Q. Has the atmosphere gained anything by these places being’ gath- ered into larger establishments? A. You have the thing condensed into a larger body. I have been requested by North & Merriam to trace out any of those odors. We have them tremendously sometimes, and I have made it my business to follow this thing up. I found that Mr. O’Neil’s place is an inveterate cause of stench. We also have Mr. O’Brien’s place. One of the most disagreeable smells that ever occurred was in the even- ing, and at Union Square it was so very bad that a dancing assembly were obliged to close their windows. It was avery warm evening. That thing came from the removal of a blood-tank which Mr. O’Brien had. It is a tank that holds part of his blood ; but once in five or six months he takes a notion to clean it out. When he does it is awful. I can’t tell exactly how far that smell went. It went to Spring Hill and Winter Hill, and I traced it positively to the removal of that blood-tank at O’Brien’s slaughter-house. The Chairman. You went yourself and saw it? A. I went myself and saw it. That was one cause of the inveterate smells and ‘ Squire’s stinks” we have there. If you inquire of any of the old inhabitants who live near O’Neil’s, they will tell you that the smell from his rendering there is outrageous. In passing up and down Milk Street and up and down the Fitchburg Railroad, if that can’t give you an idea of the O’Neil smell, I am surprised. It is, without question, the worst thing we have in Somerville. Mr. Squire’s place has come to my notice since 1870, in connection with this smell. As I stated before, Mr. Squire has contrib- uted his share to the foulness of the basins, and more in the early part of his being there than now, and of late years more than now. @. He has contributed to the basins and not to the smell? A. Yes, sir. Q@. You say you traced out what it was contributed to the smells in the basin? A. I was asked by Mr. Merriam to trace those smells. T once did catch Mr. Merriam’s place foul, as he called it. I had occa- sion to go there one Sunday. It was this inveterate smell. I traced it out, starting about five o’clock, going after church and following 424 it down by the Fitchburg Railroad, examining the piggeries, and passing down the road till I came to Medford Street, where Merriam’s place is. As I crossed Medford Street going down the Fitchburg Railroad, we walked out of the smell entirely. When we came abreast of Merriam’s pens we got a little smell of the hogs, but nothing more than from a country hog-pen. We then turned back, and going above Medford Street we struck that smell again. I traced that smell to Merriam’s place, and that was the only time I ever found a smell in any of the slanghtering establishments, or what we call the Sunday smell, when they are not in operation. It appears that Mr. Merriam has a cylindrical boiler and a machine to turn the matter into guano. Some of the machinery got out of order on Tuesday ; he got it ready on Friday, but it broke again. On Saturday night he got it in order again, and as Mr. Merriam and the men told me; they volunteered to work on Sunday. I found them there. I wrote a letter to the firm that day. The members of the firm visited me, and stated the reason of it and assured me that they should never be caught that way again. They said they had contracted with one of the railroads to transport the stuff in case of another accident. That is the only time I ever traced this smell directly to that establishment. That was the rendering of the putrid stuff kept over from Tuesday till Sunday. That was about a year, ago last September, I think, though I could n't say exactly whether it was the last of September, — it may have been the first of October. Q. You have paid a great deal of attention to this subject as an officer of the Board of Health of Somerville ; I wish to ask you whether you think the health, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants of Somerville demand the suppression of Mr. Squire’s establishment ? A. I don’t think it does, provided they carry, out what they are doing there. In two years I cannot help thinking that Mr. Squire will be held as a public benefactor. He has spent thousands of dollars to fill those basins. Fill those basing and you get rid of nineteen twentieths of that trouble. In travelling about last summer in the “ Russian Empire,” I was in that district two days, taking the valuation of the property. I was not in Mr. Squire’s establishment, but I was once at North & Merriam’s. I had two silver half-dollars in my pocket and a pair of gold spectacles in a case. Those spectacles were in the case all the time, and they were turned black in going over that ground ; also my money in my pocket was turned black while going backward and forward on that place three days in taking the census. I wasn’t near Mr. Squire’s either. In regard to Mr. Squire, I agree fully with what Ex-Mayor Houghton said yesterday, — that the flat lands around there must be used by manufac-. turing establishments of some kind. I recollect when all the lands where the depots in Boston now are were just such a piece of land as that. I believe that all of that land must be used for business purposes and for the employees of the places. They say that Mr. Squire’s slaughtering establishment has deteriorated property there. I don’t exactly see it, as an assessor. We formerly valued the land at from eight to ten cents per foot ; last year it was taxed at a dollar a foot. Mr. Squire’s land was taxed at a dollar a foot this year, and near there it is from sixty cents to a dollar a foot. Q. What gives it this value? Is not it this business? A. It is this ‘business and the residences. But that is n’t all; there is a general 425 increase in the valuation of property throughout Somerville, and this property has risen with it. That kind of property would n't increase without some cause, and it is evident to me that Mr. Squire’s has n't deteriorated it. Nearly all the property there has increased in the same proportion. Two years ago the marsh land near Lincoln’s was sold at from twelve to fifteen cents a foot, and this year it has been bought by Lincoln and Boynton for twenty-two cents for the water and twenty- six for the land. Q. You know that from taking the census? A. Yes, sir. I took the census in 1870, when I valued every piece of property, and have had to examine it every year since as an assessor. Cross-Hxamination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Has other land increased in the same ratio that it has there? A. It has not. Q. And not in the high grounds as it has there? A. It has in some places. At Union Square land has increased from half a dollar a foot to a dollar and forty cents a foot. Q. Do you think it has increased on Miller’s River as it has in other localities? A. I think it has. I think the land that is partly filled is taxed for a dollar a foot. Before Merriam’s place was filled it was from twelve to fifteen cents a foot, now it has increased from that to a dollar. The Chairman. I don’t see what this has to do with the case. Mr. McIntire. It will be argued that it is a benefit to the locality. We hold that it is an argument against themselves. (Zo witness.) You say there has been considerable talk among the inhabitants of Somerville since 1870 against Mr. Squire. Were you ever one of those who talked against Mr. Squire’s or the other slaughtering establishments? Did n’t you ever make a complaint of the slaughter-house yourself, and have n’t you in conversation with people made an extreme complaint against those slaughtering establishments on the basins? A. I don’t know that I ever did. : Q. You won't say that you have n't? A. I won’t say that I have n't. I have thought they contribute to the foulness of the basins. Q. Whether you have n’t complained of the establishments contribut- ing to the odors since 1870, when Mr. Lincoln was City Solicitor? A. I was summoned in 1872 to come over there to give testimony in opposi- tion to Mr. Squire. Mr. Lincoln was then working for the town of Somerville. He asked me what line of testimony I should give; I stated that my testimony would be in Mr. Squire’s favor, and he sent me home. Q@. Were you not a member of the Board of Health in 18712 A. It was from 1860 to 1863. Q. Were you an officer of the town government in 18711? A. No, sir. I was City Treasurer and Collector. @. Don’t you know that at that time there were certain resolutions passed in town meeting — or I should say in selectmen’s meeting — re- lating to the slaughtering establishments? A. I don’t know. Q@. You don’t know that they were condemned by the selectmen? A. I should n’t wonder. AsJI tell you they have had Squire on the brain since 1870. You can’t find an old resident there but will tell you now that this action of some of the inhabitants of East Cambridge is 426 looked upon as direct persecution of Mr. Squire. That same gentleman has abused me because I would not bring this matter before your own Board at the City Hall. Q. You say that the old residents think this is a persecution of Mr. Squire, and yet a moment ago you said most of them had Squire on the brain? .A. They have had it. We have had a large increase of popula- tion there. New people have come there, and they are told the odors are from Squire’s place. There is Mr. Clark Bennett — ; The Chairman. Pardon me, but you cannot make personal allusions before this Board ; we cannot have it. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). They are told by the old residents that it is from Squire’s, and they take it up in that way? A. It is talked in that way by everybody. The papers have taken it up too. Q. You don’t believe that these inhabitants have any personal feeling against Mr. Squire; you don’t think there is any cause for ill-feeling against him? A. I don’t think they have, but I think they get and accept the idea that it is from Mr. Squire’s, without investigating where it is from. Q. But you think they are actuated by honest motives? A. I think they are. : Q. Now you speak of the odors from the kettles ; do I understand you to say that, you think a thousand pounds of putrid grease melted in one kettle is as great a nuisance to the inhabitants of a locality as if that same quantity of grease were distributed among ten kettles? A. If that were done at one time in open kettles, as at O’Neil’s rendering establishment, — though I think he has got new machinery now, — it would make a greater stench, and a smaller quantity would make a smaller stench. But with ten small kettles scattered about, it isn’t to be supposed that they would be running at the same time. When you get a thousand pounds in one kettle, you get a pretty severe stench. Q. Grant it; but do fyou believe there is as much stench from ten small kettles as there is from one large one? -A. I am not scientific enough to give you an answer on that question. , Q. What is your idea, as a member of the Board of Health, who has investigated these different things? -A. I don’t think there is much im- provement in concentrating it. It is spread over a large territory. The larger the body the more kettles. I think O’Neil ran two or three kettles. Q. But your city of Somerville have forbidden O’Neil from running any close tanks? A. I think they have. He has been at a large ex- pense putting in close tanks, and complains that he is assessed for them, and yet is not allowed to use them. I don’t know whether it has been arranged or not. Q. Do you ever get the smell at City Hall, in Somerville, during meet- ings of the city. government? A. I don’t recollect. Q. Do you recollect of any complaint being made by the city officials that during a meeting of the city government they got those smells? ‘A. I think they have, but I don’t know whether they got the yendering smells or not. Q. You are acquainted with the signature of Mr. Gilman, the City Clerk? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that it? A. Yes, sir. Testimony oF Hon. Hamuin R. Harpine. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). When were you the Mayor of Cambridge? A. In 1870 and 1871. Q. Had you previous connection with the city goyernment? A. Yes, ir ; I have been president of the Council. Q. And are at present an Alderman? A. I am, sir. Q. Have you visited Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I have visited his establishment four or five times, last summer for the first time. The subject of the odors of Miller’s River came before the city government in 1870, but I never visited this establishment or the locality until last summer. Q. The Committee on Health, of which Mr. Parker was Chaieenan, made a very thorough examination in 1870 and 1871. That was during your administration? Yes, sir. Q. You made a thorough investigation at that time ; certain measures were taken ; application was made to the Legislature ; a commission was appointed, and their work has been put into law. Now, sir, state in what condition you found Mr. Squire’s establishment, in and about it, and how thorough that inspection has been? A. At Mr. Squire’s solicitation, the matter being before the Board of Aldermen asa Board of Health, I visited his place on several occasions, as I have stated. I spent, I think, on the first occasion, about an honr and a half in and about the building. I was agreeably surprised to find it in such good condition as I did, having heard so much about it. Everything seemed to be conducted in a syste- matic and orderly way, and in as cleanly a manner as it seemed possible that it could be. On the first visit I observed no odors of an offensive character, except on the platform where the hogs were delivered, as Mr. Squire told me, from the car. I think there was a train of cars standing there at the time, which had arrived immediately before. Going along that platform I found there was a hog smell, of the live animal. I was taken into the pens where the hogs had been during that day, and found the floors covered with charcoal, and there was no offensive smell what- ever. I went all over the building and examined it thoroughly, and I think the hog smell that I perceived on the platform where the cars stood was the only offensive smell I experienced. I was told that there was carbolic acid in connection with the charcoal upon the floors of the pens, but I saw nothing of it. At any rate, there was no offensive odor there. In one locality I had experienced a very bad smell, which reminded me pretty forcibly of what has frequently been mentioned here as the odor which used to come up from between Long and Central Wharves before the Custom House Block was built. I used to be rather’ addicted to boating, and there I often smelt a smell coming up, apparently from the . river or creek, which I remembered very well as coming up near the old Custom House, or near where the present Custom House now stands. I afterward visited the place three or four times by myself, and Mr. Squire showed me every place, and I observed the same condition of things. Just previous to the 31st of July we were notified by the Mayor to meet at Mr. Squire’s place about eight o’clock in the evening, as Mr. Squire had complied with xn order of the Board, requiring him to put in an appa- ratus for burning the gas generated from the rendering process. There were. present the whole Board of Aldermen, and several other gentlemen. 428 We went through the place pretty thoroughly. In going through the yard I noticed a very bad smell between the boiler-room and the place where the hogs seem to come down an inclined plane. In that yard we experienced a pretty bad smell, at least I did. The experiment seemed to be a failure, as far as the burning of the gas was concerned. I could not see any burning of it at all. I was there till about nine o’clock, and then went away. The next: day I saw the Mayor, and he told me that after I left the experiment was successful. In order to satisfy myself, I went down there that evening, or the evening subsequent to that, and saw the process, and at that time there was no bad smell whatever. The gas seemed to be perfectly consumed. There was a bright blaze, and everything seemed to be right. Q. To what, sir, do you trace the offensive odors that prevail in the neighborhood? A. So far as I could judge from my investigation there, they came from the basins. There was this hog smell, of course, that I have mentioned. They came from the basins ; whether they came from other establishments near by, I could not say. I ought to have said that going home that evening I took a car on Cambridge Street, and went in a westerly direction toward my home, and there was a pretty offensive smell on the way down in the car. IJ remember a lady spoke about it particularly. At that time the wind was southeast, and was blowing from the car toward Mr. Squire’s establishment, therefore I did not attribute that very bad smell to him. I think that the principal cause is the condition of these basins, and also the ditches or open places on the marsh, like Broad Canal, some near the House of Correction, near the Grand Junction Railroad, and possibly some of these other estab- lishments; I could not say about that. So far as I have observed, I don’t trace anything to Mr. Squire’s establishment, or to North & Mer- riam’s. Q. Now take Boston and Charlestown. Do you know about the seats of pollution in these places? A. Yes, sir. I have given some attention to that. Iam quite satisfied that Boston is putting into Charles River. an enormous amount of filth. After putting in the changes which have been made in regard to the disposition of water-closet matter, privies, etc., within the last few years, since the introduction of water, that all goes into the river, while formerly it was carried off in carts from Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Charlestown, and there is an immense mass of that material poured into the'river. @. Have you made any estimate of the number of individuals that. contribute to the contents of the river? A. Not carefully, but I should say at least 100,000. Q. Well, Mr. Harding, you were in London in 1860 and in 1872. Did you notice the condition of the Thames River at those two periods? A. I did. I took particular occasion to observe it in 1872, because I remembered it very well as it was in 1860, previous to the establishment of that system of sewers which they have established there since. : @. How did you find the river? .A. The river at that time was about the color of coffee with which there had been no milk mixed. It was very offensive, not only to the eye, but to the sense of smell. I suppose it is a well-known fact that don’t require any testimony, that the condi- tion of the Thames was perfectly abominable at that time. In 1872 the condition of that river was very different. It looked more like a river, 429 more as it did above the city. At Richmond and those places above the city, the river is comparatively pure; not perfectly pure, but com- paratively pure, and the appearance of it at London was more like that. There is no offensive smell there. Q. Well, sir, what is your expectation as to the removing of the dreadful nuisance and bad odors in the vicinity of Miller's River upon the filling of the flats and the completion of the sewer? 4. lam con- vinced that when that filling is completed, and the sewer is finished, that then at least we shall know where the smells come from. At present there is in the minds of some people a great deal of doubt about it ; but when this sewer is completed and the basin is filled, there can then be no doubt about it. The odors can be traced. Q. As a member of the Board of Health of Cambridge, is it your opinion that the health, comfort, and convenience of the community require the suppression, at the present time, of the Squire establish- ment? A. I have felt that question pressing on my mind a great deal the last year. The matter has been before the Council all through the year, and I have felt it my duty to investigate it in the most thorough manner possible, for the purpose of deciding in my own mind that ques- tion. I felt constrained, under all circumstances, not to vote- for the suppression of this establishment, — did n’t do so, — and hold that opin- ion still. I would say, in regard to another great city in Great Brit- ain, that there was placed in my hands the official report of the Commis- sioners appointed to investigate the cause of the offensive odors in the city of Glasgow, which were very great.. The report seemed to be there as it is here with regard to Miller’s River. The Chairman. You have visited this establishment at other times than when specially invited? .A. Yes, sir. I took pains to do that, be- cause I did not know but that there might be some preparations made when gentlemen were invited. I found it running always in about the same way. Q. Are you editor of the Cambridge Press? A. I am, sir. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Harding, in London on the Thames in 1860, did you notice the boys playing in the mud on the banks of the stream 1 A. I don’t remember that. Q. They call them mud-larks. I was going to ask you what the effect was upon those boys, if there were any ? The Chairman. Pardon me, but of what advantage is this ? Mr. McIntire. None, but it has been put in, and I don’t know why I cannot ask a question about it. Q. Did you notice any smell away from the banks of the river? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did you notice any discoloration of the houses near the bank ? A. The houses in London are always colored. They are very smoky. @. You say you have given considerable attention to the sewerage around Boston and Cambridge. You have written up the matter some- what for the “Press,” have you not? A. I have considered it as a matter of local interest, and I have done all I could in that way, of course. 430 Q. Did you write it up entirely on this account, or was it done to benefit Mr. Squire, or any of these establishments ? Mr. Harding. J don’t know what you mean by that. - Mr. McIntire. I mean whether, as editor of the Press, Mr. Squire has employed you to search into these things, and write articles upon the subject ? Mr. Harding. He has not. Mr. McIntire. Or has paid for articles put in ? Mr. Harding. He has not. I think at one time he paid for the pub- lication of the argument of his counsel. Nothing beyond that ; and that I had nothing to do with. I am not the publisher. Mr. Squire may have advertised in the paper. I am not interested in the paper in any way, except as an editor. I have no pecuniary interest beyond my stipend. Q. You say Mr. Squire has put in an apparatus, obedient to the com- mands of the Board of Health? Then the Board of Health did direct him to put this apparatus in by some official action? A. Yes, sir. The Committee on Health reported that it should be done. I think they had seen the apparatus. Q. When was that order passed? A. I cannot remember. It was in June or in July of the present year. It was the 31st of July that we went down there. I think the time was short. Q. But the Board of Health thought it necessary for such an appa- ratus to be put in, and so reported ; and the order was adopted, and it finished the investigation? A. I thought that Mr. Squire ought to be required to do everything that .he could to prevent this nuisance. If there was anything that he had contributed or was contributing to it, that he should stop it. Q. Do I understand you that when you make up your mind that the health, comfort, and convenience of the people do not. require the removal of the establishment, —do I understand that you mean to say that the establishment does not generate any bad odors? Or do ‘you mean that the people should bear the odors for the sake of the taxation, or for the sake of the business which is there carried on? A. Well, I don’t think they should bear such odors as they have borne. But I don’t feel at all satisfied that Mr. Squire has contributed to such odors to that extent and in the way that has been described. I think formerly his establishment was probably carried on in a careless manner. If I re- member, Mr. -Parker, in his Report two or three years ago,—I was looking it over last evening, —said that there was almost everything in the basin ; and I have no doubt that Mr. Squire contributed his share. I will state that my preferences were all against Mr. Squire before I went down there; but when I saw how the thing was, I began to look into it more carefully. Q. You discovered any of these odors arising from the establishment ? A. Not that I remember. This odor on the 31st of July which was so much complained of, I remember it still, because I was coming down in a car, or rather going up to Old Cambridge; and I remember the odor, and the lady’s speaking of it in a very indignant way. I also remember that the wind was blowing southeast. Q. What time? A. At nine o’clock. : Q. Then, if I understand you, if you should be convinced that the odors complained of by the people of Somerville, East Cambridge, Bos- 431 ton, and Charlestown were proven conclusively to your mind to emanate largely from the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co., you don’t think that the people should stand it, and do think that the establishment should be removed? A. Well, sir, I should say that everything ought to be done in the first place to remedy the evil. And when it is found, if ever it is found, it should be remedied if it is possible ; and if it cannot be remedied, and it is complained of, I should put an end to him right off. I have always said so, and I will always stand by it. Q. Whether if it should not extend as far as Charlestown or Boston, but should affect the people of East Cambridge? -A. I think the people of Ward 3 have their rights, and they should be maintained. I would do it with the utmost caution. JI would be absolutely snre that the odor came from that place. I would be absolutely sure that he could not put a stop to it. If he could, I would make him do it. Q. But if you could not make him do it, I suppose your opinion would ‘still be the same? A. Yes, sir, of course. The Chairman. Did you trace the origin of that which you smelt on the 31st? I think you said you went into the yard, and smelt something which was very bad? A. I have no donbt that originated on his premises, but I could not say. I think that ought to be qualified with an explana- tion. They said that at that time the apparatus was not in working order. I went around the next evening, and found this gas burning, and no smell accompanying it. Q. (by a member of the Board). Was the air very still on the 31st? A, Yes, sir; what wind there was was very light. A, Is it not possible that there was a current of air above the lower current moving in another direction? A. That is often the case. This was a heavy damp evening, — one of the heavy evenings we have during dog-day weather, — with the wind light from the east, I think, all day ; and in the evening it settled around to southeast, and finally to south. Q. Is it not a common thing that the air moves in a different direction above than below? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was very slight this night? A. Yes, sir; it was very light from the southeast. Q. Do you think it was possible for the offensive odors to have arisen from the neighborhood of these basins or slaughtering establishments, and been carried up into a higher current by the atmosphere, and carried over toward Boston, and settle down as they gradually could, and then be taken back again? A. I don’t know what the possibility might be ; that is not for me to say. So far as I ascertained, it came from the direc- tion of Boston. How it got there, I don’t know. There are plenty of causes on the Boston side for that. Q. Was it the rendering odor that you smelt that night, or the dock odor? .A. I was not able to trace it. I have said before that it reminded me very much of the smell of Long Wharf. @. That year? A. Yes, sir, as well as on a former occasion which I have spoken of. There is a very bad place there at the southeast of East Cambridge House of Correction. Q. Could you trace these smells any great distance in old times? A. No, sir. Q. Have you been able to smell exactly the same smell that you got at the dook? A. I could not say. 432 Testimony oF Watson B. Hastines. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Where do you live, Mr. Hastings? A. In East Cambridge. Q. How long have you lived there? .A. Forty-three years. Q. Were you born there? A. No, sir; I was born on Cape Cod. Q. Have you been a member of the city government of Cambridge 1 A, J have. Q. Both Councilman and Alderman? A. I have. Q. Now, sir, come right to the matter. What do you know about the origin of the Miller's River nuisance? 4. J have been acquainted with the river from a boy. J have lived near the corner of Sixth and Cambridge Streets for twenty-five years. The first observable trouble came, I think, from the building or filling of Bridge Street and making the culverts, and also the running of the Fitchburg Railroad across the culverts at angles with the street, making these basins — especially the third or upper basin —open cesspools, which received the drainage of the whole territory. You need not take my testimony only in regard to that, for it will com- pare pretty closely with that of Captain Cunningham, who is thoroughly acquainted with the facts. As far back as 1855 and 1856, during that time along there the upper part of the basin was a nuisance. Another noticeable fact was that when these culverts were put in, the bottoms of the culverts were several feet above the bed of the stream. Now the mud has filled up, so that I think they are about level. Before the change was made the material that flowed in there would not all flow out. Q. To what do you trace the bad’odors that prevail? .A. Perhaps I could tell by going back and giving a little of my experience which led me to inquire into the cause of it. Q. I will ask you if you have been a Boarding Officer at the Custom House? A. I was appointed Boarding Officer at the Custom House in 1860, and held that position about eight years, and during three years of that time was on duty both day and night. Our boat was kept on the south side of the dock there. Our attention was early called to the effect of the sewage of one of the sewers that came into the dock there. Our boat-house was on the south side, and at the high course of tides, which run out generally two feet more than the lower tides, it would leave one half perhaps of the dock bare, — that was before Atlantic Avenue was built, — and the odors arising from it were very offensive. : The Chairman. We all agree upon that point. If you will please speak of this particular nuisance it will be much better. Mr. Hastings. Well, if you would let me tell in a few words how my attention was called to it from that fact, that before being elected to the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Health I got men on the Board of Health to look at the open sewers which we had in our vicinity. The Otis, Thorndike, and Cambridge Street sewers emptying on the marsh formed an open cesspool from north to south, almost from Broad Canal and across to Cambridge Street. Then we commenced upon this, and after considerable work had it covered up. When that had been done, Mr. Squire, by building between Cambridge Street and Gore Street, covered one of the most offensive places where the old Cambridge Street sewer came in. What first led my attention to the effects of sewage was the effect which I myself suffered in our boat at this dock by the Custom 433 House. I was made sick one night, and the doctor who attended me said we must lay out of that dock. I noticed that the offensive odors which came from the marsh during this year came from the direction of the sewers ; and I think the inhabitants will testify that these main sewers which open into empty ditches upon the marshes were the occasion of it. I believe, from my examination of the subject, that the sewage from the different establishments, the sewage from the thousands of water-closets since the introduction of Fresh Pond and Mystic water into Cambridge and Somerville, have had the effect to make an open cesspool of the basins, and have been the main cause of the trouble. Q. Have you been into Mr. Squire’s establishment? 4. I have been there officially as one of the Board of Aldermen and as an insurance man, because I have done some insurance for Mr. Squire. Also, in doing insurance on the Brighton Abattoir I have had occasion to visit that. I have visited it myself, and have taken per- haps some twenty or thirty different travelling agents there to examine sit, who, after thorough examination, found nothing existing that would make a nuisance as objectionable to subject of insurance. I have never found anybody who has been there who ever saw inside the place any- thing which he considered a nuisance to affect it as far as insurance is concerned. I never had a policy cancelled on that account. The same with regard to the one at Brighton. I see nothing there which I think could not be done at Mr. Squire’s with the same apparatus. I think that is as nearly perfect as anything could be of the kind. I can- not see, nor can my former partner, who does a great deal there, — and we have compared notes together, —I cannot see anything that is done at the Brighton Abattoir that could not be done at Mr. Squire’s. I put on some $ 20,000 at the Brighton Abattoir place last week. Q. We have heard your statement about Mr. Squire’s establishment. Please state whether or not the unpleasant odors that prevail in that neighborhood, in your opinion, come from it? A. I don’t think that the odors which have prevailed there and which have been described here have come from the work which is carried on. Previous to a year ago last June, I think, Mr. Squire rendered tallow there for a party in Boston. At that time it was transferred from his establishment ; and I transferred some of the policies I had on it to a party in Roxbury. I have a number of places in Boston which I insure where rendering is done. I think there is nothing, so far as rendering is concerned, that is objectionable, especially if they use the coil and the close tanks as the Boynton Packing Company use. I think they use more offensive matter at Brighton than here. [ think if they can overcome what they have at Brighton they can over- come what they have here. I would state, with regard to the preju- dice which exists there, — I happened to be at home on the evening of the 3lst of July, and about fifteen minutes past nine o’clock my wife, who has been an invalid for eighteen or twenty years, remarked, ‘“ What a terrible smell there is!” I went around to the rear windows on the east side, and it was coming in through those windows. It smelt as if a thousand water-closets were being stirred up at once. It was a tremen- dous smell and was coming from the flats ; it was during the low course of tides: I think the tide the second day was the lowest of all the year, and left the flats bare. This was coming in with a southeast wind. I judged of the wind by noticing that the curtain at the west window 28 « 434 blew out and that at the east window blewin. The odor was very strong, coming from Charles River, and we closed the windows at fifteen minutes past nine o’clock. The Chairman. Was the tide quite low at that time? A. I should judge that it was low water about eight or nine o’clock. I judge of the second day, because I was at Wier River, and left there at the usual time on board the Rose Standish, at about quarter past eight o'clock, and we got aground between tides on the river. The common remark on board was, ‘‘ This is as bad as Miller’s River.” Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Did the odor you got at Nantasket resemble the odor of Miller's River? A. It was not so intense. It was the same pungent smell, and the passengers very generally remarked that it was as bad as Miller’s River. It was the dock smell, and was owing to the low state of the tide and the peculiar state of the atmosphere. Q. What do you look for as the effect of the building of the sewer and the filling of the basins? A. When the famous Oxford Street sewer was built to the mouth of Charles River I was in favor of running down through Somerville, the natural course of Miller’s River. I was in the’ city government at that time. J think if a main sewer is built and carried out in the water at Bridge Street to strike that current, which is about one hundred feet from the shore, is twenty feet deep, and runs at the rate of four miles an hour, with the whole force of an ebb tide, it would entirely obviate the trouble. In connection with this building of sewers, I will state that, while I was Boarding Officer in the harbor, I remember that the Portland steamships would arrive in that dock in the morning, and that the passengers who arrived at four o’clock were made sick before six -o’clock. Q. Has there been relief by extending the sewer? A. There has cer- tainly ; by carrying’ it to a stronger current. I would state another in- stance with regard to this smell in fixing it in my own’mind. I was on the Charles River one evening. I own a boat, and often row out in the evening. J invited a member of the city government with me one even- ing in July, and we pulled along on the Beacon Street side, where the tide rises above the flats only about a foot. I pulled along and said nothing, and there was a band of music pretty near us. Very soon my friend said, “ Let us get out of this! It is worse than East Cambridge.” The Chairman, It is hardly worth while to go into that. Mr. Hastings. 1 only state that to show that we got the same odor there that we get in East Cambridge. We crossed back, and he said East Cambridge was quite a sweet place. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you think the sewage had anything to do with the smell at Nantasket flats? .4. No, sir. I think the cause of ‘that odor was the decomposition of the clams, worms, and sea-weeds which were piled up by the side of the channel, and which were affected by the action of the sun. Q. Would it not be a greater advantage to have that sewer go out nearer deep water? A. I think it is just as good where there is deeper water. But at Craigie’s Bridge there is more water than at the entrance . tothe harbor. A vessel that could lie at Craigie’s Bridge could not get in to the harbor. 485 Q. I understood you to say in your direct examination that on ac- count of the basin being deeper than the bottom of the culverts there is naturally an accumulation of filth there. Would not that work the same way in this case? .4. Deep stagnant water is different from a deep cur- rent. Q. Well, sewage has organic matter in it which will settle. Do you think that if it was left to fall in a basin that was deeper than its outlet that the current would take the organic matter out over the bottom 4 A. I think it would come out with the wash of the six hours. If you ever tried to row against the current of Charles River you have found that the twenty feet current would carry that sewage out to sea. Q. After it has fallen two or three hundred feet from the mouth of the séwer, do you think it would be carried up over the bottom of the river? A. I have no doubt of it. Q. You are generally conversant with the condition of the houses in Ward Three. Have you noticed the state of the houses on Vine, Charles, Thorndike, and Spring Streets to see whether there is any discoloration there? A. J have not. I have noticed on the south side of Cambridge Street down as far as Second Street, that there was discoloration there. 'Q. Have you noticed it farther down, nearer the bridge? A. Yes, sir ; I have noticed it down to the bridge. Q. To the same extent? A. Yes, sir. More, and to a greater extent there at the end of the wharf at Craigie’s Bridge. There was a light dis- coloration on the night of this very low tide which left some fifteen feet bare at Craigie’s Bridge. Q. Well, you don’t claim that these discolorations came from the oppo- site side of the river? -A. They would come from wherever there was a flat. Q@. It bas been said by Mr. Derby in his argument that these boards were discolored from these gases which come from the Boston side. A, My idea is that these gases come from the dock, for I have seen them bubble up and break in bubbles as large as that inkstand. I con- sider that wherever the flats are exposed at low tide, there the gases are generated. Q. Well, where? .4. There was enough anywhere. There was a sewer then at the bridge, which of course gave them out to some extent, and there is a sewer there near the Lowell Railroad property. Q. You don’t mean to say that these boards were discolored in one, two, or three nights? .4. I say the most of it. I noticed that the most of it was done in that low course of tides, within three or four nights. Q. You didn’t find any discolorations for more than twenty-five feet? A. Because the gas had n’t anything to feed upon. Q. Well, the fence of that building runs, I should say, seventy-five or one hundred feet. The building itself is two stories high, and is painted the same color, and is almost entirely free from discolorations? A. The tide strikes off at this place that is left under the bridge, and this sub- stance very naturally collects there and makes the gas. The Chairman. I wish you would confine yourself more closely to the subject. Mr. Derby. I would suggest that we have five or six witnesses yet to examine. 436 Mr. McIntire. It has been contended that the gas of that night dis- colored everything in that way, and caused the discolorations on Cam- bridge Street. I was only pursuing the inquiry. Q. Have you found any discolorations that were not in the same line as the witnesses for Mr. Squire testify? .4. That block of Mr. Bell’s opposite First Street was considerably discolored from the odor coming up First Street from the sewer of Thorndike and Otis Streets which empties down near Dana’s Wharf. Q. Did you find anything like the discolorations found on Sixth and Cambridge Streets? A. No, sir, because there were no flats bare there. There are four feet of deposit there under the water. Q. Now state what side of your house is discolored? A. My house is painted white, and I have noticed that white paint does not discolor like other kinds. Q. It is quite near Charles River? .4.- It is the nearest of any dwelling-house. There is a large brick building between which would stop the gases from passing to us. I have noticed that at Mr. Squire’s place the houses were not discolored. His buildings broke it off from the basin. @. Was the east side of your house discolored? 4. No, sir, it was not. Q. Might not this smell that you experienced at your house have come from the direction of Mr. Squire’s and struck that brick building and come back to your house? A. No, sir; because I went out on Cambridge Street and walked down toward Mr. Pettingill’s place and satisfied myself that it was coming from Charles River. I knew that it would be cred- ited to Mr. Squire, and I was anxious to see where it came from. @. You have not inquired in regard to the state of those houses on Charles Street? A. I don’t know that I have had occasion to go through these streets since that time. Q. What amount of insurance do you do for Mr. Squire during the year? A. Perhaps to the amount of $200,000 or $300,000. Q. Substantially all that he has? A. No, sir; I don’t do half of it. My former partner in Boston does perhaps more than I do. I have other and larger customers on the other side of this controversy. TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL JACKSON. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you do business? A. In Brighton. Q. You are one of the occupants of the Abattoir? 4. I am. @. What business do you pursue there, sir? Do you supply the mar- ket at all with meat? A. We carry on the slaughtering business, and slaughter neat-cattle. Q. You are well acquainted with the new Abattoir? 4. Yes, sir. @. And are you acquainted with the establishment of Mr. Squire ? A. Yes, sir. 3 , @. Will you state how they compare as respects the processes con- ducted, and the condition of the work? .A. I can state the condition of Mr. Squire’s place when I was there last summer. I had often been asked about the place, and knew nothing about it. Last summer I went to Mr. Squire’s place, and I found the condition of his business what I should call perfect. The sanitary part of our business is conducted on an entirely different principle. I found that his offal was put into tight 437 wagons and carted away, and also his blood. I examined thoroughly the place where the blood was received, — and that in slaughtering we always find to be the most offensive, especially in warm weather, — and I could discover no waste of the blood. There was a little spattered out, per- haps a quart or such a matter. : The Chairman. I suppose the Board is well acquainted with the pro- ” cesses at the Abattoir. Mr. Derby. I want to show that the same precautions are taken here as at the Abattoir. Q. With regard to anything that runs into the stream, is there any comparison that you could make? .A. I could not say as to Mr. Squire’s establishment. I have no knowledge of that. Q. How is it with your own with regard to anything going into the stream? A. Well, our washings go into the river. Q. As respects the offal? 4. The matter is taken every day before it is decomposed into the digester, and the fat and grease is taken out of it, and the residue of the scrap goes into the apparatus and becomes a fertilizer which looks like ground coffee. That is done within the space of twenty-four hours. Q. How is it with regard to tallow at your place? A. We render that to a considerable extent. Mr. Reardon renders a large amount of tallow there at the present time. Q. That is tallow collected in other places? A. I think the tallow that he renders there is partly taken from our establishment in its pure state. There is nothing allowed there of an offensive nature. It is under the restrictions of the State Board of Health. Q. With regard to any precaution taken with regard to liquids, sir; are there any liquids that come from the rendering of tallow? A. I think the liquid is always condensed and goes away. The Chairman. We are all acquainted with the Abattoir. It is hardly worth while to go into any explanation of it. Mr. Derby. Very well. You may confine yourself to a comparison be- tween the two. Whether there are any processes at the Abattoir that are not in substantial operation at Mr. Squire’s? A. Well, sir, there is no comparison in a sanitary point of view, because the offal is entirely carted away from Mr. Squire’s establishment, while we make ours into a fertilizer. So far as regards his business and the manner of conducting it, it is perfectly conducted, I think. Mr. Derby. That is all that I have to ask you. Trstimony oF Wiiu1am Buss. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Are you Superintendent of the Freight Depart- ment of the Boston and Albany Railroad? A. I am Manager of the road. The Chairman. Pardon me, but what do you propose to show by this witness 4 Mr. Derby. understand the question is submitted whether the con- venience of the public demands the removal of this establishment. That is one of the questions, I understand. I am going to confine him entirely to the question of convenience in the supply of food for the Boston market. I will ask him what the effect of the removal of this establish- 438 s ment would be upon the convenience of supplying provisions for the markets of the city of Boston? A. I can only say what I think the general effect would be if Mr. Squire moved off the line of a road where he has the choice of two or more. Q. With regard to the effect of interrupting him, whether, sir, it would break up the business? A. I think the effect would be to very seriously interrupt him, and perhaps to break up the establishment altogether. Q. As to the arrangement made between Mr. Squire and the road? A. He has a rate which is dependent upon New York, and in order to ‘get at that — Mr. McIntire. Jt seems to me that he is testifying as to his own convenience. Mr. Derby. Not at all. It is a question of price. It is whether he will pursue the business. Mr. Newhall. The whole question would resolve itself into what would be the effect of removing this establishment farther from the city and farther from railroad convenience upon the price of meat. Mr. Derby. Very well. (To Mr. Bliss.) You may state that. Mr. Bliss. It would be to increase the price of transportation. Q. Would it injure the business, in your opinion? —A. So far as the export trade is concerned it would, at least. Q. Do you think.there would be a risk of losing that trade? 4. I should think there would be serious loss. Q. Where would the competition be? Where would it go? Whether it would be driven back to Chicago, the West, or to New York? .4. It is only very recently that this business has been done here. Q. Then as I understand you, sir, the effect of breaking up the busi- ness here would be to jeopardize the interests of the business? 4. In my opinion it would, unless he could find some other place equally as advantageous. : Q. Well, there are peculiar facilities in this place, sir. He has the advantage of making rates for transportation of freight directly to the steamer at a very small additional cost over the rate to New York. He pays five cents on freight more than is paid to New York. He gets some advantage in cartage, and can so compete with New York packers. And his advantage as to position enables him ‘to overcome that? A. I should Bay 80. Q. Well, sir, the facilities that can be given him are important ? A, So far as the export trade is concerned. Q. Well, sir, as respects the supply of the Boston market? A. Well, I suppose the market would be supplied at some price. - @. But his proximity to the market gives him an advantage with regard to supplying the market at the lowest price? A. I should say 50. Q. Will you have the kindness to state, aside from the export trade conducted through you, how much it has increased? A. I am unable to say how much. The receipts of hogs perhaps would come nearer to it. The Chairman. I don’t know that it is worth while to go into that. Mr. Derby. I will ask him no more, questions beside. , 439 Mr. Bliss. I.think there were only about eleven hundred cars in 1870, and there have been six thousand this year. Mr, Newhall. What particular portion of the business? .4. From the West to the establishments of the packers in East Cambridge. Q. That is a large increase? A. Yes, sir, very large. I should think that according to an average estimate he had taken half of the Cunard steamships. Possibly more. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you say that he pays five cents more for transportation here than they do in New York? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, is that enforced? A. Certainly, sir. Q. Don’t you have a lower rate? A.: No, sir. Q. Well, the effect of this removal would depend upon where the re- moval should be? A. Doubtless it would. Q. Well, I suppose your road is desirous of keeping him on its line as much as possible? A. Certainly. ; : ; se You don’t have any personal interest in this matter? A. No, sir; on’t. Q. I understand that you have said that some one would be sued at the end of this investigation for bringing it forward? A. I never made such a remark. A gentleman remarked to me that he thought it was a question of damages, and I told him I supposed it was. I said if it were my case I should sue for damages. That was only a private opinion, however. TrsTIMONY OF EpwarD. KENDALL. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Whether you have held the office of Alderman in Cambridge, and are in that position to-day? A. I have, and am, sir. Q. Are you a member, and have you been, of the Committee on Health? A. T have been, sir. Q. Your occupation is what? A. I am a constructing machinist. Q. I will ask you whether you have been, in the position of Alderman as one of the Board of Health, engaged in any investigation in regard to these smells? .A. I have, sir. I have been there several times in the last three years ; first, in 1871. The Chairman. We have had testimony in regard to this. Mr. Derby. Certain intimations have been made that the votes of this Board on this question were for political effect. Mr. McIntire. That has been ruled out. The Chairman. I don’t know that the whole Board of Aldermen of Cambridge should be called upon. I think we have decided once that they should not be called. Mr. Derby. We are going into some explanation with regard to this machine by the gentleman who constructed it. I was asking him as a preliminary whether he made any investigation. I understand that he has said that he has ascertained that the smells did not come from — The Chairman. We don’t want to go into the matter of machinery. We don’t wish to settle upon the point whether the machinery is good. 440 The question is whether he has any testimony to give further than we have already got in regard to the so-called objectionable features of Mr. Squire’s establishment. Mr. Derby. I propose to ask him whether he is responsible for this machine ; whether it works perfectly now, and carries off and consumes the gases. The Chairman. We have had evidence upon that. Mr. Derby. We have had the evidence of an inferior class of witnesses. Here is the builder of the machine, and I want to ask him whether it is perfect or not. 4 Mr. Newhall. Ask him whether it effects its object. The Chairman. Of course he would say it was perfect. Mr. Derby. I am not sure of that. I will risk the question, however. » @Q. Will you have the kindness to say whether it effects its object, — whether it consumes the gases? A. I think it does. Q. Have, you examined it while in operation? A. Yes, sir; we have put ina branch pipe that comes out into the open air, with a valve, to shut the gas off, so that we may apply a match to the gas, and set it on fire. Q. I wish to ask whether the gases are consumed? A. Well, sir, the flame, when the machine is in full operation, is a foot wide and six feet long. Q. Is ita perfect combustion? A. It seems to be. Also, when the gas is burned through the branch pipe outside, the flame, I should say, would rise up as high as six or seven feet. Q. Well, whether it is a possible thing that these gases which are car- ried in through the furnace can be carried up through the chimney and distributed through the open air; and give offence, as now conducted ? A. I think they could be, unless, perhaps, they are run through gasoline in passing, to make it inflammable. Another method of burning it is used in several places, which is to blow it under the grate and have it come up through the fire. When there is a good, bright, clean fire, I have no doubt it consumes it all; but sometimes it happens that there is a large place of coal consumed, perhaps a foot square, and there would be but very little coal. Whether the sulphur of the coal would destroy the gas, or whether there would be heat sufficient, there might be a question. Q. That is where it goes in without gasoline? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where it goes with this gasoline, and is mingled with it, and is carried into the furnace, it has, as far as you have observed, been per- fectly consumed, and the process will prevent its being diffused in the atmosphere and making its effects objectionable? A. I have no doubt that it is a perfect combustion. : The Chairman. Have you any proof of it? A. The proof is ‘this: when we close the valves that allow the gas to go into the furnace, and allow it to come out into the room and be burned there, we discover no smell. If it comes into the room without burning, it creates an in- tense odor. The man who invented this process burns the gas in his own parlor, and uses it to light his establishment. 441 Q. (by a member of the Board). Could not that be ignited readily before it was charged with gasoline? A. We never have tried it. At least I have not. The Chairman. You have made no chemical analysis to prove that these gases are burned? A. I know that before it is ignited there is an “a odor about it, and after it is ignited there is no odor. Q. (by Mr. Derby. y I will ask you in regard to the condensed steam that . yy goes off through the ptpes, — what quantity passes off? A, Itis very small. The gases are taken off into a small pipe from the large tank. These valves are merely opened to let off the gas, and not to let off the steam; because it would take so much live steam from the boilers to supply the heat in the tank that there would be a great waste of steam if all these tanks were open. @. Let me ask you whether a quarter of an inch pipe would carry all that water, in your opinion? A. There are four tanks connected with it. I should say that when the four tanks were in operation a half-inch pipe would carry all four. Q. So that’ the quantity from each must be very inconsiderable. It is simply the condensed steam. Could it be enough, if carried into the water, to effect any unpleasant odors? A. I don’t think it could. , * @Q. Whether you are making close tanks to take the place of open kettles? A. We are, sir. Q. You made the machine at the Abattoir. It is different from this, is it not? A. It is different. The condenser at the Abattoir is a tank about eight feet long by four feet in diameter. Q. I will ask you whether gasoline is there mingled with the gases ? A. No, sir; the gas is consumed under the grate. Q. The ‘combustion then is not so perfect as with this machine? A. I cannot say it is so perfect. I should not think it would be likely to be. With a good bright fire it might be perfect. Q. At the time the very strong smell was perceptible in Cambridge, about the 31st of July, did you visit any of the sewers in Boston? A. I did. I could not say whether it was the next morning after the 31st of July, but it was soon afterward. I was told in East Cambridge that there was an exceedingly strong smell from Mr. Squire’s establishment, and I said it could not be. I had been there, and knew there was no smell except when the machine was first put in operation. I don’t know, but I hardly believe that many people know the cause of the odor at the time that experiment was tried. The Chairman. You admit that it was timpabfeciton of the machine, and that afterward it went well? A. Yes, sir; but I wish to give the cause of the odor at that time. Between the coil and the purifier there is a pipe, a half-inch pipe, that comes up with a valve so arranged that people may try the gas. The Chairman. We have heard that before. Mr. Kendall. It was told me that the tank was nearly free from gas; that they commenced very early to exhibit the gas, and there was very little left. I told them that I thought they had better shut the valve so + + » that the gas might collect in the tank. There was some mistake, so that the steam was shut off and there was very little pressure. The flame at that time was very short, not more than three or four inches long. We opened this valve to see whether there was any pressure there, and 442 kept it open to see if it didn’t come from the pipe, or somewhere else. We did n’t know what the trouble was for some time, and the gas escaped into the room. Afterward we found that the steam was shut off from the tank and we opened the valve and let it on, and it burned readily. Mr. Derby. I will refer you to Boston. You were going to say some- thing about the sewers of Boston. ‘ Mr. Kendall. I looked around to see if I could satisfy myself where these smells came from. I came over to Boston and went out toward Brookline and all around there. I saw that the door-plates all along the street toward the Milldam were all black as in East Cambridge. I went on up toward Roxbury, to the outlet of a sewer that comes down from Stony Brook. As I went along up I saw a large sewer made of stone, and near by I met a man with whom I spoke about sewers. Q. The stench was powerful about there; wasit? A. Yes, sir. I told him I had come there to examine, and he told me they had experienced them around there and he thought if it was any worse in East Cambridge than there, it must be pretty bad. While we were talking the superin- tendent of sewers came along, out of the sewer. I went up to him and was talking with him when he took out his watch, and it had been turned black. J asked him how that came so. : The Chairman. J don’t know what the purpose is in pursuing this in- vestigation any further in this direction. It seems to me to be a waste of time. ; Mr. Derby (to Mr. Kendall), That is sufficient on that point. I will ask you whether you are on the committee in charge of the drains of Cambridge? A. I am chairman of that committee. Q. I will ask you whether there is any difficulty in draining from these works down to Craigie’s Bridge, so as to carry off any liquids that come from this establishment? .A. I should not think there was, sir. I think that so far as the liquid matter that is turned into the drain is concerned, that could be very easily extracted from it by running the liquid through a filter of sand or charcoal. Q. Well, is there fall enough to carry off the liquids? .A. The fall in the new drain is three quarters of an inch per one hundred feet. Mr. Derby. That is much greater than the fall of our great rivers. The fall of the Ohio is, I think, only twelve inches per mile. _ Mr. Kendall. The water that comes from Brookline, about four miles, has a fall of only one foot in ten thousand feet, or about one foot in two miles. That is sufficient to bring the water from the aqueduct. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). On the night of the 31st of July did you have a trap in that machine such as has been marked out upon the board } A. No, sir; we had a siphon, but no trap. Mr. McIntire. I asked several of Mr. Squire’s men that question and they said they had. Mr. Kendall. There was something better than that trap. There was a siphon two inches in diameter, the longer arm being, I think, five feet. Q. There was a valve there somewhere. Didn't a great deal of odor come out of that valve? A. The odor came out of the pipe that was put up for people to try the gas, Q. Then, if I understand you, the odors of that evening of July 31 443 were largely due to the letting off of gas through these valves? .A. The odors that were there I attribute to that, but the odors in East Cam- bridge and in other places I do not. Q. You heard Mr. Harding speak of the smell in the yard? A. Yes, sir. Every person that went down through the building was obliged to go almost directly over this, so that they would be just in position to get all this.gas. Q. Well, it was pretty offensive, was it not? A. Yes, sir. : Q. You have done work more or less for this establishment? -A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever have an instance of a man who was at work on some of the pipes being made sick so that he had to leave? A. No, sir, I never heard of it. When we built the tanks on the opposite side, at the oil place above Merrill’s, nearer North & Merriam’s, there were two of them that were obliged to go home. Q. You were a member of the city government in 1872, and were one of that committee that drew up that report? A. No, sir; I was not one of the Committee on Health last year. But you were a member of the Board of Aldermen, and of the Board of Health? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you seen anything, or do you know of anything that has been done by Mr. Squire which would remove a nuisance if one were found there, since that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is it? A. In the first place there have been two close tight tanks introduced for rendering matter, in the place of open kettles. An- other improvement has been the removal of the offal in tight carts every day. Q. How many close tanks did he have at the time of the hearing before the Board of Health in 1872% A. I think he had two. Now he has four. Mr. Derby. And has three more building. Q. Was it not before that time that they had put in these tanks and this other apparatus? A. No, sir; I think it was since then. Q. (by Mr. Frothingham). You have testified that this machine which you have built now does its work perfectly. How long has it done its work so perfectly? A. I think always since that first night when the operation was not successful for a few minutes, so far as gas is concerned. So far as the using up of the water is concerned it does not have any effect upon it any more than to condense it in the same way that it is done at the Abattoir, at Mr. Winchester’s, and at every other place I know of except Mr. Usher’s. Mr. Frothingham. I simply want an answer to the question I put. I merely asked you how long it has done its work perfectly. Mr. Kendall. Ever since the commencement, — that night, I think. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). In the hearing before the Board of Health last year, don’t you remember that Mr. Squire testified that the apparatus which he then had in connection with a tank to get rid of the vapors was as perfect as anything could be made; and that he said all the odors were taken care of? .A. That was supposed to be perfect at the time. Q. Well now do you think he was wrong or mistaken in his idea? A. I think it was only condensed then, the same as it is at North & Mer- riam’s. It was a thirty-inch boiler. 444 Q. Never mind that. Whether he did n't as strongly contend there for that machine as he contends here for this? -A. I don’t think that he contended as strongly. Q. Well did n’t he contend as strongly by his witnessess that he got rid of his gases as surely as he does now? I am speaking of his position at that time, and not of what he did. ..A, I will tell you what his position was then; it was that these gases went into the water and were so diluted that they were not offensive. Q. Well, he contended that he thoroughly disposed of all the gases. _ Did n’t he say that it was a better machine than that used by North & Merriam? A. North & Merriam used the same thing. Mr, Muzzey. I think you misapprehend: you are speaking of the showering-machine, and Mr. Kendall of the machine which discharged under the building. 4 Q. (by Mr. McIntire). It had recently been put in, had n't it, and the pipe extended to tide-water? Did n’t he contend that the machine did entirely dispose of all the gases? .A. It was contended that they were disposed of in this way. , Q. Well now I understood you to say something about the coal in the furnace, that it might have some effect upon the burning of the gases. Do you think that fresh coal being put on in the furnace would affect the burning of the gas which comes through in that pipe so that it would escape up the chimney without being burned? -A. When coal is put on fresh a great deal of sulphur is excluded from it. English engineers claim that that sulphur destroys the gas. Q. It would put the fire out, would it not? A. No, sir. “The sul- phur mixing with the gas ‘would destroy it. Q. You don’t know whether fresh coal would have the effect to destroy the fire or not? @Q. It would if the fire was low and a large quantity of coal was put on at once. Q. Haven’t you given it as your opinion that that machine leaked all or a greater part of the night of the 31st of July? A. Not a particle leaked except what came from that valve, not that I discovered. I don’t think any escaped except when I opened it to see whether it would work. 4 Q. (by Mr. Derby). If coal were put into the furnate it would not pre- vent this flame at the end of this pipe from burning? A. It would not affect that-at all. I was only speaking in that connection of the gas as it is discharged under the grate. It would not affect this at all. Trstimony oF Know.ton S. CHAFFEE. Q. (by Mr. Muzey). Youhave been a member of both boards of the city government of Cambridge; a Senator of the Commonwealth; a Repre- sentative, and are at present the President of the Union Horse Railway Company. How long have you resided in Cambridge, and where? A. For sixteen or seventeen years, on Cambridge Street, until within a few mouths. Formerly, and previous to that time, I resided over near Somerville, near Miller's River. : Q. Take your house on Cambridge Street which was exposed toward the establishment, on the northerly side; was that ever discolored 2 A. My house was a brick house, and so is the present one. The wood: work around the door was never discolored. 445 Q. Take your present house, where you have a southerly exposure } A, That I found discolored so badly that it was a prey good job for the painters to scrape it off. Q. How long did you occupy the house on Cambridge Street which had a northerly exposure, which was never discolored? A. Fifteen years. Q. Now, in your official capacity and as a citizen have you followed the cause of this trouble, or the foul odors, and traced them to their source? A. I have taken some pains to look into that. Q. Will you state what you have discovered in connection with those odors, and particularly in connection with the cause and source of them ? A. Go back fully eight years before I moved into Cambridge. I lived in Somerville near the McLean Asylum. To describe it more particu- larly, I lived in a little lot formed like the letter V at the crossing of the tracks of the Boston and Lowell Railroad. *° Q. Where the change has been made? A. Yes, sir. At that time Miller's River basin, back of Mr. Squire’s, was comparatively clean. The Chairman. When was that? A. We moved to Cambridge Street some sixteen or seventeen years ago. The boys went in swimming there, they dug clams there, and everything was comparatively clean, Mr. Merrill was trying lard and tallow there. The Chairman. It seems to me this is too far back for our considera- tion. : Mr, Muzzy. I wish to show where these troubles proceeded from. This witness will be a very valuable one to the Board. Mr. Chaffee. Mr. Merrill was trying lard and tallow there, and there was a great deal of complaint about it. I suppose I have been there with Dr. Bell to remonstrate against the trying of tallow a great many times. Q. Dr. Bell was Superintendent of the McLean Asylum? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Open tanks of course? A. Open kettles, and very offensive. His building that he did the trying in was a very comfortable one inside, was painted, and his house opposite was always kept nicely painted, and the paint was as bright on these buildings as on any- body’s. Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). Not discolored? .A. No, sir. The same region now is all colored. The houses on that basin are colored blue-black. Be- fore I left there, there had begun to be some talk about blood accumulat- ing in there. And after I left I still owned the property, and there was more or less fault found about the blcod being found there. By and by it was seen that the basin was filling up, and in the summer would come the odors. Formerly when I went there it was the dock odor. I hear them talk about the dock odor here. I think that odor is changed. I don’t think it should be called the dock odor unless it is a dock where sewage comes in. It is a different odor than we got from that basin. Mr. Squire had also commenced trying there before I moved away from there, and I sup- pose his blood came in there, and there began to be an accumulation of animal matter. Q. How about the sewage? A. The sewage of Cambridge and Som- erville ran into it, but they didn’t have so many sewers in early days. Since the people began to complain of it, the policy of the government 4416 has been to get the sewage out of Miller’s River, and that has been done to such an extent that very little now enters it. The basin finally got to be so foul that the city of Cambridge attempted to do something to -keep the river clear, and with that idea they built the dam at Bridge Street. Q. What was its effect? It was to keep the water in there, was it not? A. I don’t know. The first I heard of it I was at Union Square, Somerville, in conversation with a gentleman, who said that the com- plaint was, that dead dogs were scattered about there, and there was not current enough to take the filth off. The Chairman. I must object to this line of inquiry. Mr. Muzzey. 1 will pass that. « Q. You have been into Mr. Squire’s establishment, and around it, and have inspected it? .A. Quite a number of times. Q. In what condition have you found it? A. I have always found it very cleanly. Q. In your opinion, from your investigation, do the odors that prevail in East Cambridge come from that establishment or not? A. I don’t believe (this is my judgment) that the people of East Cgymbridge ever smell anything from Mr. Squire’s establishment, more than the trying of sweet lard, which they may get at some particular times. @. What is the source of the bad smell? A. I have never had any doubt about it at all. We have got slight smells from the outside drainage ; I mean outside of Miller’s River, when there has been a cur- rent sufficient to bring them from the south and southeast. But, in my own mind, I feel perfectly sure that the odor that colors the houses, and of which the people complain, comes from Miller’s River and its basins. Q. Have you found any offence from any of these smells except in the immediate vicinity? A. Yes, sir; when I have come down from my office in Harvard. Square, on the last car at night, I have experienced the odor, and, getting up to see where I was, I found myself just this side of Webster Avenue. Q. That is how far from Mr. Squire’s establishment? 4. About one third of a mile. Q. Now, after passing by that and travelling east, getting nearer to Mr. Squire’s establishment, what about the smell? A. We lost it. There was no trace of it when I got down to East Cambridge. Q. In travelling east, toward Boston, you came near to the very walls of Mr, Squire’s establishment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you remember the 31st of July. Was there any smell on that occasion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state what you know about it? .A. I came out of the jail office ; there were four of us, I think, and I stood in the door. . The Chairman. At what time? A. At nine o'clock in the evening. “We perceived an odor there, and one of the parties gaid something, — I don’t remember what it was,— but the inference was, that it was not from Squire’s, because the wind was souther southeast. We knew that there was to be new machinery tried there, and I was hesitating whether I would go down or not, when one of the gentlemen made this remark. Q. Did you observe the direction of the wind? A. Yes, sir; we looked up at the vane. ‘ Q. (by Mr. Muzzy). There was a light wind, but it was enough to turn 447 the vane? A. There was a southerly wind all day. I urged the matter of going out to see whether that odor came from Mr. Squire’s or not, and having a view of the new machinery. Two of the party would not go. Captain Adams and myself went. I would say that the moment the gentlemen spoke of this smell, when I was standing in the door, I did n’t perceive it. As I got out on the sidewalk I caught it. It appeared to me that it was not a rendering smell. Mr. Adams said he would go up with me, and we started to walk up. We lost it all before we got by the Court House. We went up to the establishment, saw a great many people there, and saw what was professed to be the burning of the gas, and came home and went to bed. The smell did n’t affect me. Q. You slept in 4 room facing the north? A. No, sir; my room faces the east. Well, within a week after that, probably within that time, on a very lowery day with a heavy atmosphere, I was coming down from Harvard Square ; talking with a gentleman who had come to pay me a visit, —a minister who formerly preached for us, we came to speak about this subject. I was noticing the coloring of those buildings every morning as I went by there. : Q. Where were they? A. On the south side of Cambridge Street, near Sixth Street ; we got the awfullest stench there, and the passengers in the cars caught their noses in an instant. I looked right out to Mr. Jones’s house, which looked as though the discoloration had been thrown there in blotches, and I remarked to this minister, Rev. Mr. Spaulding, and said, “‘ No doubt that house is being colored this moment. I can see that it has changed since this morning.” It was a horrid stench. I got down to Fourth Street, near where IJ lived, and I saw the gentleman who had just bought the house, and I told him to go up and see how it had changed since morning. Q. (by a member of the Board). What time of day was this? .A. Some- where from three to five o’clock in the afternoon. I know that I went home earlier than usual, on Mr. Spaulding’s account. Q. Have you heard any of the petitioners who are here before this Board admit that Mr. Squire was not chargeable with the odors of the 31st of July,—any of the petitioners, — anybody concerned in this prosecution against us now? A. Well, on a certain occasion I was talk- ing with three or four gentlemen, and one gentleman —JI don’t know whether one of the petitioners or not — said, ‘“‘ Charlie,” referring to Mr. McIntire — — Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Was that Mr. Coveney? A. Yes, sir. Q. He was one of the petitioners? Mr. McIntire. The gentleman is mistaken, — he is not one of the petitioners. Mr. Chaffee proceeded: He said, “There is no use of talking about laying this thing to Mr. Squire, for I was in Ben McCormick’s back room, and it came in there so perfectly horrible that I hauled the window down and told him to get a light and go out and fix his cesspool, for there must be something the matter with it.” He got the light and went out, and came back and said his cesspool was all right. Mr. Derby. Mr. Coveney was one of the Committee of Ten appointed to prosecute. Mr. McIntire. The gentleman is mistaken again. Mr. Coveney is not a member of that Committee of Ten. 448 Mr. Chaffee. I have got through with these remarks pretty much. Mr. McIntire replied, ‘Well, I will be fair. I will exonerate Mr. Squire’s works from the stench of that night. That undoubtedly came from the basin.” I congratulated Mr. McIntire on what he said, and said I was glad to see him honest and right. Mr. McIntire. Did you doubt his honesty before? A. Well, I don’t know. Without speaking of the history of this question of smell, Mr. Squire has undoubtedly tried there for twelve or fifteen years. But I don’t be- lieve that any person in East Cambridge has supplied the smell. Some- times they have been talking about Miller’s River. I had begun to hear a good deal of fault found on account of the filling up of the basin with accumulated filth, and so it was to be with the rendering if they were allowed to go on; and some would say there were a great many dead hogs in the basin, etc. ; but the real vengeance came down upon John P. Squire’s establishment after the hearing at the State House upon the question of filling up the basin. Mr. Muzey. That is all. The Chairman. Did you trace that horrible smell that you spoke of? A. No, sir, I had no occasion to trace it. I think I can distinguish be- tween the rendering smell, whether it is of putrid matter or fresh, and the smell of that basin. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Well, do you know that it came from the basin ? A, It was perfectly clear that it came from the basin. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Ever since there has been: any complaint against Mr. Squire you have championed him, have n’t you? A. Well, sir, Mr. Squire was a man that I didn’t think much about previously ; I may have spoken to him, but I never had any conversation with him, and I didn’t know him, except by sight, until they began to talk about these basins that are being filled up. As soon as they began to turn the stench from the basin on to Mr. Squire, I found myself taking, very naturally, what I believe to be the true side of the question. He is no friend of mine. Q. He used to do business at your bank? A. No, sir. Q. In past days? A. No, sir. Q. Well, you have since that time defended his cause among the peo- ple? A. I have defended his cause no more than I defend anybody’s cause when I see a pressure being brought to bear on any particular man that I think is bad and wrong. I defended him. Q. Then you say that you were so interested that you took up his case and valiantly defended it? A. I don’t think Mr. Squire hardly knew me, but I answer it plainly and clearly. I defended what I thought to be his right. It was so perfectly conclusive to me. I have no interest in it whatever. ° , : Q. Well, now, in any measures that have been taken against him have n’t you always taken the same position, — for instance, in keeping open the basins? Where certain issues have been brought to bear against him, have not you always taken his side? .4. No, sir, not at all. I think he was all wrong in his opposition to the filling up of the basins. I felt that they should be filled up. 449 Q. Did you want the basins filled up, or did you advocate that? A. Lhad nothing to do with it. I didn’t know for a fortnight that it was going on. Q. Were not your views first in favor of open basins? A. I don’t know that I have any recollections of having anything to do with it. I was not acquainted, as I have said, with Mr. Squire at that time. Q. You were one of the witnesses from the Third Ward in favor of Mr. Squire a year ago before the Board of Aldermen? .A. Yes, sir. Q. And at that time testified substantially as now? 4. I presume 80. Q. I believe that at that time you testified that yourself and wife were in-the country-a large part of the summer season, so that during the hot season you did not experience these terrible odors that we have experienced there? A. I recollect your asking me that question very ingeniously. I think I said I was away about three weeks. @. And your family were away most of the time? A. About six weeks. Q. Last summer how was it? Were your family at home on the 31st? A. No, sir. Q. Were they at home in the hot season? A. I might say they were not. They left in July and came home the Ist of September. Q. Has not the odor affected your wife considerably? A. No, sir, it has not. , Q. Has she complained of the odors much? A. No, sir. @. Has she at all? .A. Yes, sir; we all complained on a certain night. That was during the hearing before the Board of Aldermen. I had com- pany at my house, or one gentleman from the country, and a very strong smell came in upon us, because I had got up a little too much heat in the furnace, and we were obliged to open the windows a little. Q. At what time was that? A. It was during that hearing in the latter part of October, 1872. The case was finished on one side — Mr. McIntire. The case I had special reference to was last summer. Mr. Muzzey. Let him finish. Do not interrupt him. Mr. McIntire. I don’t think it is necessary. Mr. Muzzey. Well, I shall ask him the question, if you do not. Mr. McIntire (to Mr. Chaffee). You may answer it if you please. Mr. Chaffee. It was the strongest kind of a regular sewage smell, and the gentleman said, “ Why, your sewer is coming right up into your house.” Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Then you of yourself never got what is termed the rendering odors at your house? A. I don’t think I ever got the rendering odor at my house. I would not say that I had not. I know sometimes in the streets:of Cambridge we get the rendering odor. My impression is that that rendering odor which we get there, which is the lard odor, we get more in cold weather than in warm. Q. But I mean this rendering odor that is complained of ; the strong, pungent rendering odor. A. If you refer to such an odor, I have not smelt it. , Q. You make it all the basin smell? A. I make it all basin smell. Q. Have you had it recently? A. We have had it two nights since 29 450 this hearing commenced, one night pretty strong. I think that was last Tuesday night. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You speak of one other strong smell, when a gen- tleman said the sewer was coming into your window. What was it? A, Jt was Miller’s River; not quite ‘so intense. I went out into the street and called people’s attention to it. It was so plain that there was no difficulty in distinguishing it. The Chairman. Did you trace it to Miller’s River? .4. Well, sir, the wind was right that way. Q. (by Mr. Derby). It was blowing right from the river? A. Certainly. Nobody can talk about the rendering odor with such a smell as that: around. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Well, have you smelt the rendering smell with it at Thurston’s, on Cambridge Street, near Fourth Street? A. I could not say that I had, but I would not say I had not. Q. Whenever you get that rendering smell it comes lightly? A. It is something we hardly notice. Q. Did n’t you one night,—in order to refresh your recollection, —did n’t you one night, in company with Mr. Hastings, in tracing the rendering odor near Fourth Street, go to the establishment and. find it emanating from there; what you call the pleasant rendering smell? A, Yes, sir; Mr. Hastings came along one evening and met Mr. Sort- well and myself, and said, “Can you smell anything?” We smelt and could not smell anything ; and I said, “If you have got the smell of it, let’s follow it and see where it is.” We went, but were unable to get any smell whatever until we got clear up to Mr. Squire’s place. Q: Mr. Sortwell and yourself could not get any smell of it? A. No, sir; not till we got directly outside. Then Mr. Hastings took us around to Miller’s River, and I think he got smell enough to satisfy him when he got around there. He did n't talk about its being the rendering smell. Q. Don’t you know that Mr. Sortwell has a pecuniary interest in one of these establishments? A. I do not. My impression is that he has not. I think he is interested in one of the slaughtering establishments in a way that would not affect him one way or the other ; that is, he has furnished them a considerable amount of money, for which they have given him good security. All I know is from conversation that I have heard. Mr. McIntire. That is all. Mr. Muzzey. I still have half a dozen witnesses, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we have taken forty or fifty names off our list since yesterday, and have reduced it to the smallest possible number. The Chairman. Will you give us the number and the names of the witnesses ? . Mr. Muzzy. Yes, sir. They are Rev. Mr. McDaniel, Messrs. Alder- men Sawin and McSorley, Mr. Chase, the City Engineer, Mr. John L. Porter, Mr. John H. Stevens, and Mr. J. P. R. Squire. The Chairman. What do you intend to show? Mr. Muzey. Do you mean that I shall take up each witness and state what I intend to show by him? It would take almost as much & 451 time as to call them. It is not altogether cumulative evidence. There are some special facts known to each witness. I should not call in any testimony, simply cumulative. We have done with that. We have every desire on our part to shorten the case. Adjourned. TWELFTH DAY. Monday, December 22, 1873. TESTIMONY oF J. G. CHASE. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you reside? A. In Cambridge, sir. Q. What is your occupation? 4. I am a civil engineer. The Chairman. Anywhere near the establishment of Mr. Squire? A. In Cambridge or in Cambridgeport, so called. Q. How long have you resided there and pursued your occupation 1 A. Since 1859. ; Q. For the last fourteen years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been accustomed, sir, to make surveys for drains? A, Yes, sir, that has been a part of the duties I have had. Q. Some for the city of Somerville, and some for Cambridge? A, Yes, sir. Q. You are familiar with the territory? A. Yes, sir. Q. As to the facility, sir, for making a drain from the point where Mr. Squire carries on his business down to Craigie’s Bridge, that distance. Take the line proposed by the Legislature. A. The distance from Craigie’s Bridge to Cambridge Street is 3,150 feet, I think, and the line is near Mr. Squire’s establishment. Q. From Craigie’s Bridge to Somerville line on Bridge Street; how would that compare with the distance from Mr. Squire’s? A. It is somewhat less. Mr. Squire’s establishment is situated at the place of . the termination of this drain on the Somerville line to the southwest. Q. How much farther would it be to his place? A. Probably not far from five hundred feet. _ Q. Making an aggregate of three thousand six hundred feet? 4. Yes, sir. Q. Well, now, sir, as to the material that is*to be drained from there, can you make an effective drain to carry off the liquids? A. Yes, sir, there is no difficulty about that. The Chairman. The Board admits all that, so far as I know. Mr. Derby. Some suggestions were made, I think, by the Secretary that there would be difficulty in effecting this drainage. If the Board are satisfied on that question I have nothing more to say upon it. Dr. Derby. I referred to the special forms of sewage which would go into the drain. The Joint Commission has fixed certain methods and lines of drainage suited to ordinary sewage, for dwelling and manufactur- 452 ing purposes, without any special reference to special forms of sewage from noxious and offensive trades which it is proposed to carry through there. Mr. Derby. 1 will call his attention to this particular subject. Q. I will ask you whether the condensed steam, the blood and offal being carted off, whether there would be any difficulty in carrying that through the sewer that would be constructed there? .A. Not any, sir. Q. That would be efficient to drain the establishment of J. P. Squire & Co.? A. Yes, sir. . The Chairman. In order to get at the matter definitely I would like to know if he has made any drains connected with just such establish- ments, and knows definitely that the points Dr. Derby made are met. I don’t understand that he does by his statement. Whether he has made any drains in connection with such establishments and can prove to us that he knows about them. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I will ask you whether you have made any drains that have been connected more or less with such establishments? A. I have not. Q. I will ask you with regard to Mr. Sortwell’s place, whether you have made a drain connected with that? A. No, sir. Q. I will then ask you if there is in the liquids from such places as Mr. Squire’s anything more difficult to deal with than the human feces that come down from the water-closets? A. Not to my knowledge- Q. I will ask with reference to this slaughtering-business whether there is anything connected with it as now conducted, the blood and offal being carried away, — whether there is anything to prevent effective drain- age being carried out there? A. Not so far as my observation goes, sir. Q. I would inquire, sir, whether you are the engineer charged by the Commissioners with the construction of the new sewer? A. I am, sir. Q. It would be your idea, would it, sir, to construct it for the requirements of that particular business? You will adapt it to the _ uses it is to accommodate? A. Yes, sir, for that business and for all other businesses. Q. You entertain no doubt that you could make it effective? .A. Not in the least. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). That drain is to empty where, sir? .A. At Craigie’s Bridge. Q. At.what grade? .A. The grade of the drain for the first 4,000 feet is one half of an inch per 100 feet, or 1 foot in 2,500. The remain- ing portion of the distance, extending from the Grand Junction Railroad to Prospect Street is one inch per 100 feet, or 1 foot in 1,250. Q. (by Mr. Derby). For what length is that? A. The full length of the drain is 7,000 feet. The distance from Craigie’s Bridge to the Grand Junction Railroad is 4,250 feet. Q. Well, for that 4,250 feet the grade is 1 foot in 2,500 feet? A, Yes, sir. Q. That is at the rate of 2 feet to the mile? 4. Yes, sir. Q. You gave us the grade of Prospect Street. .4. That was 1 foot in 1,250. It is half an inch in the 100 feet for the first 4,250 feet, and an inch in the 100 feet for the remaining distance. 453 Q. And the mouth of the sewer is at what grade compared with low water? A, It is 3 inches above mean low water. Q. (by Mr. Derby). The mean height of the drain is 8 feet and 4 inches, so that the top of the drain would be 8 feet and 7 inches? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Mr. Chase, does it follow the grade given in Mr. Ball’s report? .A, I think not exactly, but nearly so. Q. It isa little more elevated at the mouth? A. Yes, sir. Q. It is within 3 inches of mean low water? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell me the elevation above mean low water at the bottom of the drain, at the corner of Milk and Prospect Streets? About 6 feet, is it not? A. The total rise of the drain is 4.38 feet. Q. Then the drain must be filled with sea-water at the corner of a and Prospect Streets, 7,000 feet from its opening, at half-tide cer- tainly 4 Mr. Derby. That is, the water must enter, but not fill it? A. Yes, sir. Q. It would be filled at high water at the most elevated point, at the corner of Milk and Prospect Streets, would it not? -A. It would with- out provision being made to prevent the sea-water from running into it, that is, with gates. Q. Well then, if Mr. Squire’s place is about midway, the drain would there be filled much sooner? A. Yes, sir. Q. The sewer there would be filled at three quarters tide, would it not? A. Yes, sir, about three quarters tide. Q. Then, if gates were placed at the opening at Craigie’s Bridge, the sewage, or whatever might be drained into it, would be retained until nearly low water? A. It would be retained until the accumulations in the sewer during the time that the gates were shut by the tide were sufficient to open the gates and allow the matter to be discharged. Q. That would occur probably at what stage of the tide? A. It would depend very much upon the tide. The tide differs so much that it would be difficult to determine. Q. With an average tide? .A4. That would depend upon the head of water, the accumulations in the sewer, and the surface-water in the - sewer. It would be much sooner in wet than in dry weather. Q. Suppose there were no rain? A. Supposing there were no rain at all, it would be about one quarter tide. The accumulation of sewer-water would be quite small independent of anything else. The sewer matter during the tide would not fill the sewer an eighth part full. Q. Well now, in dry seasons, with no rainfall, the sewage would be retained in the sewer until the tide was at what stage? -4. About three quarters out. Then the gates would open and the contents of the sewer would be discharged at low water. Q. The capacity is so great at 8 feet that it would hold a very large amount? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). What is the capacity of the sewer ? Mr. Chase. Do you mean the whole quantity of the sewer itself? Mr. Newhall. I mean the inside-capacity of the sewer. Mr. Chase. It is 8 feet wide and 8 feet 4 inches high. Mr. Newhall. Well, the rise is 4 feet as I understand it? A. Yes, sir, 4.38 feet. Q. Its entire rise would be 12 feet 4 inches? .A. It does not follow this size the entire distance. 14 diminishes at the Grand Junction Rail- road to 7 feet diameter, and at Milk Street to 6 feet diameter. 454 Q. (by Mr. Derby). How with regard to the elevation, sir? Is it car- ried to a higher or a lower level? Do you take this from the top or the bottom? A. This is from the bottom. Q. So that the height would be corresponding. It would be gradu- ally ascending? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then the height at the upper end would be 4 feet and 8 feet and 4 inches, making 12 feet 4inches? And commencing 7 inches above extreme low water, it would be about 13 feet above low water? .A. The top of the drain at the upper end would be 11 feet 3 inches above mean low water. Q. What is the ordinary rise of the tide, sir? A. Ten feet. Q. So that it would be something like a foot above the top of the tide? .A. About 1 foot and 3 inches above the top of the tide. Q. The fall of which you speak corresponds how with the fall of the Aqueduct which brings the water from Buston? A. I could not say, sir. Q. How does it correspond with the fall of the great rivers of the country? Take the Ohio. A. It is much greater. Q. It is sufficient, is it not, sir, to carry off the drainage? .A. Yes, sir. Q. You apprehend no difficulty, sir, with regard to the gates? I un- derstand you that gates are to be used. Are they to be used at both ends or only at the lower end? A. Only at the lower end, to prevent the flowing in of the tide. Q. With regard to the surface water, do you direct it all into the sewer or allow only part to go into it? A. We direct it all into the sewer. : Q. Do you see any difficulty from occasional rains in the summer that would fill this up so as to make trouble, and so make it offensive ? A. Yes, sir, there may be times when this sewer would be more than filled by extremely heavy rains. : Q. How often do you think it would occur? A. That is a difficult matter. It would be a rare occurrence. Q. Nothing to affect the comfort and convenience of the people? A, No, sir; I do’nt think it would be. Q. Would it hold half an inch rainfall for this surface? A. No, sir, it will not. My calculation is made upon -the capacity of the sewer, and that is based upon an eighth of an inch rainfall. That is the usual formula used upon this territory. It will not even cover that years hence when the territory becomes more densely settled, it being now so sparsely settled that a large quantity of the rainfall is taken up by the ground. If it were densely populated like Boston, it would not be of sufficient capacity to provide for that territory. It would be many years, however, before that time will arrive when it will, be neces- sary to provide increased and additional drainage. The Chairman. How many years do you,estimate? A. Well, it may be anywhere from five to ten years. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You would thén remedy it by additional drains? A. Yes, sir; I would remedy it in that way rather than enlarge the capacity of this drain. i Q. You think this is quite large enough? A. Yes, sir. There are many outlets that may be as good as this for the same region when it becomes necessary to adopt them. 455 Q. I would inquire whether the present system which you are trying to improve is not a defective one? Whether there is not an accumula- tion of offensive matter at Broad Canal? .A. Yes, sir, there is at all points where drains are discharged. Q. Are you trying to remove these evils in your system of sewerage? A. Yes, sir, we are hoping to do it in time. Q. I would ask you with regard to the deposit east of the House of Correction and the Broad Canal; is there not a considerable deposit there as well as in Miller’s River? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby). Do you say that the drain is sufficient for the next five years? .d. Well, sir, that is an estimate as to time. It would depend wholly upon the occupation of the territory. It may be ten years, and it may be less than that. Q. Well, when you speak of five years, do you refer to population ? A. Yes, sir, and to the covering of the territory with buildings as it be- comes more densely populated. Q. Well, suppose the number of swine received at the slaughtering and packing houses were trebled in five years, and, looking to the growth of the business in the last five years, it would not be extraordinary, — would this sewer be sufficient? A. I think it would. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Supposing the fluid contents of the scalding-tub and the daily washings to give a contribution to the sewer of two thousand gallons, what proportional part of the sewer would it occupy? .A. It would not be perceptible. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). The city of Cambridge, at great expense, built a sewer, which is called the Ninth Street sewer, which runs across from Mr. Squire’s, or about there, and empties into Broad Canal, did it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the dimension of that sewer? -4. Four and one half by four feet. Q. They have lately decided to run it through Potter Street into Charles River, and out to the channel? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you, if that sewer were completed to run through Pot- ter Street into Charles River, would the sewage be carried away, pro- vided this territory was drained into it, as well as by the contemplated sewer emptying in at Craigie’s Bridge? A. No, sir; I don’t think it would. Q. Why not? A. Because I think it desirable to discharge all sewers as near ocean, or the mouth of Charles River, as possible. I would not desire to discharge sewers up the river, where the contents would come down. Q. Well, then, with that idea it would be better if the sewer which it is contemplated to enter under Craigie’s Bridge were carried farther down, for instance, to some point in Charlestown? .4. Undoubtedly it would be. Q. You know what different lines were given by Mr. Ball for the con- templated sewers, I suppose? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I would merely ask what particular benefit you wish to gain by this? 456 Mr. McIntire. It has relation to this establishment, whether it ‘will be properly drained or not. The Chairman. It seems to me that you are asking with regard to points that might have been discussed by the Joint Commission. I can- not see, with regard to several questions which have been already asked him, what precise bearing they have upon the subject of this investigation. For one, I want to get through it, if I can. Mr. McIntire. I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, that he has touched upon the question of the organic matter which is in that sewage. Suppose the organic matter from the sewer which empties under Craigie’s Bridge should be washed upon the flats, would not that have something to do with determining whether this establishment would be a nuisance even after that sewer is built ? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr, McIntire. That was where my question was to be ultimately directed. Q. (to Mr. Chase). I wish to ask you whether the organic matter from the sewage from this establishment and from the population which would contribute to the sewer to empty under Craigie’s Bridge would not wash up upon the flats? .A. A portion of it would; to a certain extent. Q. With the quantity which might be put into the sewer from this population and these establishments, how long do you think it would take to make the flats extremely foul above the bridge? A. A large portion of them are extremely foul at this present time. They probably would increase in their foulness as time passed, from a combination of gases and sewage, perhaps. ‘ Re-direct Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I omitted to ask one question with regard to the sewer or drain across Mr. Squire’s premises to connect with the main drain ; are you building that? A. Yes, sir. Q. How is that to be constructed? Are there to be any cesspools to catch the solid matter and prevent its going into the drain? A. The design is, in constructing the sewer across Mr. Squire’s premises, to con- struct in connection with it three catch-basins, the object of which is to take the solid matter that may be discharged into his drain, so that it may be taken out without being absorbed in the water. Q. The catch-basins you think would be sufficient? .A. Yes, sir; with proper care. Q. Let me ask you, then, if they should prove not to be entirely suf- ficient, whether an addition might not be made of charcoal filters, or something of that kind, as in England? A. Well, sir, I have n’t given that any consideration at all. I should not apprehend any difficulty in discharging all the matter that might be turned into it, even if careless- ness took place. Q. You would not apprehend any difficulty on that score? .A. This sewer possesses a scouring capacity at the lowest grade of 2.65 feet per 457 second, and a part of it 3.75 feet per second. That is the velocity of the current of the sewer. That is sufficient to take out almost any matter that might be discharged into the sewer. Two feet will scour out what we term shingle, or rounded stones, an inch.in diameter. Three feet will scour out angular stones two or two and a half inches in diameter. I should not anticipate, with the grade of this sewer, any difficulty in tak- ing care of any matter that might be discharged into it from any estab- lishment or from any drainage. Q. That which would pass the catch-basins would be inevitably di- luted? A. Yes, sir. This sewer is also provided with gates. In case of any deposit occurring in the sewer during the high tide, these flushing- gates can be used to aid in the process of scouring it out. - Q. (by a member of the Board). How is this done? A. At high tide the sewer is allowed to fill with sea-water ; the gates are shut till low tide, and then opened instantly. Q. Is the mouth of this sewer left open under the bridge? A. No, sir; there are self-acting tide-gates near the mouth, probably twenty or twenty-five feet from the mouth of the sewer. Q. Do they close the sewer so that you will get exhalations from it at low tide? A. No, sir. The provision made for that is a roof built over the mouth of the sewer discharging into low water. The arched roof over the mouth of the sewer terminates below low-water mark and prevents the wind from driving off obnoxious gases into the sewer. Q. Is that effectual? A. I think it will prove so. Q. (by Mr. Derby). They have been introduced at the South End of Boston? A. I have so understood. Q. And it has been found effective elsewhere? -A. It can hardly prove otherwise. . Q. Is it your plan to admit the tide at the upper end at all? A. No, sir. Q. You entertain no doubt, sir, that all the sewage, both liquid and gas-like, will be carried off? A. I.do not. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Mr. Chase, would it not be easy to contrive some- thing by which you could fasten the tide-gates at any time when you wished to accumulate the storm waters. A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). One question suggests itself to me. Mr. Hast- ings testified here last week that the basin of the river there at Craigie’s Bridge, down perhaps as far as the Lowell Bridge, was deeper than almost any other part of the river ; deeper than some portion of the harbor even. I would ask you whether that would be of any advantage to the sewer if it had to run into a deep basin, as low and perhaps lower, of any other portion of the river? A. At the point of immediate discharge of this sewer, it is not deeper. If it were extended out to deeper water, it would undoubtedly be a slight advantage ; but I should not consider it a mate- rial one. Q. Would it not have the effect of catching that organic matter unless there was a rapid tidal current to take it up? A. No, sir; I don’t think the effect would be very material. Q. (by Mr. Derby). A rival sewer is to Craigie’s Point? A.. Yes, sir. Q. The County Commissioners have asked for funds for the extension of the sewer near the House of Correction? .A. I am not aware of that. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). Won't you explain the roof, Mr. Chase, by which 458 you expect to prevent the escape of the gases? A. The sewer at low tide, the extreme lower end of it, would be exposed. The tide being out, this sewer, terminating at the bottom of the bridge, would be exposed. So from the top of the sewer there is a shelving roof, reaching down into the water. This is provided with a flood-gate so that in case the sewer is to be flushed out the discharge water shall not force that off. Q. (by a member of the Committee). Is there a ditch dug in the flats? A, No, sir; there are no flats there. There is no ground exposed at Craigie’s Bridge at low water. Q. Well, the water does not drop off suddenly deep? A. It does n’t until you get off several hundred feet. ‘ Q. (by Mr. Derby). The water stands there at low tide? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). How much water is there, Mr. Chase? .A. There may be five feet, possibly ten. Q. Where this sewer comes in at the corner of the bridge, it is all laid bare at low water? A. Well, that would be prevented in the construc- tion of the sewer so that there would be none at low water. Testimony oF J. R. N. Squire. Mr. Muzzy. Before asking any questions, I desire to read the fol- lowing, which is the call for the meeting at which the Committee were appointed to appear here :— “CITIZENS OF CAMBRIDGE,— You are notified to attend a meeting at Institute Hall, Cambridge Street, East Cambridge, on Monday evening next, August 4, at 8 o’clock, to take such action as may seem necessary for the stop- page of the nuisance of Miller’s River and its surroundings.” a Q. (by Mr. Muzeey). Did you attend that meeting? A. Yes, sir. I was present at the meeting, supposed to be the second one. Q. Now I wish to know how many citizens of East Cambridge were excluded from taking part in that meeting 1 The Chairman. Mr. Muzzey, what can that possibly have to ‘do with the proposition before us as to Mr. Squire’s establishment ? Mr. Muzzey. I offered it for this purpose: we want to show what we have already endeavored in some ways to make known to this Board, that this petition comes to you merely as a petition of the opponents of Mr.’ Squire, who pretended to call an open meeting of the people of East Cambridge, but drove out from that meeting a majority of the citizens of East Cambridge, and then acted for themselves. I offer it for this purpose. When we first assembled before your Honors, you will remem- ber that your Honors addressed to us a communication containing, in substance, this :— “We cannot ignore the fact that public sentiment condemns your establishments.” We want to show your Honors that a majority of the people were adverse to this action. We have shown you that the city governments -of Cambridge and Somerville were against it ; now we wish to show you 459 that a majority of the citizens of East Cambridge opposed it. These gentlemen are here to prove that public sentiment is against us. The Chairman. If any person can show by a public meeting what public sentiment is, that might be admissible as evidence ; but I can’t see how it can be done. Mr. Muzey. Then I will put in the report of that meeting from the “Cambridge Press.” Mr. Squire, you are excused. The Chairman. We all know what public meetings are. Testimony or Jonn L. Porter. (To Mr. Muzzey.) 1 reside in Cambridgeport, and have lived there about seventeen years. Q. Have you owned any Jand in the vicinity of Miller’s River, and had occasion to fill and prepare it for sale? A. I, together with Mr. B. F. Nourse and Mr. Livermore, bought four and a half acres. The Chairman. What is the object of this? Mr. Muzzey. The object. is to show the general character of Miller's River surroundings where not affected by the tide. Mr. McIntire. It seems rather evident to me, in regard to the evidence concerning the public meeting — The Chairman. It isn’t necessary to go into that again. Mr. McIntire. But I wish to call your Honors’ attention to one thing. The respondents in this case have shorthand reporters here, and your Honors have been notified that a record of the case is to be printed. I wish your Honors to instruct them that that evidence shall not be put into the record. Mr. Muzzey. The witness has been ruled out; but I don’t see how any one can control our reporters. Mr. Porter, will you proceed ? Witness. In 1867 we bought a portion of the land near Mr. Squire’s factory for $4,100. We found it in a filthy condition, full of pit- holes. Q. How near was it to the basin? .A. One portion of it was about 500 feet. Q. Please describe the condition of the land, and its foulness. A. We found it impossible to use the land. Q. How did the odors compare with those in the vicinity of the factory? A. The odors seemed to come from the dock, such as we get on the South Cove. The smell was similar, and there is no doubt about its coming from the dock. The land was located between Cambridge and Gore Streets, adjoining the Grand Junction Railroad. Q. About what distance from Mr. Squire’s works? .A. One portion of it was about 250 or 300 feet. Q. You compared the odors, and say they were like those from the basins? You also say they were like the odors on the South Bay? What do you know about the odors on the South Bay? A. I had occasion, 460 being in the real-estate business, to be more or less on the South Cove. The paint on the houses was discolored, and some houses had been vacated. ‘The discolorations were in black-blue streaks, ranning up and down ; and I was told that people would n’t live in them. The Chairman. It seems to me that we are having statements from him that have been made before. Mr. Muzzey. I will ask him another question. (To witness.) Were there any houses colored like these on the Back Bay? -A. There were. Testimony or J. G. Cuase (recalled). Q. (by Mr. Derby). I learn that you have with you a statement of the number of miles of drain in Cambridge? .A. We have, previous to the constructions of this year, forty-one miles. Q. How do they compare, in regard to grade, with the one you propose to construct? A. Most of our drains in Cambridge are constructed upon the same grade, — about one inch in a hundred feet. Q. You have some long drains there? A. Yes, sir., Q. Which is the longest? A. The Ninth Street drain is the longest. It is about 1,000 feet in length. : Q. (by a member of the Board). 1 think the filthy condition of the low land was described by the last witness. I should like to ask you if there are any restrictions on building on certain land up to a certain grade} A. None whatever. Q. The city government nor the Legislature has never taken any action whatever to prevent building on these filthy low spots? A. The only remedy ever offered by the Legislature was last winter, when power was given to the city to order all lands to be filled up to grade. Previous to that there were no restrictions whatever. Q. The city of Cambridge is now acting on that authority? A. Yes, sir; we are filling up five different sections under that authority. There was an Act five years ago in regard to filling up one district, and giving them power to do it. Q. But no action until last winter in regard to the land on this side of the river? A. It was given last winter, and it is now being done. Mr. Derby. We shall bring on one gentleman familiar with the con- tract, presently. ; Q. (by a member of the Board). Are the street grades established there ? A. Yes, sir, by the same Act. Q. What grade does the new Act contemplate? A. The new Act con- templates three feet above low water. Q. (by Mr. Derby). sI will ask you whether, when this levelling is done, you do not think these difficulties in regard to offensive odors will be cured? A. I have no doubt about that in my mind. Testimony or Wiuiiam M. Ricurncs. ‘ Mr. Derby to Mr. McIntire. This is the fireman that you asked to have called. I will ask him a few questions. Q. (to witness). It appears there have been some questions about a 461 fireman. Have you been a fireman in the employ of Mr. Squire? A. I have, sir. Q. Have you taken charge of the fire under the boilers where the gas which comes from the close tanks is introduced? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you whether you have noticed the flame of that jet, and whether it has been kept constantly burning since it was introduced 4 A. Yes, sir. Q. What time have you been in that fire-room, — how many months} A. About six months in the fire-room. Q. Were you there in July? A. I was. Q. Did you continue there until September or October? .4. About three months afterwards. Q. The flame of the gas was carried in over the furnace? A. About the centre of the furnace. Q. How freely did it burn? A. About five or six, perhaps seven, feet in length. Q. Was it independent of the fire of the furnace? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We have had this evidence introduced before. Mr. Derby. Not by this witness. The Chairman. We have had it from other witnesses. Mr. Derby. But we want to show it by this man, who had charge of the fires. The Chairman. We have had all this evidence from experts, before. Mr. Derly. We wish to prove it by another expert. The Chairman. The question is whether this gas is combustible. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Then I will ask him if the gas is brought into a close room, whether it will illuminate? A. It will, sir. Q. Can you detect anything offensive in the room? .A. Nothing, whatever. Q. How much flame? A. About six or seven feet. We were almost afraid it would set the place on fire. : Q. Did it make any more smell than common gas in a house? A. No, sir. Q. You have seen it and tried it yourself? A. Yes, sir, I have tried it myself. ; Q. Your fire-room is detached from the building? A. Yes, sir. Q. There are no tanks in that part of the premises? A. No, sir. Q. And no flame except from the boilers and flame of this gas? A. No, sir. Q. You have so tried it that you are satisfied that there is no smell in the room? A. I have, sir. Q. Never had any smells, whatever? A. No, sir, Q. In this insulated building there is no flame except from the boilers and this gas? .A. None, whatever. Q. And this gas is carried from the close tanks into that furnace ? A, Yes, sir. Q. And you noticed no offensive smells in, that part of the premises 4 A, None, whatever. 462 Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Are you in charge of the rendering. room now 4 A. Tam night watchman. ° Q. You are still in the employ of Mr. Squire? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had charge of the fire on that night of the 3lst? A. I had charge of the fires; but I don’t have charge of the furnace except-to look after the fires. Q. How long did you have charge of the fires? A. Until I went away. 6. Who has charge of them now? A. A man named Sumner. Q. Why did you leave that work? .A. It was too hard work for me. Q. Did you ask to be relieved? A. Yes, sir. The work was too hard, and I had to give up the job or get another place. Q. Who had charge of the tanks on the 31st of July? 4A. I don’t know. Q. Who has had since then? A. A man named Brannagan. Q. Where is he now? A. He is away, sir, —I don’t know where. Q. Why did he leave, — because he was sick? .A. It was owing to his pay being cut down and his not liking his job. Q. Who had charge before Brannagan? A. I don’t know. Branna- gan had charge of them for two years. He had charge of them during my time. Q. Did he have charge of the pipes above the fires? A. He did. Q. Was there not some trouble about the way he took care of the valves? A. On the night of the 3lst there was a fresh man put in his place, and he allowed the water to get too much heated, and the steam condensed ; and that did n’t allow the gas to go through the furnace. Q. Has n’t there been trouble since then with some one? Q. None, whatever. It has burned satisfactorily in my time. I watch it now. Q. You don’t know where Brannagan is now. Mr. Derby. You shall have him if you wish. We will bring him here. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you know whether they have been moved ? A. I believe they were moved within a day or two to make it perfectly tight, which it is at the present time. > Q. (by Mr. Derby). Is there a part of the night when the rendering process is not going on, when these gases are not lighted? A. The pipe is always kept open. Q. The rendering always goes on during the night? A. Always. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you been sick since you have been there at night? A. I am on during the night and have been for two or three months. I have gained twelve pounds in flesh. Testimony oF Joun McSortey. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Where do you reside?’ A. In East Cambridge. Q. I would inquire whether you are a member of the Board of Alder- men of Cambridge? A. I am an Alderman elect. Q. You have had occasion to visit this district which is infested with these bad smells? A. Yes, sir. : @. Are you familiar with the contract for filling up a part of that district? A. My brother has a contract to fill up the Cambridge Street 468 district which is bounded by the Somerville line, Webster Avenue, and Cambridge Street, and the Grand Junction Railroad. . Q. You have had occasion to visit this district? -4. I am there every ay. Q. Will you describe the condition in which you found this land when you first went there? A. I have nothing to do with the basin. This contract is for the land. My brother’s contract is for the Cambridge Street district, so called. The Chairman. Where is that? .4. It is bounded by the Grand Junction Railroad, within a hundred feet of the line of Mr. Squire’s factory. There is nothing but the Grand Junction Railroad between that and Mr. Squire’s establishment. Then we go up the Somerville line, along Gore Street, taking in Webster Avenue, over to Cambridge Street, and back to the Grand Junction Railroad. Q. Will you describe the condition, in respect to filthiness, in which you found this river? .A. My brother contracted with the Fitchburg Railroad to furnish gravel for filling up this district. He had fillings to make to make way for the train and let the railroad come in, to lay the sleepers to Huntington Street. We had to come through a large pool of water. That water was almost sickening, being filled with dead hogs, dead cats and pigs, and I don’t know how many fish. There were people in that district who kept fish until it was n’t fit to be sold, and then threw it into the pools. I found the relics there. @. You found many pieces there? A. I think there were thousands of fish there. There are cellars around there with from two to three feet of water in them, and the sinks and water-closets running into the same cellars. It is not a very agreeable place to be in. Q. But did you find any cellars there, while you were laboring, where people became sickened by the smells coming up? A. I have become sick there myself. Q. Have you known of others becoming sick? A. All I do know I went into Mr. McCabe's cellar, which is possibly within five hundred feet of Mr. Squire’s property. I went in there to give the men the grade. My brother had been in, and, finding a not very agreeable odor, told me to put a plank in. When they did putthe plank in it disturbed the sur- face of the water. My stomach has always been considered a pretty strong one, but this was the first time I found it was necessary to dis- charge. I didn’t come back the next day, and my brother told me every man had to quit work. Q. Are there many cellars in this condition? A. About nine out of ten. Q. About how many such cellars? A. On the district there are possibly two hundred and fifty houses. Q. And: nine out of ten in that condition? A. Yes, sir, but not all as bad as that. They had enough in their cellars to make anybody sick who wanted to take the benefit of it. Q. Now state what is being done in regard to filling up that district ? A, That part of the district is now about half filled. Q. The gravel is brought down on the Fitchburg Railroad and dis- tributed? A. It is, sir. The Chairman. It has been suggested that this is unnecessarily taking up the time of the Board. 464 Mr. Derby. I only wish the Board to understand the scale on which Mr. Squire is filling up. That is the only point, but it is important to us. : The Chairman. We will admit that Mr. Squire is doing everything, —that he is doing more than all the rest. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Will you in a few words just give a general idea of the scale on which the work is being done? -A. There are four or five contracts now. There are three in the city of Cambridge, and Mr. - Norcross has another in Somerville. My impression is that Mr. Squire has done more grading and filling than the four or five others put together. Mr. Newhall. The whole of that is that the Legislature have required the basins to be filled, and they are filling the low land around them. You claim that you are filling all the low land there ? Mr. Derby. Yes, sir. Mr, Newhall. Isn’t that the whole of it? Mr. Derby. We only wish to show the scale on which it is going on. Mr. Newhall. Do you understand that all this low land is to be filled ? Mr. Derby. Up to the grade of thirteen feet above mean low water. Mr. Muzey. It is the intention to go to the Legislature for authority to oblige the filling of those flats this winter. It is recognized as neces- sary to be done. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Isn’t that dark spot on the map where you are filling? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is north of Cambridge Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. Newhall). There has never been any action to prevent building houses on this territory? .4. None whatever, except about five years ago, I remember an order of the city government to fill the Wash- ington Street district. I amended that order so as to include all the low lands in this territory which my brother is filling now, but the city gov- ernment saw fit not to adopt my proposition. Q. And the city government never did anything to take care of this territory at all? A. No, sir. Q. (by Mr. Derby). It has been greatly neglected? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whence come the offensive smells in Cambridge and Somerville, do you think,— you having been among them? 4. Well, sir, they came from various sources, but my opinion is that their greatest source is the low ground of the Miller’s River basins. Q. What is your opinion of the filling of that basin and low ground in regard to extinguishing the smells? .4. My opinion is that the cause of the complaint will be done away with. The Chairman. That is his opinion as an Alderman elect of Cam- bridge. Q. (by Mr. Derby). That is the result of your observation, — you have been familiar with this country for twenty years? .4. Yes, sir, I have lived in East.Cambridge twenty-three years, or will have been next January, and I have lived within two hundred feet of the basin half of that time, — from 1859 to 1872. 465 Q. Do you know what discolors the paint? .A. I could n't say that I know, but I think ; Iam not a chemist, but I am satisfied in my own o that the discoloration comes from the nuisances that lay in the asins. The Chairman. Have you ever smelt anything offensive from Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. Yes, sir; I have smelt that which would be called offensive. The Chairman. How often have you smelt anything offensive from Mr. Squire’s establishment? .A. That I could n’t say. . The Chairman. Well, once a week or a month? A. I am not pre- pared to say. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Take the past year,—have you perceived any- thing? A. I really could n’t say ; nothing that I would call offensive. T have been in many establishments and found smells there that I would not call agreeable. Q. What do you call not agreeable, — the smell of the pig} .4. The smell of the pig I don’t like. The Chairman. Have you smelt anything outside? A. I would n't say that I have, and would n’t say that I have not. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Do I understand that you have occasionally smelt the smell of the pig and the smell of the lard, but you have not smelt them inside of six months? A. Yes, sir; I have inside of four days. I have smelt the trying of lard there and the smell of the hog-pen. The Chairman. Within three or four days? 4. Yes, sir; and I must confess that I was perfectly astonished that so large a number of hog- pens could be there when there is so little smell from them. Q. (by Mr. Derby). And you were astonished that there was so little smell? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. You do not smell anything offensive outside? A. No, sir. The Chairman. He said two minutes ago that he could n’t state whether he had or not. Q. (by Mr. Derby). You have been there within these few days past ; did you smell anything offensive? 4. No, sir. - , Q.° Have you within the last month or two smelt anything outside, — you go by there every day ? _A. Yes, sir; half a dozen times a day. Q. Now state whether you have seen anything offensive in that way. A. J am satisfied that I have not. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say you have smelt offensive smells from that establishment? A. I have been in there and have smelt smells that are offensive to me. Q. Well, outside, — have you smelt anything offensive? A. I don’t say that I could smell anything distinctly. I have smelt smells that were offensive. Q. But didn’t you distinguish smells while living so near the basins, —could n’t you distinguish the smells from the establishment and the other smells? .A. I don’t really know that’ I could safely say that I have. I have smelt bad smells. Q. But you don’t know that you have distinguished one from the other? .A. I could n’t single it out that I know of. Q. Do you remember a meeting we had a year ago before we went to 30 7 466 the Cambridge Board of Aldermen, which was an indignaticn meeting of the citizens who inaugurated this movement? A. I do. @. And you made some remarks in regard to this smell? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that your remarks were directed to the establishment A. No, sir. If I remember distinctly what my remarks were, I stated then that if the basin were filled the great cause of complaint would be done away with, and if, after that was filled up, the offensive odor con- tinued, then I should say wipe John P. Squire & Co. out, and should say so to-day. @. Don’t you remember the remarks of many of the parties were to the effect that these establishments should be wiped out, and the result of that meeting was that the citizens went before the Cambridge Board of Aldermen and commenced proceedings? A. Yes, sir. Q. Don’t you remember having been before the Mayor and Board of Aldermen, and made some remarks to the effect that if these establish- ments were not so extensive they would have been wiped out before ? A, Yes, sir. I remember Mayor Houghton told me they were going to take some action against John P. Squire & Co., and that would be a strong inducement for me to be a friend of his. I told him that that was n’t any inducement to me to vote for him. It was my opinion that if public sentiment were so strong against small institutions as it was against Mr. Squire they would be wiped out, and that is my opinion to-day. o kna you remarked that if they were done up into twenty-five dol- lar packages they would be wiped out? A. That is my opinion, and it is as I have stated. Q. Have n’t you smelt what has been testified to here as the rendering odor? A. Yes, sir. Q. I mean the intense rendering odor? A. I have smelt it hundreds of times this past twenty years. Q. Do you know where that comes from? A. I am satisfied that it comes from some of those institutions, but I have never traced it. Q. And you have never traced jit to its source, although you ‘have smelt it a number of times? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, have n’t you, at your place, often smelt the rendering of sweet lard? A. I-may, possibly, but don’t recollect. Q. You never smelt the hog away from the institution? A. I have no idea of having smelt the hog smell at my house. Q. Your house is almost due east from Mr. Squire’s establishment ? A. Yes, sir. . Q. And the hogs were delivered to the west of the establishment, so that his establishment would be between you and the place of delivery? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you leave the place where you lived so near the basin? A. A year ago, the latter part of last June. Q. Where you live now is on Spring Street, on the corner of Third? A. Yes, sir; the lot is on the corner. Q. At your house have you distinguished any odors during last sum- mer? A. I have this last week. Q. Did you distinguish any of those intense rendering odors last sum- mer at the house you now live in? A. None of them at all. Q. Or any of your folks? A. Not that I know of. 467 Q. You are over the hill that intervenes between you and the estab- lishment? A. Yes, sir. : Q. So the hill rises between you and the establishment? A. Yes, sir. _ Q. You have distinguished odors, but not rendering odors? A. No, sir. Q. What kind of odors were they? 4. I have distinguished the dock odors, which come from the House of Correction sewer; also an unpleasant odor, which comes from the filling in of Second Street, where the garbage from the city of Boston is deposited. At the corner of Spring Street they are filling in with garbage which the Health Department gathers vp on the streets, and I have known a very offensive smell to come from that. Q. That is where you get the smell? A. I have smelt that with the rest. Q. (by Mr. Derby). The other smell is from the docks? A. The other smell is from the docks and basins. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you know whether any odors of the past summer have affected any member of your family, — your son, for in- stance ; he sleeps in the front of the house? A. They have smelt a smell up in the attic-of the house. Q. He sleeps up there? A. I have three boys sleeping there. Q. Which of them has been affected? A. The youngest one. Q. How did it affect him? A. I could n’t say that it came from this. Q. Your son says he has smelt it? A. I would n’t say that my son has smelt it. I say that part of the family have said they smelt it one or two nights. Q. They did n’t mean this garbage smell? A. They didn’t go into details at all. I supposed it was the general smell.in East Cambridge, but did n’t make any direct examination of it. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Have you in former times tried out soap? A. I have been the city collector, and collected the grease and tried it out twenty years ago. Q. You know the smell, then; is there any difference between it and the smell of lard? A. There ig as much difference as -between chalk and cheese. ‘ Q. Now, the smells that you have encountered in Cambridge, — have n’t they come from this putrid grease? -A. I think they have, in- variably. Q. And as you have taken it and tried it, you think you recognize it? A, I think so. Q. There can be no mistake about it? A. I think not, sir. TrstIMoNY oF PERRY CLARK. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Are you in the service of the city of Boston as a police-officer? .A. I am, sir. Q. Does your beat include Charles Street? A. It does not now, but used to. Q. How recently? -4. I was there in the summer. Q. In passing along through that portion of your beat, have you noticed disagreeable odors? A. At low water I have. 468 Q. Have you been over to the establishment of Mr. Squire to ascertain whether you could trace those odors which you found in that neigh- borhood? A. I have. Q. State the result of your observation. A. I went to Mr. Squire’s with a friend, and was there something like an hour and a half or two hours ; we went all over the place. Q. What did you ascertain in regard to the origin of the smells? A. I could n’t find any smell there except where they were trying lard. Q. Did you find any odors whatever like the smells you distinguished in Charles Street? A. I did not. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). How came you to go there? A. I had seen so much in the papers about the place that I thought I would go there and look it over. There was a friend from the country with me. Q. Did you go into the hog-pen? A. I did. Q. Did you smell anything there? .4. Nothing more than what I would smell where pigs were. Q. Then you mean you did smell the pigs? A. Yes, sir. The pens were all charcoaled over where the pigs had been taken out. ; Testimony or Joun H. STEVENS. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Where do you reside, and what is your business ? A, I live in Cambridgeport, my business is plumbing, and I have been practically engaged in it twenty years. Q. Does your business extend into Boston, over the Back Bay and into Charles Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. What portion of your business has been in that vicinity? A, Perhaps twenty per cent in the last three or four years. Q. Are you familiar with the general condition of the houses and drains on the Back Bay and the shore of Boston ? The Chairman. Is it in regard to his opinion only? The Board will admit there is excessive feeces on the West Boston shore. Mr. Muzzey. I propose to show by Mr. Stevens, who is a man of great experience in his business, — he understands the philosophy of it better than any man I know, —I propose to show that the odors which infest the Back Bay are traceable to defects in the traps and sewers, and that sewers which are laid in the made land have broken away. I really believe it would be useful to this Board, outside of this case, to know about this. Dr. Derby. It is the business of this Board to know about those things. Mr. Muzzey. I know that, but I think it would be useful to this Board to hear his experience. It is a fresh point. Dr. Derby. The patience of this Board may be exhausted. Mr. Muzey. We shall show that there are the same smells in Chest- nut Street and on the Back Bay that have been observed on Miller's River. We shall show some strong points. We will show another thing. 469 This gentleman has a trap which could be applied to those houses and surely prevent trouble from the sewers. Dr. Derby. Cannot he show us a drawing of this trap 1 Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). Will you state in what particulars you have found the traps and sewers defective in this district? .A. In regard to sewers, I have had but very little experience. In some cases we have found a defect in the trap, and that being connected directly with the sewer, the action of the tide in pressing back the atmosphere, if the hole is ever so small, makes the smell perceptible all over the house. Q. (by a member of the Board). That is from the trap? A. No, sir, from the sewer ; it is before being connected with the trap, after partially fillmg the sewer-pipe leading to it. When the tide goes out it is very apt to take away — and has taken away in many cases — the water from the trap. Then there is direct communication between the sewer where it discharges and the apartments. The Chairman. This whole subject has been reported upon in the State Board of Health reports. You will remember that your own wit- ness gave evidence in regard to the unsafeness of traps. Mr. Muzzey. J will withdraw the witness then, and ask him to exhibit to the Board his drawing of a perfect trap. The Chairman. Really it seems to me that this isn’t a question which the Board has anything to do with. Ifthe members of the Board wish to hear it, I shall not object. : Mr. Muzey. It has been stated that it is not possible for the contents of Mr. Squire’s establishment to go into the sewer, and that under certain conditions the odors of the sewer will go into the houses. I propose to show that it can be done without offence. The Chairman. That has been shown. Dr. Derby. Of making of traps, Mr. Muzzey, there is no end. I can show you whole volumes on the subject. , The Chairman. JI understand it that the Board doesn’t wish to hear it, and I shall rule it out. Mr. Muzzey. If there be no objection to its being left, I should like to hand the drawing to your Honors for examination. The Chairman. There is no objection. Trsrmmony or Joun P. Squire (recalled), Q. (by Mr. Muzey). Before you began the business of trying lard in East Cambridge, where was it conducted? A. Principally in South Bos- ton. Q. In what manner did they try it? A. By open-fire kettles. Q. In what neighborhood, as to the number of people? A. Densely populated. 470 Testimony oF CHartes E. Avery (recalled). Q. (by Mr. Derby). I would ask you whether you have made any in- vestigations with regard to the security of drains and traps in keeping back odors? A. I have had occasion to make quite a large number of experiments in regard to traps, and have found that all, including S-traps, D-traps, water-closet traps, and bell-traps, are necessarily imperfect, ex- cept the improved form of bell-traps, as set by expert plumbers. If that is not rightly set it will siphon out as the others do. If properly set it will allow free passage of the air. Q. Will you explain whether there is any perfect system of trap? A. I think there is a perfect system of trap in which a ventilating-pipe is carried to the top of the house. At the beginning of the intersection there is a T-joint that runs to the conducting-pipe, giving a natural chimney to carry off the draught. The Chairman. This Board feel that this is of no use whatever; that they understand all about it that is necessary for their purpose. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I will merely ask the method of consumption of putrid gases. A. I was engaged for three months in the investigation of methods of consuming putrid gases. There were multitudes of experi- ments. I have two perfect systems: first, by mingling air at a red heat with the putrid gases, by combustion. The result of this experiment showed that there was no need of passing these gases through the fire. They were destroyed, although they were not on fire; they did not take fire, but simply mingled with the hot draught. I had a great many men there, who stood to the leeward of the gases and all around them, and trying to smell them at a distance. We also found we could remove these gases by filtration through charcoal. We found that mixing with a hot column of fire we had the same thing. We tried pull-fires and a great many other contrivances. We found in all cases of experiments with putrid meats that forty pounds of coal on a grate in a brisk combus- tion would deodorize five hundred pounds of putrid meat, boiling on one ° half of a revertory furnace. We found this apparatus to give entire sat- isfaction without any visible combustion on the surface of the putrid gases. Some of the hottest flames known to chemistry are invisible in the light. I quote the Bunsen burner and the oxyhydrogen blow-pipe as instances. I have examined the gases at Mr. Squire’s factory when burn- ing in the boiler-room. It was not under the boiler. The flames reached up some ten feet. My nose is not an East Cambridge nose, but it is a tolerably good one, and I could smell nothing. The gases were com- pletely burned. I am satisfied that the smell could n't be detected. Q. I will ask you, with regard to the filtering of air through charcoal, whether the air must pass through it? .4. There is no need of the removal of any factory on account of any gases tainting the air out- side. I except chlorine and muriatic-acid gas, All putrid gases can readily be destroyed by ventilation through charcoal filterers. I quote Professor Tyndall and Dr. John Stenhouse : Nature, 1871 — 72, page 365, and the Proceedings of the Royal Institution for 1854-—58,"page 158. From these quotations it appears that many nuisances have been de- stroyed and done away with by this means. Q. Are you convinced that you can take a close building, that has offensive odors inside, and, by charcoal filterers, prevent these vapors 471 from being perceived externally, A. It is not only possible, but ex- tremely easy to do it. : Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Who employed you to make these experiments on gases? A. Colonel J. J. Storer, at that time, but I was employed by others at different times. Q. In consequence of those experiments, and, upon your recommen- dation, did he not make a machine that was afterwards torn to pieces by the people of Chicago? A. I am not aware of the fate of that machine. . I did n't have anything to do with the operation of that machine. Q. Are you not aware of the fact that Colonel Storer’s machine was torn down? A. I am aware of the foul odors that machines of that kind can give out when improperly run, but I am not aware of the fate of Colonel Storer’s machine. I did not refer to the combustion of the gases from close tanks, but to the machines for drying offal. Many of these give very offensive smells. I have been told that North & Merriam’s have been smelt a mile, and I have smelt that at the Brighton Abattoir five hundred feet distant. Q. Do you know that Colonel Storer’s machine did n’t give off any smell at all in the factory, but being smelt outside, it was torn down? A. Iam aware that the draught through the chimney would prevent anything being smelt in the factory, but I did not look for that there. I am not here to defend Colonel Storer’s machine, for I did not have any- thing to do with putting it up, I simply recommended an atmospheric re- actionary furnace. Dr. Derby. If this evidence is going into print, I should be sorry not to have the impression just conveyed corrected. This apparatus, which has been recently in use in Chicago for trying off blood, has been very successful. The impression that has been given, if put in print, might do some harm. I think, in justice, that it ought to be stated. Mr. McIntire. 1 don’t deny that the machine he has now has been very successful. But the machine that J alluded to was made upon the recommendation of Mr. Avery. It has been destroyed by the citizens of Chicago. Mr. Webster. Perhaps it might be well for me to say that while in Chicago, last summer, I saw Mr. Storer’s machine. He was trying the most putrid stuff, and there was absolutely no smell came from his chim- ney. It was as high as this State House, and there were ladders to get up to the top of it. The stuff, when it was tried, was without smell. Testimony oF Aup. Ropert L. Sawin. To Mr. Derby. I reside in East Cambridge; am an Alderman this year, and I know something of the slaughter-houses in East Cambridge. Q. Will you state to what, in your opinion, the smells are due, — whether to the establishments for packing, or to the basins or flats? A. I think they are due to the basins, and to the imperfect sewerage in that neighborhood, and in Kast Cambridge generally. 472 Q. That sewerage you believe to have been imperfect in the past time ? A, Yes, sir. Q. And now they are in course of improvement? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you would ascribe these smells rather to the basins and sew- erage than to the packing establishments? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have made some investigations in regard to it? 4A. In 1871 I was in the Board of Aldermen, and was associated with H. G. Parker in the Board of Health. We had all the land about Miller’s River and that part of Somerville under investigation, and Mr. Parker and myself went through the territory on foot. I noticed that people had built there on the low land, that there were no sewers, and that large tracts of land were,covered with water. The people applied to us for relief, but we found that we could get no relief until we could get the Legislature to pass a special act. We found a large number of private drains filled by the sewage from the bleachery and distillery, and that the natural outlet from the basin was cut off to some extent by the building of the piering of the Fitchburg Railroad, and partly by piering of the Lowell & Nashua Railroad at,the outlet to the basin. We thought that if we could keep the water in that basin fresh until we could get this bill from the Legislature, we might to some extent relieve the community from this odor. The town of Somerville did n’t agree with Mr. Parker and myself, and tore down a small dam which we built at Bridge Street, where the water ran under the bridge. The Chairman. It is the one that has been spoken of? A. Yes, sir; it seemed to me that when this stuff first came into the basin it was a kind of pickle, but after a while the pickle.got rotten and the gases were thrown up. Q. (by Mr. Derby). I will inquire, sir, whether you agreed with Mr. Parker in the report which was made, in which he stated that if the fac- tories were removed that nineteen twentieths of the gases would remain? A. I did; I signed the report. Q. Where were you on the night of the 31st of July? .A. I think I was in the factory of Mr. Squire; I got there a little later than the majority of the company, and saw that the apparatus was not working satisfactorily. I remained there till it did work satisfactorily. Q. How long did you remain there? A. Till about half past eleven o’clock, — till most of the company had gone. Q. You came out with some of the gentlemen? .4. With Mr. Ma- goun,’I think. Q. Did you go withhim? A. Yes, sir. Q. With regard to any smell that evening, — did you come to the conclusion whether or not it came from the establishment of Mr. Squire ? A. In regard to the smell that evening, I only speak of it by hearsay. @. Did you go through the works with Mr. Magoun?’ A. I went over the works with Mr. Magoun and Mr. Squire, who showed us the slaughtering-house, and the hog-pens, and we made a general survey of the premises in the short time that elapsed after the company left. Q. Did you find anything offensive? .A. I found nothing offensive. Q. Did you perceive anything offensive as you walked toward home ? A. No, sir; I found the air very sweet as we walked. Q. With regard to the causes of the smell, — do you ascribe them to the basin or defective drains? 4. The causes of the smell I attribute to both the basin and defective drains. 473 Q. You remain of the same opinion still with regard to the establish- ment of Mr. Squire, which you expressed in your report? A. Yes, sir. In fact, from what I have seen of Mr. Squire’s establishment, —I have visited it many times within the last year ; five or six times, more or less, —I notice every time I go there continued improvements, both in cleanliness and the general appearance of the place. Q. I would inquire generally, then, whether you think it would be for the injury or benefit of Cambridge to have that establishment closed ? A, I think it would be decidedly for the injury of East Cambridge. Cross-Examination. 4 Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you always thought so? A. I believe I ave, sir. Q. What about the views you expressed in a public meeting in Cam- bridge a year ago, in the ward-room? A. I think I expressed nothing in the ward-room adverse to their remaining. Q. Didn’t you make a speech in regard to the discontinuance of Mr. Squire’s establishment? A. I made some remarks, and told them the only way to settle the matter was to agitate ; I then gave a short history of the matter, and rather reflected upon the conduct of Somerville in the matter. Q. Don’t you remember that you spoke entirely in regard to the slaughter-house, drawing attention to the fact that only a portion of Mr. Squire’s place was in East Cambridge, and that was the only one you could act upon at the time? You were not a member of the city govern- ment then. A. I was not elected till that fall. I don’t remember ex- actly what I said, — only the general tenor of my remarks, as I stated them just now. I don’t remember that I have been of but one opinion, or had but one thing to say. Q. Your disagreement with the people of East Cambridge has been rather since you were elected Alderman than before? A. I think not. Q. You didn’t seem to disagree with them that evening? A. I rather think that my remarks disagreed with those of the other speakers that evening. The impression I drew from the remarks of the other speakers were that they did n’t agree with my opinions. Q. Did anybody make any remarks that you didn’t seem in accord with the meeting? A. I have heard of gentlemen saying that they did. Q. Don’t you think you owed your election to the city government in regard to your moving in this matter? A. No, I don’t think I did. Q. You have n’t been returned? A. I have not. Q. You have a brother employed in the establishment? 4. I have a brother there. Q. That was some time since the meeting? A. Yes, sir. ; Q. Have n’t you complained of these rendering smells? A. Not to my recollection. Q. Are you troubled with catarrh? A. I am, somewhat. Q. Might that not have affected your scent at the time you went through the establishment with Mr. Magoun? A. It might. Q. You say you smelt nothing? A. I smelt nothing. I went over the place and looked it through, and could n’t smell anything disagree- able. °@. And you think you have n’t laid any portion of the smells to this establishment ? A. I don’t think I have. 474 @. Are you ever troubled at your house with these smells? .4. I have moved since then. Q. Did you move on account of those odors? A. No, sir; the condi- tion of my wife’s health caused me to move. TresTIMONY OF Rev. SamugeL W. McDanict. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). What is your profession? .A. I am a clergyman, and am pastor of the Unitarian Society in East Cambridge. I have re- sided in East Cambridge about four years. : Q. Where has your residence been? A. Until about the middle of last June, on Thorndike Street, between Fourth and Fifth ; since then, on the corner of Second and Otis Streets. Q. When you were living on Thorndike Street, did you not receive some unpleasant odors through the windows which faced to the south? A. We may have occasionally. The impression of myself and family, in reference to the odors, is, that they came in the night into our chamber. Q. On which side did that face? A. On the south side. : Q. You perceived odors that came into your chamber from the south ? A. Yes, sir, very offensive odors. Q. To what extent were you disturbed by them? A. To such an extent that my family were awakened from sleep, and we were obliged to open the windows. That, I ought to say, was generally in hot weather. Q. Can you describe the nature of the odors? .Ad. I should say that it was an odor as from water-closets, sewage, dense privy smells. Q. Have you had any trouble with the vault in your present house ? A. I have, sir. Q. How did that smell, when the vault was out of order, compare with the smells you used to get in the south windows on Thorndike Street ? A, It is much the same. The privy is in a two-story addition of an old frame building, separated about six inches from the main building, the intention being to have a circulation of air about it. I removed to that house about the middle of last June, and the odor was so bad from the boards being warped, that I was obliged to use charcoal, and sprinkle it quite freely in the vault and about the building. That has been an effectual remedy. Q. Do you remember the foul odor of the night of the 31st of July? A. I do, sir. ; Q. Please state what you know about that, and the direction from which it came. dA. I am able to speak definitely in régard to that special odor, because on that occasion we had certain visitors from Boston at our house who had not been there before, and have not since. A little before the ringing of the nine-o’clock bell we were seated in the parlor, and the odor became so terribly offensive that we were obliged to close the parlor windows. : Q. Which direction did your parlor windows face, sir? A. To the west, I believe. About the time of the ringing of the nine-o’clock bell I proposed to my guests and family that we should retire to the library ; and there we got very little of the odor. A little later my friends stated that they wanted to take the half-past-nine car to Boston; and T am able to fix the time by that fact. I went with them to the car, and when I returned the question was asked whether they got the half-past- ‘ 4°5 nine car, and I replied that “it is now twenty-five minutes of ten, and as I didn’t have to wait long, they must have got it.” There was a terrible odor that night on the street later, so it was reported ; but I have no knowledge in relation to its nature and source. It didn’t trouble us. Q. What direction did your windows face? .A. The house is on Second Street ; but I am not sufficiently familiar with the locality to state positively the direction in which it faces. i Mr. Hastings. They face to the west. Q. (By Mr. Muzzey). Which side of the street are you on? A. The side toward Boston. Q. You were a member of the Legislature last year? A. I was. Q. Were you chairman of the Committee on Water Supply and Drain- age? A. I was chairman on the part of the House. The chairman of the joint committee was a senator, and he was away on account of sick- ness. I presided at every meeting of the committee during the con- sideration of the so-called Miller’s River Bill. Q. I want to ask you what the attitude of Mr. Squire was before that committee from the first The Chairman. What is the object of this Mr. Muzey. All the testimony I have upon that point is from Mr. Squire himself, and I don’t think his position has been fully understood. The Chairman. 1 think the Board gives due justice to Mr. Squire, to say the least. Mr. Newhall. He has apparently done all that he could. Witness. The attitude of Mr. Squire and his counsel was this: they stood upon the Report of the Joint Commission, and were willing to do all that it required. Mr. Muzzey. May I be allowed to ask the witness this question? There was pending before the Legislature last winter what is known as “ Colonel Codman’s Bill,” which proposed to appoint a commission in reference to a common system of drainage, water-supply, and grade of roads, for the territory within ten miles around Boston. I wish to show that Mr. Squire went so far as to employ counsel to appear before the committee, and ask that he (Mr. Squire) be made a party to that proposition. Witness. I believe that he did. The Chairman. Did you trace that odor you smelt? .A. I did not leave my house farther than to go to the corner of Cambridge and Second Streets, to accompany my friends to-the horse-car. Q. Where did it appear to come from? A. It appeared to come from the southeast. I speak of the odor as I experienced it from a little before nine o’clock until, perhaps, about a quarter of ten. Q. You did n’t trace it definitely? A. I did n’t go farther than the corner of Second and Cambridge Streets. Q. (by Mr. Muzzey). The direction of Mfr. Squire’s establishment from your house is about northwest? A. I should say it was. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Did I understand by your direct testimony that 476 you never have smelt those rendering odors? A. I do not know what your understanding was. I did not testify on that point. That question was n’t asked me. I testified in regard to the night of July 31 only. Q. I shall have to ask you a question on that point. Have you ever smelt any of these rendering odors? A. I have. Q. Where have you found them? A. I have not traced them, ex- cepting in a single instance last week, on Thursday or Friday night. I spent the evening with my friend who sits upon your right (referring to Mr, Hastings). Going to his door, he asked me if I smelt anything. It was the smell of sweet lard. We had a little conversation, some of it facetious, to the effect that both were a little affected with catarrh. When I was going home, a few moments after leaving his door, it occurred to me that it would n’t be right for me not to inform myself as to the source of that odor, as I was to testify here ; so I turned about, and went toward Mr. Squire’s establishment. When I got to Cambridge Street I had very little of that smell, and when I got to the establish- ment I found none of it. Q. You found none of it? A. None at his establishment. The Chairman. Did you go into the establishment? -A. I went into the building, and found no one there but the night-watchman. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Was there anything in the kettles? A. I didn’t go into the room where the kettles were. Q. Have you smelt this rendering odor on Thorndike Street? A. We have somewhat. Q. Has it troubled your family any? A. The rendering smells from putrid grease have troubled us. Q. How often would you get them? A. I can’t say how frequently. .I have been all over Mr. Squire’s establishment a number of times, and never got that smell of putrid grease there. Q. Was it hot weather when you experienced that odor you first spoke of? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know the direction of the wind that night? -.A. I do not, sir, except from report. Q. Were your front windows on Thorndike Street — your north win- dows— open? A. No, sir; they were never open during the night. Those were the parlor windows. Q. Did you notice whether it wasa damp night? A. I could not say. It was not upon a single occasion that we got those odors. On ie night of the 31st of July the smell came into the windows on Second treet. Q. There was a very strong odor penetrating the atmosphere that night? A. Yes, sir; it was indeed a strong odor. Q. Did you testify in regard to where the wind was that night} A. I did not positively. I thought it was about south of southeast. Q. Were you at the meeting of citizens in the ward-room a year ago? A. I was, and spoke at the call of the citizens. I said : “ If there is any- thing in this neighborhood that can be justly branded as a nuisance, there can be no division of sentiment as to the measures to be adopted.” But it was an open question among people as to whether the nuisance pro- ceeded from the slaughter-houses or the basin. I was taken to task later in the evening for the ambiguity of my remarks. I thought I could not be misunderstood. 477 Q. You were afterwards at the hearing before the City Board of Health? A. No, sir. Q. (by Dr. Derby.) Would you favorably regard the idea of devoting this Miller’s River basin to the business of slaughtering and packing swine, and would you advocate the establishment of new enterprises for that purpose, and the indefinite enlargement of that business in that locality? A. If I understand your question, sir, I should answer it in this way: I should say I know of no reason why that business, since it is legitimate, cannot be conducted in a manner entirely inoffensive to public health and comfort. I have been over that establishment, and although it has not been altogether satisfactory in the past, I should judge from the progress made in that business that it could be conducted free from reasonable objection from the people. Q. I want to put the question to you just asI put it to the Mayor of Somerville the other day, as you have represented the people in the Legislature. I ask you whether you desire that business of slaughter- ing swine and packing pork indefinitely extended, or whether you think it should be limited to its present proportions, — whether you would favor the establishment of new places or not? A. Your question covers a great deal of ground; “ indefinitely extended” might mean to cover every inch of territory there. In the rear of my place there is a planing-mill, from the tall chimney of which the cinders occasionally fall into my yard. Now I should not like to be surrounded by establishments of that kind. My remedy would be to get a little farther away from the chimney. If this business is to be conducted legitimately, — that is, upon sanitary. prin- ciples, — I should n’t object to its being extended. If itis an annoyance there, it must be an annoyance somewhere else. Ifthe Board will bear with me for a moment, I should like to say a word in relation to the legislation of last year. The question was asked, why the area under Mr. Squire’s building should be omitted in regard to the fillings. I think there were ten members present at the hearings. When the question came before the committee, it was their unanimous opinion — at least no one objected in committee that I heard — that the building should be ex- cepted ; that the place should be cleared out and used for a cellar, under such restrictions as the local Boards should advise ; but if there should be an accumulation of foul water, then the filling should be done there. There was no objection on the part of any member of the committee, and, let me add, there was no bill more thoroughly and honestly analyzed and discussed than that. There was not a single objection urged against that feature of the bill. We thought that provision should remain, upon sani- tary grounds. Q. Do you recollect that it was in direct opposition to the recom- mendation of the Joint Commission? A. Do I understand that they especially recommended that the space under the building should be filled ? Dr. Derby. Yes, sir. Witness. I should be glad to have my memory refreshed on the subject. Dr. Derby. You will find it in the report. The words are “on and over the whole basin.” Witness. The Committee were convinced that there could be no objec- tion to it, from the fact that the authorities of Cambridge and Somerville came into the hearing and stated that this provision appeared to be 478 entirely unobjectionable. It was in no sense a compromise, at least on the part of our Committee, as was intimated here some days ago. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). The question that was put by Dr. Derby rather necessitates my asking one that I did n't intend to ask. The Doctor alluded to the fact that you represented the people in the Legislature, and perhaps represented public sentiment. I should like to ask whether you were not nominated this fall and were not re-elected? A. I was nominated and not elected, because there was not enough rum in my ticket. The same blow that struck me struck other men throughout the whole State. You know perfectly that that was the controlling issue. Mr. McIntire. It was claimed that you represented the people, and I wish, to show that you did not. I did not wish to ask the question. Witness. I have no objection, sir, to your question. Mr, Muzzey. 1 do not wish the Board to be misled. Did not Mr. Hastings, one of these petitioners, vote for Mr. McDaniel at the last election ? Mr. Hastings. He did, sir. Mr. Muzzey. And Mr. Magoun also? A. Yes, sir. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Didn’t all the employees at Mr. Squire’s estab- lishment indorse you and work for you? A. I do not know how every man voted, but I believe some of them did. I had the good taste, being a candidate, to leave the polls as soon asI-had voted. You ought to know something more about that than I do. Fhe Chairman, Mr. McIntire, this must go no further ; this Board will not permit personalities to be used. Mr. Muzzey. This is our last witness. \ Exrracts FRoM AN OrricraL Report To THE British PaRLiAMENT, on Osnoxious BusiNESSES. Mr. Derby. Ihave a few passages which I wish to refer to, and with your Honors’ permission I will read a few extracts from the most essential parts, which I shall submit for your consideration. Dr, Derby. Could n’t you mark them ? Mr. Derby. I should like to read them ; it will take but a short time. I will read from page 251, of the Report of the 8th of July, 1873, by a select committee of the English Parliament, which I referred to in the opening. I read from page 251 which is the essence of the Report : — “So far as your Committee are enabled to judge, the question of pro- viding public slaughter-houses, or abattoirs, for the whole of the metropo- lis, is beset with very considerable difficulty, and there is reason to fear that, were private slaughter-houses to be altogether suspended, the meas- 479 ure might be. attended with almost greater evils than any which may arise from their existence. Your Committee are not at all satisfied that private slaughter-houses, when properly managed, are necessarily produc- tive of nuisance, or unfavorable to sanitary influences ; and if due con- sideration be given to the way in which this question affects the meat supply of the immense population of the metropolis, and especially of the poorer classes, and to the insuperable objections which exist to the adop- tion of any system which would tend to lessen the facilities now existing for the supply of meat to the people, it will be seen that there is in the present position of the question, some room for doubt whether the wants of the metropolis could be properly provided for, if none but public slaughter-houses were in future allowed to exist, more especially if these were situate at a distance fom the place of consumption.” Mr. Derby. That seems to be the essence of the Report, and the basis of their conclusion is that it is not politic to abridge the business of slaughter-houses, but rather to take away the language of the act which prevents them from being conducted within fifty feet of the street ; that clause has since been repealed. I will now refer to a very little of the evidence on which this Report is based. I will now read from page 4: — “Some of the medical authorities press upon the Committee the ad- vantages that would accrue from the complete removal of all private slaughter-houses from the metropolis; and the establishment of fixed and properly regulated abattoirs in proper localities. The view taken by these authorities is that though no disease can be traced directly to private slaughter-houses, yet that they must, from the nature of the case, be such a nuisance as ought not to be tolerated in this metropolis. (See Dr. Letheby’s Evidence, Question 2732.) “On the other hand the general evidence is in favor of the cleanliness and wholesomeness of these private slaughter-houses, and this evidence is corroborated by the testimony of some of the members of the Committee, who have themselves personally inspected several of them, without hav- ing given any previous warning, and have reported well of them to the Committee, though they are at the same time of the opinion that some of them are faulty and indeed objectionable in their construction. “Tt appears that from causes now in operation the number of these private slaughter-houses is diminishing. In the city of London, in the year 1851, there were one hundred and thirty-five, and there are now only thirty-one. The Committee are also informed that under an act of 1848, chap. 49, no additional slaughter-house can be established within the city. The change in this particular instance is chiefly due to the removal of the market from Smithfield to Islington ; but there are other causes for the diminution in number of these places operating generally over the whole metropolis. “« With respect to the supply of dead meat, it is in evidence that the proportion of the supply of dead meat is increasing upon the supply derived from life animals sent up to be slaughtered within the me- tropolis. “Tt appears that slaughter-houses have been brought under better regulation since the Act of 1844 was passed, and there have been several 480 acts passed since, both for sanitary purposes, water-supply, and the general management of the metropolis, which have tended to this im- provement. The latest metropolitan act was passed in 1862, which provides for licenses and by-laws. The general Nuisance Removal Act of 1855 pro- vides for all trades certified by a medical officer to a local authority to be a nuisance, or injurious to the health of the neighborhood, to be proceeded against. "« After a careful consideration of the whole subject, the Committee have come to the conclusion, in the first place, with respect to the trade of slaughterers of cattle and sheep, that the 55th section of the Act of 1844 should be repealed. “They are, however, of opinion that it would be desirable, so far as possible, without interfering with the trade, or sujecting those who carry it on to expense or inconvenience, to diminish, or rather to accelerate the diminution of, the members of these private slanghter-houses. “ With this object the Committee recommended that additional private slaughter-houses, varying in size, should be constructed, and other con- veniences given at the Copenhagen Fields Market, and other markets if established, so as to induce butchers to slaughter animals on the spot, and not drive them through the streets to their own premises. “The Committee also recommend that no additional private slaughter- house should be established in the central part of the metropolis, except under special circumstances, and not then except with the consent of some such authority as the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Court of Quartér Session ; but that it would be desirable to meet the decrease that must be continually going on of private slaughter-houses attached to butchers’ shops, to encourage the substitution of private slaughter-houses belonging to the individual butchers, in suitable localities in the vicinity of public markets ; and the Committee in making this recommendation wish to draw a clear distinction between private .slaughter-houses so attached to markets, and ‘public slaughter-houses possessed by the market authority. “Tt is clearly desirable that all private and public slaughter-houses should be constantly inspected, and made subject to precise, stringent, and uniform regulations. At present the inspection and regulation of the private slaughter-houses is done by the Sanitary Committees in different parts of the Metropolis, whose regulations appear to have the force of by-laws under the metropolis Local Management Act. Within the city the regulation and inspection of slaughter-houses is under the jurisdiction of the Corporation, and your committee would direct the attention of the Corporation of London to the observation of the members of the Committee with respect to the state of the public slaughter-houses within the Copenhagen Fields Market. “Before the repeal of the sections of the Act of 1844, these by-laws should be carefully examined, and any defects found to exist in them should be removed. It is also desirable that the inspection and regula- tion of slaughter-houses should be made available for the detection of contagious diseases of animals. ‘““With respect to the other noxious businesses enumerated in the Act of 1844, it appears that the trade of fell-mongers has been carried on from time immemorial at Bermondsey, and the population of that neighbor- hood has been generally created by it, and is interested in the continu- 481 ance of it. The committee think that it would not be expedient to allow any old enactment to come into force which would cause the removal of this trade from its present site, and they recommend that this section of the Act should be repealed with respect to this trade, and that the process of inspection and regulation over the premises in which it is car- sae on should in like manner be considered, and, if necessary, strength- ened. “So also with respect to all businesses that may be called noxious, whether enumerated in the Act-of 1844 or not mentioned in it, the Committee think that they should not be actually banished from the Metropolis, unless a case of nuisance can be established against them, but that they should all be subjected to stringent rules and frequent in- spection, and the sections of the Act of 1844 concerning the enumerated trades should be repealed.” Mr. Derby. And on page 12: — “Have you any reason to believe that Lond6én depends at any period of the year, exclusively, upon the live meat in the private butcher’s lairage 1— Iam told, and my inquiry has led me to believe it to be the fact, that there would be’ in London many days in the hot weather, when, if a butcher had not got his live animals, and his private slaugh- ter-house, there would be practically no meat in London. “Tf the first source of supply to which you have referred were abol- ished, do you believe that that would leave London under any difficulty 4 — Very great difficulty indeed. “What particular day in the week would you say?— On Saturday, which would, of course be the worst day ; but the difficulty would arise in warm, muggy weather.” Mr. Derby. The view taken by these authorities is that no disease can be traced to the slaughter-houses. On the other hand, the general evi- dence is in favor of the general cleanliness ; and this is corroborated by the testimony of some of the Committee who have themselves inspected some of the places. I read now from page 11. This is from the testimony of Mr. Crouch :— “‘ Mr. Brewer. By what means is the demand of meat for London at present supplied?—- By four means: in the first place by animals purchased alive by retail butchers, and slaughtered by them in their private slaughter-houses ; secondly, by animals purchased alive by whole- sale or carcass butchers, and slaughtered by them, which meat is sold to retail butchers, principally at the Metropolitan Meat Market; thirdly, by country-killed and foreign meat which is consigned to salesmen in the Metropolitan Meat Market; and, fourthly, to a small extent, by meat preserved in tins, principally from the colonies. Those are the four means by which London is at present supplied with meat. “Can you give the Committee any reason why those four means should remain; could you cut out any of the four without injuring the supply of London?—TI think, certainly not. J think that any one might be done away with rather than the first, namely, the supply by means of the retail butcher who slaughters his own animals.” 31 482 Mr. Webster. Do they use oil in England ? Mr. Derby. It is rather an article of luxury, and is not used to a very great extent. It is an unusual thing in London to have the ther- mometer above 70°. The Chairman. If you could mark the places you would like us‘to see, Mr. Derby. Mr. Derby. I would prefer to make our record perfect. I will finish in less than ten minutes. I will now read from page 94 :— “ Sir J. Ogilvy. With regard to the destruction of Mr. Butler’s meat, and I have just referred to the evidence before that Committee, and I find that there were 973 stone destroyed; was that occasioned by the weather ? — In all probability ; I do not know the very circumstance, but it is not by any means an uncommon thing for meat to be slaughtered in London at five o’clock in the morning, and to be green before it is got into the market.” 4 Mr. Derby. And now on page 98 : — . ’ “Do you think if we had public abattoirs for slaughtering, and if the dressing of what is called the esculent offal took place in other hands than those of private butchers, that is, in public hands, it would increase the expense of the offal? — Decidedly it would ; it must do so. “ Would it be an inconvenience to a butcher to have to go two miles to a slaughter-house }— My opinion is that he would not do it. “ Would it be an inconvenience to him?—- So much an inconvenience that he would not do it. ‘ “Ts every inconvenience to a butcher or a man in trade equivalent to a loss of money ?— I cannot call it an equivalent. I might call it fifty times an equivalent. “At any rate itis a loss of money to the tradesmen ? — Yes ; you could not estimate it in money. “The fact of the case is, then, that if you establish a system for the supply of London meat which greatly increases the inconvenience of obtaining it, you really and practically increase the cost of it !— Yes, undoubtedly you must. “‘And the meat, in fact, to the outside public must be dearer ?— De- cidedly it must ; and, in my opinion, one great evil would be the doing away with the personal responsibility that at present exists between the butcher. and his customer. “Mr. E. Turnor, As to the meat killed in your own slaughter-houses, do you ever lose that meat from the weather ?— I should say never ; the course is so totally different. In my own slaughter-house, in warm weather, we do not commence killing till after the sun has gone down ; and particularly on the Friday we kill a portion, and a portion is killed on the Saturday and consumed ; but if we go to an abattoir or a mar- ket, our meat would be bought at five in the morning, and we should then be owners of the meat very frequently from thirty to thirty-six hours, and we have no other source of supply during the whole of that time. We cannot tell on a Saturday what our consumption may be; it is an impossibility for any man to tell.” 483 Mr. Webster. Will you be kind enough to tell whether this is by the owners of private establishments 1 Mr. Derby. Some of them are drovers who bring cattle from Scot- land. Mr. Webster. They are all interested parties. Mr. Derby. Some of them are gentlemen of great respectability ; some are members of Parliament, some are owners of private slaughter- houses. The Report is the result of the evidence brought before the Committee. I will now give you the occupation of each party. I have now the testimony of Mr. Leddell, who, instead of being a butcher, is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons (page 150). The question is put with regard to other obnoxious businesses, and he replies : — “We have no blood-boiler, in the district, and to my knowledge never had one; we have had one or two soap-boilers; one has removed, and another one carries on his business by the side of the National School, which is an occasion of complaint. I may say that the mere making of soap with fresh tallow, I believe, would not be such a nuisance as would be greatly complained of, but unfortunately those premises are used for other purposes, such as melting down fat in a state of decomposition, and the smell arising therefrom is sometimes most intolerable.” Mr. Derby. It is the very difficulty that we complain of in this case, —the melting of putrid grease. I come now to the testimony (pages 172 and 173) of Mr. Knight, who is a tallow-melter and soap-maker : — “Will you just describe for a moment, to the Committee, what is the method by which you not only try to mitigate the nuisance, but to con- sume the fumes that are created 1— Under the old system there used to be all open pans ; now we have the pans all covered in closely with a shaft, that causes all the fumes to pass through the fire and up the shaft. “With reference to this kitchen stuff, which is the most difficult of all things, — do you yourself collect it and melt it, or do you receive it col- lectedand ready melted? — It is brought in to us by the different collectors, — men that go out from house to house early in the morning. “Do you get the kitchen stuff from rag-shops, and so on t— Yes ; they collect it from private houses also, and bring it to us. “What is the condition, generally speaking, of the kitchen stuff when you receive it? — It is generally very good. “What is the real crucial point in your business as to nuisance; what part of your business is a nuisance 1— Merely when we are getting the refuse or the greave from the pan to the press, after it has been rendered, and we are putting it into an hydraulic press. “ Are the people who are employed in your trade a healthy or an un- healthy class 1 — Decidedly healthy. “ How long do you retain them in your service? One man has been with us forty-five years. “ Are they liable to any special disease 1— I never knew of any. “Then you maintain that the trade itself, to those who are continually occupied in it, is not an unhealthy trade 1— Certainly. 484 “Tt produces no disease ?— No, ; “Tt is never objected to on that score }— It is never objected to.” Mr. Derby. Tt is shown that grease is rendered in the city of London, and is the source of very considerable offence, and that is no doubt the reason which gave rise to the appointment of this Commission. I read now from the testimony of Mr. Cook, page 201 : — “Then, the only part that we can find out to be offensive in smell is the fat, or rather a certain portion ‘of the fat, which you receive in a slightly decomposed condition, and kitchen stuff? — As regards the soap- | making itself, there is nothing offensive ; and as regards the tallow-melt- ing, the principal source of complaint at all is when the fat comes in stale ; and as regards stuff-melting, there is a source of complaint if proper means are not employed for burning the vapor that arises from the melt- ing-pan as the fat is being melted ; but it is quite practicable to arrange the pans so that the whole of that vapor shall be consumed and not pass into the outer atmosphere. “Ts that vapor consumed in a strong fire by you ?— First, we pass the vapor that comes from the stuff-pans through a flue filled with coke, and water is allowed to drip upon this coke from a pipe which is pierced with very small holes. The wet coke forms a large condensing surface, and condenses any steam-vapor that may have contracted smell from the stuff; after the vapor has passed through this chamber, it is driven by a fan into the ash-pits of our steam-boilers and passes up through the bars of the boilers into the fire and is completely burnt, so that I believe, if you were to stand at the top of the chimney-shaft, you would be unable to detect any smell whatever as the result of our stuff-melting.” Mr. Derby. Throughout the whole of this evidence I see no complaint of the rendering of fresh lard, and the only complaint seems to be in regard to the rendering of grease and tallow. I come now to the evidence of Mr. John Simons, on page 226 : — “ And that is of great consequence for the happiness and for the health of a community that fresh meat should be easily obtained, and as cheap as possible ?~ Undoubtedly.” Mr. Derby. This shows the pertinency of this inquiry. The Chairman. I thought we should have something with more per- tinency than this. ‘ Mr. Derby. believe I gave the number of private slaughter-houses in London at 1687. Mr. Webster. At the present time ? Mr. Derby. Yes, sir. “In consequence of the establishment of the Copenhagen Market the number has been greatly reduced. Mr, Webster. Have n't they been as much reduced in the Metropolitan district ? : Mr. Derby. I have n’t the evidence. This refers to the city of Lon- 485 | don proper, which is a very small part of London, somewhere about 150,000 or 200,000 inhabitants. It corresponds to State and Kilby Streets in Boston. The city of London is losing £8,000 a year by at- tempting to divert a portion of business to this Copenhagen Market. Mr. Webster. I should like to ask you how many slaughter-houses there are in London proper ? Mr. Derby. Jam unable to state. Mr. Webster. Do you know that there are not more than forty, and that they have been reduced in a short time ? Mr. Derby. I think they have been reduced. Mr. Webster. The business has been diverted to the Copenhagen Market. Mr. Derby. Do you understand that they have been reduced to thirty or forty? : Mr. Webster. That is my impression. _ Mr. Derby. The number for the whole city is 1,687. Some of the most populous districts are full of them. The reduction in those places is in consequence of the diversion of this Copenhagen Market. _ Mr. Webster. Is that in consequence of their being diverted or being driven out by the authorities ? Mr. Derby. Tt is in consequence of their having gone where cattle are sold. It seems that the city of London has converted it into a market and has established it on a plan something like those at Brighton and Watertown, and near there the city has erected some large buildings which are poorly patronized and lose thirty or forty thousand pounds a year. 486 REBUTTING TESTIMONY FOR PETITIONERS. Mr. McIntire. We have probably half a dozen witnesses that we shall have to put on in rebuttal. I do not think that we can finish to-day, but we will commence. In the first place, as the other side has put in evi- dence from this Report on Noxious and Offensive Businesses, I will put in, without reading, the testimony of Dr. Henry Lethby, commencing on page 157. Testimony oF Dr. B. Joy JEFFRIES. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You are a physician of Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. For how long time have you been one? A. Since 1857. @. Where do you reside? A. On Spruce Street. My office is on Chestnut Street. I live in what is called Benedict Chambers, at 3 Spruce Street. Q. Either at your residence or office have you distinguished odors dis- tinct from what have been testified to as drain and sewage odors? A. I don’t know. I have, during the last summer, received odors very distinct and different from what are called drain, and perhaps, what are called sewer odors. Mr. Muzzey. Now, if the Board please, we do not object to this testi- mony going in, but we call attention to the fact that it is cumulative upon the original case of the petitioners. Mr. Newhall. Is it not so, Mr. McIntire ? ; = Mr. McIntire. We were rather restricted in our direct examination, because the Board did n’t wish to hear what might be termed cumulative testimony. Now, in defence, the defendants have brought in a number perhaps double our own, and perhaps they might count our number on the one side against their number on the other. I don’t propose to call in much of this, but I propose to call in two or three witnesses that live in Boston and in Charlestown, to show that they have met with the gen- ‘ eral experience of other people in regard to these smells. I wish to put on two or three, perhaps, in addition to what I have already put on, to show that the rendering odor is experienced here, beside those of our own number, about whom so much has been said. The Chairman. Can Dr. Jeffries trace that rendering odor to a certain place? If it is that he has smelt the rendering odor as different from the sewer odor, I think it is hardly worth while for you to go on. 487 Mr. McIntire. I wish to ask him first, if he recognizes the odor, and then if he recognizes from whence it came. We have sent away some thirty witnesses. Mr. Muzzey. We have sent away forty or fifty, some of them physi- cians. Mr. McIntire. We could have had a thousand, I suppose. Mr. Muzzey. We could have gone on forever. The Chairman. You may go on with him, Mr. McIntire. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You say you have distinguished the rendering odor? A. Yes, sir. @. When? A. During the past summer. Q. At what time in the twenty-four hours of the day? .A. More es- pecially at night, sir. Mr. Newhall. The Board is desirous that your questions should be confined, not* to his own personal private experience, but whether he knows to what extent this odor has extended in Boston. Mr. McIntire. I intend to do it. Q. Have you heard complaints among your patients in Boston and vicinity in regard to that rendering odor that you speak of? A. Yes, sir. Q. To what extent? A. That I could not answer. My practice is special practice ; I being an oculist, the people whom I attend in that way are not, perhaps, affected seriously by it. Q. Have you ever noticed from whence these odors come, — from what point of the compass? A. Yes, sir; always. I would state my experi- ence in a very few words, and take but very little time, if you will allow me. I have experienced it three times. There was a time last summer I and my wife were aroused by a smell very distinct from the smell of sewers, or the smell that we have over Roxbury way, that is called the Back Bay District. This was a fatty smell, and has been termed the rendering smell. I was awakened and nauseated by it, as was also my wife, — to such an extent that at that time I applied to this Board for redress. The wind came from East Cambridge, or from that part of East Cambridge where these establishments are located. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Give us the course of the wind, if you please? A. I am trying to remember just the locality. I think my front win- dows face Chestnut Street, and it also came in my bay-window, which faces Spruce Street. Q. Is that west or north? A. The rooms are placed just about like this corner of the State House, I think. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Do you know that that direction is the direction of East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir; Ido. And in my communication I spoke of it as the Miller’s River nuisance. Q. You know that it came from that direction? A. Yes, sir. Q. Three times, you say? A. Yes, sir. : Q. Did it ever affect you before that? A. No, sir. I haven't been 488 awakened from sleep. I had to shut the windows on that account before I could go to sleep again. Q. Have you heard any complaint from your neighbors in that vicinity experiencing the same odors? A. I don’t remember, sir, that I have. Almost all my neighbors are out of town ; I belong to the club that can’t get away. Cross-Hxamination. Q. (by Mr. Derby) Did I understand you that the smell came up Chestnut Street, or across it? -A. I cannot say, sir. It came into my windows. Two of my windows face toward Chestnut Street, and a bay- window toward Spruce Street. Q. On what part of Spruce Street are you? A. On the upper side. Q. Now, one of your windows faces on Spruce Street and the others toward Chestnut Street, on the side of the building? A. Yes, sir. Q. Am I to understand you that the smell came up Chestnut Street 4 A. I cannot answer that. All I can say is, that the smell came in those windows especially. The front part of the bay-window on Spruce Street was shut and the side sashes were up, so that the odor came in from that side of the house. @. Can you tell which way the wind was that night? A. Yes, sir. It was in the direction— ° Q. Give us the point of the compass, if you please? A. I could not tell from which point it blew. Q. Can’t you tell whether it was from the north, east, south, or west ? A, Yes, sir. I think it was northwesterly. ‘Q. A northwest wind, you say? A. I cannot define the point of com- pass. I know to which windows I had to go to find where the smell came in, and which I had to close to keep it from coming in. Q. I understand you, sir; but did the smell come down Spruce Street or up Chestnut Street? A. It would have to come down Spruce Street from Chestnut, because Spruce Street runs from Chestnut to Beacon. -Q. Then it came down Spruce Street? A. Yes, sir, if you call that down. That is, it came into the window that faces that way. Q. It also came in at the window that faces on Chestnut Street, did n’t it, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. Into which did it come the strongest? A. I could not say. Q@. You have two windows on Chestnut Street? A. Yes, sir. " ee you have any weathercock that gave you the course of the win The Chairman. What is the use of asking that question repeatedly when he cannot answer it. Mr. Derby. I want to be sure that the wind was not in another direc- tion. Q. You cannot tell from the course of that wind, by a weathercock, whether it was one way or another? .A. Yes, sir, Ican. I can get the exact point of the compass. Q. It came from Spruce and Chestnut Streets both? .A. Yes, sir. Q. The front of the bay-window being closed? A. Yes, sir. 489 Mr. McIntire. I have two persons from Louisburg Square who can testify to their own experience. The Chairman. Can they testify except to the distinction of these two smells ? Mr. McIntire. I think not. Mr. Newhall. 1 am afraid the defence will want to begin again, Mr. McIntire. Mr, Derby. I want it either admitted or excluded from both. Mr. McIntire. Then I will put on Alderman Brine. TESTIMONY oF ALD. GrorcE R. Brine. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Mr. Brine, you are an Alderman of Cambridge, are yout A. Yes, sir. Q. And live in East Cambridge? A. Yes, sir. @. How long have you lived there? 4. I have lived there about. twenty-six or, perhaps, twenty-seven years. The Chairman. I want to give notice to counsel that the Secretary is called away from here by the Supreme Court to give evidence. That is the reason of his absence. It leaves a quorum of the Board, however, and we shall go on. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You do business in Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you whether you have recently examined the buildings which face upon Charles, Vine, Spring, Thorndike, and Otis Streets, facing the westerly or southerly side, and the buildings on the north side of the street, facing southerly toward Broad Canal? A. I cannot go into it as fully as that. I have examined them on Thorndike and Otis Streets, but I have n’t been upon Charles, Vine, or Spring Streets. Q. Well, on the streets which you examined did you find any discolor- ation on the houses which faced toward Broad Canal? A. Very slight. @. State where the most was. A: It was mostly on the other side of the street ; on the*north side of the buildings and on the south side of the streets. Q. Have you been down toward Craigie’s Bridge to notice whether there was any discoloration of the buildings along from the bridge, up Bridge Street in the direction of Mr. Squire’s factory? .A. Not particularly. Q. Well, have you noticed those buildings at all, — whether there were any discolorations towards the bridge? -A. I cannot say I have seen any discolorations on the buildings in that locality. Q. Now, take it from where these boards were taken, right close by Craigie’s Bridge, will you describe how the discoloration is there, and to what extent it exists? .A. I have occasion to pass over that bridge every day, as I walk in almost every morning from my house, and I think I have noticed the effect of the sewer that empties there, for a long time. The effect, mainly, from the mouth of that sewer has been to discolor that fence and the body of the building, which is a continuation of the fence, the lumber-she’, and along the ends of the wharves. Q. Where is the most intense discoloration? A. Immediately over the sewer. 490 Q. Where these boards come off? A. Yes, sir. Q. There is a sewer which empties there? .d. I think so. The flats are bare, whenever the tide is out, for quite a number of feet. Q. There is a fence of about fifteen or twenty feet, and there is a long building, all painted the same color and facing on the river? A. I would not say painted the same color. I know that the effect of the sewer is to be seen on the fence, and also on the shed and the buildings, — on a small part of the building and almost the entire surface of the fence. Q. Well, you were with the Board of Aldermen the night that they visited Mr. Squire’s establishment, were you? 4. Yes, sir. Q. Well, first tell us what smells you distinguished, if any? A. I think that was my third visit to that establishment, that is, within a short time. I had not been there for a number of years before. I observed .the same smells that I observed on two former occasions. Q. What were they? .A. I could distinctly say that on that evening I did n’t go through the building as Alderman Sawin testified. I simply called in to see the effect of the destruction of the gases. To show what the effect was, when the experiment was about through, and when a ma- jority of the people went away, I went too. I don’t know that we got anything in particular. I noticed the live-hog smell, and on the other occasions I noticed the rendering, the live-hog, and the dock smell. On one occasion — Q. (by Mr. Derby). When were the other occasions, sir? A. I can- not give you the exact date. Q. Recently? In the month of July? A. In the month of June was my first visit. I offered an order in the Board of Aldermen, I think on the 28th day of May, asking the Special Committee on Health to go there and make inquiry what the intention was in having the basin under their buildings excluded from the filling. I offered that order to the Board, and it was in consequence of that that I first went there. I think in June, it may have been during the first week. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). What opinion, if any, was expressed by the Board of Health that night in regard to the odors on the night of the visit, on the 31st of July, in regard to any odors which were per- ceptible in or about the room? .A. Well, I cannot say that I had any direct conversation with any party that night, with the exception of one member, and that was Alderman Harding, whom I met outside the build- ing, when I was going in and he was going away. That was at the time that the experiment had failed. I did n’t go down there until perhaps a little late. They had been attempting to consume the gas, and for some reason or other they had stopped, and put the light out and were wait- ing, I understood, to accumulate gas enough to burn. They had burned out what had accumulated and were waiting for another accumulation. Alderman Harding was going out at the time. Q@. What I wanted to ask you was, whether there was anything said’ to Mr. Squire at the establishment at that time in regard to the smells from the tank. A. Well, I didn’t go very near Mr. Squire at that time. I had good reason for keeping away from him. Q. Did you visit that Reardon establishment at the time that the rest of the Board reviewed it? A. I did, sir. Q. With the Mayor and others? A. I did. Q. Well, now, how does the smell which was testified to as emanat- 491 ing from the tank that night compare with what you experienced at Mr. Squire’s? A. Well, the smell that I got there — The Chairman. At Reardon’s? A. I went to Reardon’s in company with the Committee on Health, and the Mayor, —a joint committee at the time. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). You are a member of the Committee on Health? A. Tam one of it, sir. I went to Reardon’s in the evening — Q. This is the Reardon’s up on Madison Street? A. Yes, sir. I went there in the afternoon, and I think that the man in charge did n't let on the gas at that time. It strikes me that he had orders not to discharge any then, but later in the evening. We went to Mr. Squire’s that evening, and afterward to Mr. Reardon’s, and in the even- ing we had the gas discharged, as they were in the habit of doing after they had done their rendering. After that I met Mr. Squire and one or two of his men up in City Hall one evening, in the Mayor’s room. Mr. McIntire. You don’t answer my question. Mr. Brine. I am coming to it now, sir. I was going to say how I came to go to Mr. Squire’s. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). I want to know the comparison between the odor at Mr. Reardon’s and that at Mr. Squire’s. A. I should say that the odors were very identical. The only odor I got at Mr. Squire’s with the same apparatus was from the blowing off, and it was intensified. Q. (by Mr. Derby). That is, when it was let off into the room? A. No, sir, I won’t say when it was let off into the room, but when it was blown off under the building. The Chairman. Which was more intense? A. Let me explain. The time that I got this terrible odor I was alone. I went in an unofficial capacity to Mr. Squire’s, and also to Mr. Reardon’s, and had them blow off, as they said they were in the habit of doing at 7 or 8 o'clock. They blew off exactly as I had seen them blow off at Reardon's, and I saw that the odor was then intensified. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). But somewhat identical? A. Yes, sir. Q@. Were you present as a member of the Board of Health when the resolutions of this Committee were introduced before that Board? A. The resolutions of the committee appointed at the indignation meet- ing? I was there. Q. Did you hear any remark made there by Mr. Squire, or in regard to his new apparatus, in comparison with the former apparatus that he had used? A. I heard a great many remarks that night. I think I did hear him make the remark, — yes, I am sure that I did, —in answer to Mr. Hastings or Mr. Magoun I think, that he thought that the place was sweet enough before, and he didn’t believe that this had made any great improvement, and he would take it out if they said so, or words to that effect. Q. Have you, as a member of the Board of Health, visited the Brighton Abattoir and Shaw’s, as well as Mr. Squire’s? A. I have, sir. Q. There have been comparisons made between those places. I would like to have you make one. The Chairman. I don’t see the benefit of that. Mr. McIntire. Jt has been testified that everything done in these estab- lishments is the same as that at the Abattoir, and that it is not more 492 offensive. I would like to have another member of the Committee who visited them give his opinion. It is a question of opinion. The Chairman. I don’t understand it so. Ask the question and let us see if he can give as brief an answer as possible. Witness. I visited the Abattoir, and went through it pretty thoroughly. The Chairman. Your opinion, simply. Witness. My opinion would be that Mr. Squire’s establishment would be susceptible of great improvements before it was as good as the Abat- toir. That is to say, it would at that time. I don’t know what may have been done there since. I understand that he has made great im- provements since then. Q. (by Mr. Derby). When was that time? A. That was in June, the same day after I went to Mr. Reardon’s in the evening. Q. (by Mr. McIntire). Have you ever heard Mr. McSorley make any remark in regard to the nuisance or cause of this nuisance? A. I have in a general way. I have heard him, with a great many other people, be very indignant, and say that he thought it was very bad that the people should have these things. Q. Which things? .4. These smells ; these unendurable smells from the slaughter-houses. Q. Did he mention the slaughter-houses? A. I think he did. Cross-Examination. Q. (by Mr. Derby). Has there been some difference or estrangement between you and Mr. Squire at any time? .4. There may have been on his part. J have never had any hard feelings against him. Q. There has been to some extent? A. Yes, sir. Q. You said you didn’t like to go near him on some account? A, Yes, it was on account of some remark which he made to me which I never had made to me before. Q. Do you remember what it was? A. Yes, sir. He called me a liar. It was the first time I ever was called a liar. Mr. Newhall. It is of no use to go into the cause of this matter. Mr. Derby. I merely asked the question. Mr. Brine. I didn’t intend to speak of it. : Mr. Derby. I simply asked the question if there had been any differ- ence between them. I don’t wish to pursue the inquiry. ‘ Q. I would now ask you with regard to Mr. Reardon’s establishment, whether you have been there more than once in consequence of their hav- ing offensive smells there. Whether you once went in company with certain men employed by Mr. Squire; if they took you there? A. I never went but once. I went twice the same day. I have never been there since. Q. With whom did you go? A. The first time with Mr. Kendall and the Mayor. Q. That was the visit described by the Mayor, I believe? .A. Yes, sir. And in the evening of the same day we went to Mr. Squire’s we went from Mr. Squire’s to Mr. Reardon’s again, at the invitation of one of his foremen. 493 Q. Was this after the pipe had been put in for burning the gases by Reardon, or the rendering in close kettles} .4. No, sir. He was ren- dering in a tight tank, and discharging the gas into a cistern in the back part of the premises. Q. He had introduced the principle of rendering in tight tanks, and was carrying the gas and liquid into a cistern at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any offensive smell at the time of your visit to Rear- don’s? .4. There was. = Was it very offensive? A. I would not like to stop there a great while. Q. Was it a necessary smell, or was it only let off for your informa- tion? Was it so understood? A. It was let off for our information. Q. You went there twice, and perceived it twice, did you? A. It strikes me that the first time I went there they gave us nothing of it. It seems to me that the man in charge said that he had no authority to let off the gas. Q. At that time the Mayor and Aldermen were with you, and at the next time, when the gas was discharged, they did not accompany you. Have you on any other occasions been to Mr. Reardon’s and perceived offensive smells? A. No, sir. Q. Have you at any time been invited tp go there, and declined to got : \ . ; " / =a =a Toe camucdye | |__| : ea ae bE PT PIE? aa AN eS Ganpbridgpe, Hew. 31S73- og gyn DEC.2. BOWKER, ENGINES & O55 « yeu Sve,