Futility of a Sanitary Water Analysis 49 



results, because they are relegated into their proper place; but the 

 supposedly competent hands are frequently brought to book. Let 

 us review an instance. 



In the memorable case of the State of Missouri vs. the State 

 of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago there was introduced 

 into evidence the testimony of a professor of chemistry who qualified 

 as an expert by relating all sorts of educational experience, both 

 foreign and domestic. Cross-examination developed the following: 



Q.: Taken in the abstract, without reference to anything else than the elements 

 of pollution stated by you, to wit, free ammonia, 0.063, nitrites 0.002, albuminoid 

 ammonia 0.552, nitrates 0.39, are those figures sufficient to warrant you in a con- 

 clusion as to the potability of the water ? 



A.: I think so. 



Q. : What is your conclusion ? 



A.: It is a potable water 



Q.: Do you consider a water having the following constituents potable, namely, 

 free ammonia 0.217, nitrites 0.013, albuminoid ammonia 0.676, nitrates 0.6? 



A.: No, sir. 



Q. : On what account ? 



A.: Because the free ammonia has gone beyond 0.2, and the nitrites are up in 

 the second place, whereas potable water should not have free ammonia very much above 

 o. i; and, in fact, if the nitrites are measurable at all, we usually condemn the water; 



Here is a man who gave two positive opinions concerning pota- 

 bility of two waters, from the bare statement of the four nitrogen 

 determinations. He did not think it necessary to take into account 

 the other conventional statements. There are two lamentable features 

 of this: first, he is teaching sanitary chemistry to students in a high- 

 grade university; second, he is only one of a large number of persons 

 similarly situated who are addicted to precisely the same absurdities. 



It is anticipated that one of the principal objections made to the 

 foregoing discussion will be that the examples given are exceptional 

 cases, and that a far greater number of examples can be adduced 

 which will support the standards of interpretation; that a few excep- 

 tions do not, in science, destroy a theory, and that a great mass of 

 data collected during past years should be accepted as the deter- 

 minative basis. The cases presented for illustration are not excep- 

 tional ones, nor, indeed, are they the best that might have been selec- 

 ted for the purposes of this paper. If, however, we admit, for the 



V 



