192 REMARKS UPON THE DISPOSAL OF THE SEWAGE OF HOBART. 
1,700,0001b, of mineral matter in suspension were sent into the Cove 
instead of the usual 6,000lb. of solid, and as compared with the 
4,000lb. a day of the Macquarie Point discharge. Yet we are gravely 
told that the discharge of these 4,000lb. a day into the tideway outside 
the Cove would have the same eff-ct as the discharge of 1,700,000lb. 
into the still water within it. 
One other point is elucidated by the analyses. The quantity of salt 
in the mid-stream sample of the water as compared with that in sea- 
water, shows that the Derwent water was at the time and place ordinary 
sea-water diluted with 21 per cent. of river water—a fact that agrees 
with the estimates of the great daily downward flow of the iresh 
water. 
DISCUSSION. 
Mr. Rute said Mr. Mault bad given nothing to show that the smaller 
quantity of nitrogen found at a distance from the rivulet was due 
altogether to the greater mass of water ; it might be due to evaporation. 
He emphasised Major-General Tottenham’s argument that the decrease 
of organic matter might be due to sediment, and agreed with him as to 
the tidal courses. 
Dr. Bricut said that what was thrown ashore at Sandy Bay and 
other points might come from ships in harbour. People quite over- 
looked the fact that this drainage scheme was to improve the condition 
of the city from a health point of view. As a matter of fact, the 
health of the city was getting worse in preventible diseases. From 30 
years’ experience on the hospital medical staff, ne could testify that 
the actual result of the atrocious pan system, misnamed the sanitary 
system of Hobart, was to increase the number of typhoid cases. 
Typhoid could be contractel by smelling as well as drinking. He 
agreed with every word of Mr. Mault’s paper. 
Mr. R. S. Mites, City Surveyor, thought the discharge into the 
tide-way would not affect the health of the city. The chief cause of 
the present trouble along the shore came from the lighter matter always 
found in streets of cities, and brought down by flood waters. A 
separate system entirely would be impracticable at present, because, 
to his mind, there would be always a certain amount of expense entailed 
by repairs and maintenance of the present system of drainage ; in addi- 
tion to a cost of from £10 to £15 a house for connecting with the new 
system. 
Dr. Crovucu approved of Mr. Mault’s paper. The question was one of 
expense. If Mr. Mault had his choice of the three schemes submitted 
to the Metropolitan Drainage Board, that adopted at Southampton, the 
city more nearly approaching Hobart, would cause no ill effects to the 
Der went. 
Mr. F. M. Youne thought a mudbank might result at the outflow 
and be a nuisance to boats, but with that siugle exception there was 
nothing to be afraid of in the proposed system. 
Alderman G. 8. SEABROOK asked whether the scheme was to bea deep 
drainage system or otherwise, and for information as to the outlet to 
midstream. It would be manifestly unfair to ask the citizens to alter 
their preseat drainage and to repeat the operation a little later. His 
experience made him afraid that unless the drainage were carried right 
out into mid-stream it would find its way on shore. The suggestion 
for a destructor was worth consideration, and if the slaughter-houses 
were not removed he hoped one would be obtained and all refuse 
destroyed. Anything to remedy the present evils would receive his 
support either in the Council or elsewhere. 
