96 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



ENGINEERING. 



THE SEWERAGE OF KANSAS CITY. 



G. W. PEARSONS, C. E. 



In the January number of the Review appeared the report of a lecture by 

 Mr. O. Chanute, C. E., upon the sewerage of Kansas City. Another paper in 

 the February number gave a concise description of the Memphis sewers, which 

 are upon the " Separate system " advocated in Mr. Chanute's paper. 



This important subject has attracted the attention of engineers elsewhere. 

 Engineering News of New York republished Mr. Chanute's paper in its issue of 

 the 19th of February, together with a note from the author inviting criticism, 

 and the invitation thus given was taken up by Mr. R. Moore, C. E., ex-Sewer 

 Commissioner of St. Louis, who on the 12th of March read before the Engineers' 

 Club of that city a paper in review of Mr. Chanute's lecture. 



The latter was present on that occasion and made a verbal reply, which he 

 was requested to v/rite out by a vote of the club, and both the review and the 

 reply were published in the " Journal of the Association of Engineering Socie- 

 ties " for March, 1884, and subsequently republished in Engineering News (April 

 26th, May 3d and loth). 



This led to further discussion. Mr. Allen D. Conover, of Madison, Wis., 

 wrote to Engineering News concerning the point made by Mr. Moore as to the 

 obstruction to traffic by water in cross-gutters, and was replied to by Mr. C. E. 

 Chandler, of Norwich, Conn. 



Two additional papers on the same subject were read before the Civil En- 

 gineer's Club, of St. Louis, on the 7th of May by Mr. R. Moore, C. E., and 

 Mr. R. E. McMatt, C. E., and these have also been published in Engineering 

 Ahws together with a letter from Mc. J. H. Humphreys, C. E., of Memphis, and 

 also one from the writer, so that it is evident that there is no lack of interest in 

 the subject among engineers. 



As the people of Kansas City are, after all, the most vitally interested in 

 this subject, it is hoped that a review of the arguments will command their atten- 

 tion. The articles which have appeared in the pages of the Review do not need 

 more than mention here, those which have appeared elsewhere need for these 

 pages a fuller transcription, but the limits of this article will prevent more than 

 an outline of their arguments being given, with a view to deduce from them 

 and other data some general ideas of what may be best here. 



First. What is the difference between the combined and separate systems 

 of sewerage ? 



The earliest use of sewers in modern times was for the carrying of storm- 



