524 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE, 
waters are admitted to the sewers, the hydrauHc ram resulting from a flood, must 
produce pressure in the sewers, and drive the gas into the houses. These difficulties 
and dangers connected with a combined system of sewerage seems to have been 
recognized in England soon after their introduction, which, as already stated, 
dates from about 1815, for in in 1842 Mr, Edwin Chadwick, an eminent sanitar- 
ian, proposed and advocated a separate system of sewerage which has since been 
supported by many eminent engineers, upon sanitary grounds. This separate 
system has been successfully introduced in several English towns, and that it has 
not been more rapidly adopted is probaoly due to one imperfection in the sys- 
tem as carried out in England, which results from the introduction into those 
sewers which carry off household waste of a part of the storm-waters, that which 
falls upon the roofs and yards, (while that which falls upon the streets is rigidly 
excluded) for the purpose of flushing and cleaning the sewers. 
It was reserved to an American sanitary engineer, Mr. Geo. E. Waring, Jr.^ 
to finally perfect this separate system of sewerage, by excluding all of the storm- 
water, which latter cannot be relied upon to flush the sewers regularly, and sub- 
stituting therefor an automatic flush tank, which, filling itself slowly by a spigot 
from the water supply, discharges itself suddenly and flushes the sewers once or 
twice in twenty-four hours, as may be desired. 
I will not take up your time with a description of the separate system, to 
which the name of Mr. Waring has been justly attached. This description has 
been so often given by the public prints that you must all be familiar with it j 
but I will say that as carried out at Memphis by Mr. Waring, it is less a new in- 
vention (about the permanent efficacy of which there might then be some ques- 
tion) than an outgrowth and combination, made with great good judgment, of 
several excellent features that had been previously tried and been successful. 
Many of you have very recently been in Memphis, and while there you 
doubtless inquired into the working of its system of sewerage. It seems to be 
the universal opinion that the system there is a perfect success, that it accom- 
plishes every object that was aimed at, and has transformed this fever-plagued 
spot into a healthy city; while four years of constant use have not developed a 
single hidden fallacy in the system, or marred the unanimous satisfaction of the 
citizens; and this, as I am informed, in spite of the fact, that (contrary to the 
general belief on the subject) much of the work was originally hurriedly and 
imperfectly done, so that it ought to show all the defects which generally result 
from bad workmanship. 
The general result so far as ascertained, therefore, is that the separate sys- 
tem at Memphis is a complete success, that it has not failed in any particular to 
accomplish all necessary purposes, and that it is giving very general satisfaction 
to the citizens. 
Ask yourselves now the question, whether the citizens of Kansas City are 
equally well satisfied with the results of the combined system ? I am afraid from 
the answers which I have received in private that such is not the case. 
And yet, as it seems to me, no city is so well adapted as Kansas City to the 
