[August, 
474 Sewage Precipitation 
the least, carelessly, an important process for the purification 
of sewage by precipitation — the so-called * ABC process 
was brought into contempt. . . , . 
It was solemnly asserted by the Commissioners that 
“ after treatment by this process the effluent sewage is very 
little better than that which is obtained by allowing raw 
sewage to settle in subsidence-tanks ” ; that it ‘ removes 
only a very small proportion of the soluble polluting matters 
from sewage”; and that “ the manipulations required tor 
the extra(5tion and drying of this manure are attende W1 
a nauseous odour, especially in warm weather, and would 
occasion a serious nuisance if the works were situate in or 
near a town.” It would, perhaps, not be easy to select three 
propositions dealing with matters of faCf which deviate more 
widely from the truth. They stand out, indeed, as psycho- 
logical curiosities, and we cannot but feel some little interest 
as to the mental— rather than chemical— processes by which 
men of standing and repute could bring themselves to pen 
such statements. They have been fully and flatly contra- 
dicted by every chemist and sanitary engineer who has taken 
the trouble to examine for himself. The late Mr. keates, 
chemist to the Metropolitan Board of Works, who watched 
the process closely for three months, Dr. R. Angus Bmith, 
Dr. Wallace of Glasgow, Dr. Letheby, Mr. J. A. Wanklyn,^ 
besides a number of eminent medical practitioners, engineeis, 
municipal officials, &c., most distinctly deny the propositions 
^The^assertion that the effluent is little better than the 
result obtained by allowing sewage to stand in subsidence- 
tanks simply excites the derision of all who have ever seen 
— and smelt — sewage which has been thus left to itself. It 
is too glaringly false to need, or even admit of, discussion. 
As regards the third assertion the case is perhaps even 
worse. Of the numbers of people who have visited the 
Aylesbury Sewage Works, how many have observed the 
“ nauseous odour ” of which the Commissioners complain . 
Yet these visitors could probably deteCt a nuisance, if theie 
were one to deteCt, as readily as Professor Frankland or 
his coadjutor. . „ ... . , 
Speaking advisedly, and keeping well within the maik, 
we feel free to say that it would be easy to find one hundied 
men, of education and position, who would be piepaied 
formally to deny the charge of the “ nauseous odour. These 
* One chemist of the highest standing I omit, as he was for some time 
Chairman of the Native Guano Company. 
