recent extra session of the Legislature, an act was passed providing for a commission of engineers to report plans for the sewerage and water supply of the Metropolitan District, but it failed from the non-concurrence of the City of Boston. It is hoped that some similar plan, free from the very reasonable objections which were made to the act rejected by Boston, may be soon undertaken. It seems to us of great importance in the interest of public health that some comprehensive system should be adopted."

The present system of Boston sewerage may be regarded both in its sanitary and economical relations. In the first place, it is of the utmost importance, in so far as public health is concerned, to be absolutely rid of the sewage. Our population is dense, and we cannot afford to retain these foul materials among us. Whether there be more or less money value in the water flowing from our sewers; whether in each ton of such water there be one, two or three cents' worth of a fertilizer, which may or may not be extracted and saved by chemical or other processes, is of comparatively little account. The health of the city has a positive and appreciable money value. Health is truly wealth. We think no better bargain can be made, at the present time, than to deliver the sewage in strong tidal currents. It is now but partially dispersed: a large portion of the insoluble contents of the sewers is deposited in the docks or on the mud flats of Charles River. If this could be conducted to deep water, where it would meet a strong ebbtide, by sewers extending to the ends of the wharves, or in the case of Charles River, by a capacious collecting sewer, reaching as far as the Charlestown bridges, it would be of great public advantage.

“It is asserted that the discharge of the sewage into tide-water contributes to the shoaling of the harbor. These objections are unfounded : it is true, that a deposit takes place in the docks into which the sewers empty, and necessitates occasional dredging; as regards its influence on the harbor, the Harbor Commissioners' find no proof whatever of injury from the discharge of sewage. It is effectually and completely dispersed, and no trace of it is found in any bars or shoals outside of the docks and wharves.'"

Boston. "The health report of the chief city of Massachusetts for 1872 is of an unfavorable character. The same neglect of the authorities to remove causes of disease, perfectly within their control, has continued, and their effects are seen in the extraordinary number of deaths. As a city increases, the mortality will inevitably increase more rapidly than the population, unless the means of repressing disease keep pace with the city's growth.

Boston has neglected such provisions, and is reaping the fruit of the neglect.

"In addition to the usual causes of death, which gather intensity with every year's official negligence, Boston has had to meet an epidemic of small-pox, which is now sweeping over this and other countries with a virulence previously unknown. The effect of this unusual mortality, from a special and temporary cause, on the general mortality from all causes is worthy of particular remark, and is commended to the attention of the fatalists, who contend that all efforts to prolong human life are vain and useless, and that an epidemic diminishes the mortality of other forms of disease.

“There died in Boston in 1871, 5,888 persons. There died in Boston in 1872, 8,089 persons. Reckoning the total mortality in each year, the increase in one year is 37 per cent. Excluding small-pox in both years, the increase in one year is 25 per cent.

“The death-rate cannot be given, because we do not know the present population. But every one will see that however great the increase may have been in the business of Boston, the number of persons resident within its territory can hardly have increased more than 5 per cent, in a single year, and probably not more than 3 per cent. We do not regret that the exact death-rate cannot be recorded, for the figures would be discreditable to the metropolis of New England.”

Also the following from Boston (City Doc. No. 92), 1872. Report of Committee on Back Bay Drainage, pp. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11:

"The brooks emptying into Muddy River, or Longwood stream, drain an area of about 2,600 acres."

“The larger portion of this drainage area is in Brookline, with smaller portions in Brighton, West Roxbury, and Boston. The question of the future disposal of the sewerage waters of this large district, greater in extent than the present area of the city proper, is one of the utmost importance.

Muddy River empties into the full basin, at the present time a portion of the Charles River basin, although eventually to be filled and built upon.

"The drainage of Muddy River must then be conveyed through sewers, laid in the streets of this territory, to the Charles River basin, or diverted to some other point."

"The area of the Stony Brook district, not including the area of the low district through which it runs, from the crossing of the Boston and Providence R. R. of Tremont street, is 8,000 acres, and the area of the

Muddy River district, not including the area of the low district east of the Brookline station, is 2,600 acres."

"The Charles River basin is too large for its outlet, at the present time, and this difficulty will increase instead of diminish if any further encroachments are permitted by increasing the width or number of the bridges between Boston and Cambridge and Charlestown, and the force and velocity of the currents in the tidal basin, already too small, will be still further reduced with a corresponding increase of deposits. This basin not only receives a large proportion of the sewage of Boston and Cambridge, but also the sewage of Brighton, Watertown, Newton and Waltham. The sewage of these towns is not very large, as they have no system of public water supply; but the introduction of water will be accompanied with systems of sewerage by which the amount will be greatly increased. The natural source of supply for these towns is the Charles River; and, as it is evident that a considerable amount of its water will first be contaminated by use, and then returned to the river as far below the towns as possible, the effect will be to increase the objectionable accumulations in the basin. There are several plans by which such a nuisance could be abated, one is the construction of a marginal sewer to intercept the sewage and convey it to a point where it will be dissipated at once by the action of the tidal currents; another to remove the accumulations by dredging; either of these plans would be exceedingly expensive. The size of the basin might be reduced to such an extent as only to leave a channel through which the current would run with such velocity that there could be no deposits. As the several commissions on Boston Harbor have advanced the theory that preservation of this basin intact is necessary for the protection of the inner harbor from shoaling, and its capacity should be increased rather than diminished, this plan is not feasible. Under these circumstances, the manner in which the sewage of districts under consideration can be conveyed to some less objectionable place than the Charles River basin becomes of the greatest importance."

"The commissioners on the Back Bay streets, with reference to their direction, sewerage and grade, in their report upon this subject (1863, City Doc., 81, p. 41), state, after some remarks upon the magnitude of the drainage area of Stony Brook: The remedy which we think must finally be adopted will be to intercept Stony Brook at or near Washington street, in Roxbury, and by the construction of a tunnel and sewer in a south-easterly direction, through Roxbury and Dorchester, discharge all the water from this brook and this territory into the most easterly end of Dorchester Bay. This method of its discharge will relieve Charles River and the property bordering upon it from all offensiveness from this source, and also relieve Charles River and the main body

of the harbor from the deposit of any sediment from this section of territory.' They also refer to the second report of the United States Commissioners on the condition of Boston Harbor, dated Dec. 12, 1860, in which it is shown that between the years 1835 and 1847 there has been deposited in Charles River, between the Milldam and Charles River bridge, an amount of sediment equal to 1,499,000 cubic yards. No doubt the largest portion of this sediment has been brought down by Charles River, draining, as it does, many square miles of territory.'

This Commission makes no recommendations with regard to the drainage of the Muddy River district, the scope of their investigations being confined to the drainage of the Back Bay, although it is difficult to understand why the drainage of this large territory should have been overlooked, unless it is upon the ground of its capability of being drained directly into Charles River by intercepting the drainage before its entrance into the full basin. Even in this case, the objections made to the conveyance of the Stony Brook drainage to this point will apply with equal force to Muddy River, and its drainage area is one third as large."

"The deaths in Boston for 1873, from January 1st to September 1st, are 5,507 against 5,275 for the same period in 1872, showing that the death-rate is equally great for the present year up to the present time; and putting Boston, in this respect, in the same class with Liverpool, Glasgow, New York, and New Orleans." We quote Dr. Derby, of the State Board of Health.

And from the "Boston Medical and Surgical Journal,” of the 11th of the present month, we make the following extract, p. 266:

"The question of sewerage is, indeed, one of great importance to the city, intimately connected with its future growth and prosperity, and one full of difficulties, which are constantly increasing with every new filling, whether of Back Bay, Ruggles street, or other districts. Moreover, it is closely associated with the drainage of surrounding municipalities. How far the condition of the extensive flats surrounding us, at low tide, in all directions, and the condition of the soil itself on which Boston stands, is affected by the present system of sewerage, is but one of the many questions relating to this important matter. are far from feeling reassured by the report of the Committee on Sew

We

ers, and we think the sooner the whole matter is thoroughly investigated by competent engineers the better. It seems to be by far the most important sanitary question with which we in Boston have to deal."

Finally, we deem superfluous any lengthy treatment of the importance of good health to our commercial prosperity; to the influence of annexation, upon which latter topic, we invite your attention. The annexation of Charlestown, Brookline, Brighton, and West Roxbury would give to our city an area, population and valuation as follows:

(a.) Last year's valuation. Not made up for this year at date.

Making our city the fifth ranked by population in the

United States, according to the census of 1870.

And an area in comparison with New York and Philadelphia, as follows: