most summer resorts in this state which is available for such uses will suffice. In practice it has been found that the sewage of from 250 to 500 persons can be applied to an acre of ground by this method continuously throughout the year and probably with the unusually favorable conditions to be found in the case of the northern summer resorts of this state where the season is of but a few months duration and the soil generally porous, this amount may be largely exceeded. As an illustration of the application of this system let us assume the case of a northern Michigan summer resort. The resort will be open to guests from May to October at farthest. By reason of the fact that the soil will have long intervals of rest and also for the reason that at the season when sewage is applied to it the purifying agencies are most active, we may, with reason, considerably reduce the area of the absorption field below the standard which has been established for continuous use. From results that have been obtained by this method it seems fair to assume that under the favorable conditions assumed one acre of ground will suffice for 1,000 persons and that if the sewage of even 1,500 persons be applied to an acre for limited periods at the height of the season it will still suffice.* Assuming now a resort accommodating 200 guests there will be required about 2,000 feet of sub-surface drains @ 10c 200 feet of carrier @ 25c - . Intercepting chamber.. Collecting chamber Automatic appliances Total $200 00 50 00 25 00 100 00 30 00 95 00 $500 00 It is doubtful if a resort not within reach of a system of public sewers can be better served than by such a system. It would undoubtedly be the part of wisdom for many resorts sit *Col. Waring states that the sewage of Lenox, Massachusetts, having a population of 800 to 1,200, is disposed of by this process on less than one and one-half acres of land throughout the year, ENGINEERING uated on water fronts and discharging the sewage along them to the offense of patrons, to adopt this method. Those unfamiliar with this method are inclined to discredit the fact that sewage may be applied in this manner successfully in winter. It is an established fact, however, that where frost penetrates between the drains to the depth of several feet the sewage exuding from the drains keeps the soil adjacent to them open. The sub surface system of disposal was first introduced by Rev. Henry Moule, the inventor of the earth closet, in 1868, to supplement the earth closet by the removal of the liquid matter. The growing popularity of the water carriage system of removal has influenced its development until at the present time it is held by leading sanitarians as offering the best solution of the problem of isolated sewage disposal. PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, the paper is before you for your consideration. I would only remark that our friend, Mr. Pierson, exhibits a great deal of modesty in so quietly and unpretentiously making other people say those things he knows so well himself, and giving them the credit of knowing them, without taking any himself. Remarks are in order from members. There are gentlemen here who have had experience in this matter. Would be glad to hear from them. COL. MUENSCHER: I would like to ask Mr. Pierson if the result of his recent experiments was that in attempting to purify sewage by filtration, the larger surface exposed the better, that almost all purification is within the first few inches of the filter? MR. PIERSON: That directly and logically follows. The number of bacteria decreases very rapidly below the first few inches. COL. MUENSCHER: So, as long as you get a large surface, it is no great object to get a large depth. I have been a little surprised at the different results I have seen. How do you count these organisms? Do you use the microscope for making an estimate? MR. PIERSON: Yes, I can find them, but I cannot count. them directly. It is done by distributing small quantities of sewage over surfaces adapted to the growth of bacteria. The number of colonies of bacteria which appear is a basis from which the number of bacteria in a given volume of the sewage may be computed. COL. MUENSCHER: Do you find these organisms to be mostly animal or vegetable? MR. PIERSON: Mainly vegetable. COL. MUENSCHER: Don't destroy each other, do they, one vegetable destroy another? MR. PIERSON: Well, they destroy organic matter; yes, they destroy each other. They dispose of organic matter. MR. HODGMAN: The big fish eat the little ones. OWNERSHIP OF LAKE BEDS. F. HODGMAN. Since my paper on this subject was read before this society, the Supreme Court of the United States has passed upon the question with reference to the ownership of a lake bed in Illinois in which they lay down the following principles: 1. That patents, by the United States, of lands bounded by streams or other waters, in the absence of reservation or restriction of terms, are to be construed as to their effect according to the law of the state in which the land lies. 2. In Illinois, the common law being in force, a patentee from the United States of land there situated, bounded by the water of a small lake, takes to the center of the lake. 3. Meander lines, as shown by the United States surveys, do not constitute the boundary. The water is the real boundary. 4. When a patent is issued for land bounded by a lake or stream, the title to the land under water passes from the government, and subsequent action of the land department in surveying and granting the latter land is without authority and void. Hardin vs. Jordan, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep., 808. The reasons of the court in coming to these conclusions are given at too great length for the columns of the Annual. The controversy was in regard to the ownership of the bed of Wolf lake, near Chicago. One party claimed a portion of it under the common law, claiming title through a government patent of adjoining fractional lots, and the other party claimed title from a subsequent survey of the uncovered lake bed and purchase from the government. In closing the case the court says: "On the whole our conclusion is that the court below should have given judgment for the plaintiff as against the defendant, to the center of Wolf lake, instead of to low water mark in front of 'certain lots' and to the middle of the bay or projection of the lake in front of a certain other lot.' If there should arise any question between the plaintiff and other riparian owners of lands situated on the margin of the lake as to the convergence of the side lines of the plaintiff's land in the lake, it can be disposed of by the parties themselves by a resort to such form of procedure as may be proper." Three of the judges dissented from this, and as their opinion is comparatively brief and covers the points at issue it is reproduced in full from the Supreme Court Reporter for June, 1891: HARDIN V. JORDAN. (May 11, 1891.) BOUNDARIES-PUBLIC LANDS SMALL LAKES. Under the laws of Illinois, a patentee from the United States of land there situated, bounded by the waters of a small lake, takes only to the water's edge. Per Brewer, J., dissenting. Gray and Brown, JJ., concurring. BREWER, J. (dissenting). Mr. Justice Gray, Mr. Justice. Brown and myself are unable to concur in the foregoing conclusions. Beyond all dispute, the settled law of this court, established by repeated decisions, is that the question how far the title of a riparian owner extends is one of local law. For a determination of that question the statutes of the state and the decisions of its highest court furnish the best and the final authority. In the case of St. Louis v. Rutz (decided at the present term), 138 U. S. 226, 242, ante, 337, 343, it was said by Mr. Justice Blatchford, speaking for the court: "The question as to whether the fee of the plaintiff, as a riparian proprietor on the Mississippi river, extends to the middle thread of the stream, or only to the water's edge, is a question in regard to a rule of property which is governed by the local law of Illinois. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338; St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U. S. 566, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, ante, 210. In Barney v. Keokuk it is said that, if the states 'choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections.'" The cases referred to in this quotation affirm the same doctrine. If we turn to the decisions of the supreme court of Illinois, we find one rule laid down for running water and another for lakes and ponds. In the former case the riparian owner owns to the thread of the current; in the latter to the water line. No distinction is made on account of the size of either stream or pond. Without noticing the authorities in reference to rivers or other running water, it is enough to refer to the decisions in reference to lakes and ponds. In the case of Seaman v. Smith (decided in 1860), 24 Ill. 521, 525, it was held that a riparian owner on a large lake (Lake Michigan) took title only to the water line. The reason of that decision was thus expressed in the opinion of the court: "These great bodies of water, having no currents, like rivers and other running streams, cannot present the same reasons why the boundary should be extended beyond the water's edge, where it is ordinarially found, that apply to running bodies of Where such streams are called for as a boundary, the thread of the current is held to be the line from each side. Such a rule could not, for the want of a current, be adopted in this case. It would not be sanctioned either by analogy to the rule or by reason. And if the outer edge of the water be passed, owing to the approximation of these bodies to a circular shape, it would be found exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain where the boundary should be fixed, or the shape it should assume." It will be perceived that the same reasoning applies whether the lake be a large or a small one. There is no decision or intimation by the supreme court of that state |