Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 602

598

The Sanitary Board in this question of refuse disposal desired that it should be removed and des- troyed without the possibility of its thus being handled, and for this reason that these heaps of filth must be more or less impregnated with 'lague and it was therefore reasonable to suppose that the people who carried portions back to their homes were at the same time carrying germs of disease, possibly into otherwise healthy dwellings, and thus assisting to further spread the Plague.

The Sanitary Board asked that such scenes as this should be rendered impossible, and whether it were by a destructor or by the method suggested by the Director of Public Works mattered very little. The Chairman's scheme appeared to him an excellent one, but he would suggest that three ordinary hopper barges with one tug to tow them would answer better, because it would allow the barges to be alongside the Pier continuously and thus permit rubbish to be shot into them direct from the carts without the intermediate handling which would be entailed by its having to be stored on the wharf pending the arrival of the steam hopper barge.

The Honourable F. H. MAY said that they were all agreed that the present system was bad. The reason it was bad was that there was no proper supervision over those charged with the remo- val of the refuse. He thought that the scheme of the Director of Public Works if modified in certain particulars would furnish the best solution of the question. But he thought that there should be sufficient points at which to discharge the refuse from the carts into the hopper barges, and that the burges should be sufficient in number, to admit of each cart-load as it reached the Praya being discharged at once into the barges. This he thought might perhaps be arranged without piers or at any rate without more piers than 3 by having wooden shoots arranged by means of which the refuse could be tipped out of the carts over the Praya direct into barges which might, as had been suggested by Mr. OSBORNE, be towed away by a tug.

He thought if refuse was deposited on the piers to await removal the existing objectionable prac- tice of picking over the refuse would recur.

He suggested that perhaps the Director of Public Works might consider the points raised and evolve a revised scheme.

The Chairman, in replying to the remarks of the various speakers, said that, as regarded the piers, he proposed to have a concreted platform at the end, from which a shoot would convey the rubbish into the hopper barge. On this platform a brick shed would be erected, in which the refuse could remain, in cases of emergency, until removed by the barge. It would be out of sight there und protected from the effects of sun and rain. The whole place could be washed down as often as re- quired and could be easily kept clean.

The trouble as to the refuse being thrown into the harbour, as was so largely done at present, would be overcome, because it would be a difficult matter for the men to get it out of the hoppers in order to throw it overboard.

With regard to Dr. CLARK's remarks respecting the estimated cost of the destructor, he quoted a letter from Messrs. GARLICK & Co. to Mr. ORMSBY, dated the 11th January, 1901, in which they said:

"We note you require to destroy a total of about 90 tons of street sweepings per day and that "it is desired to place the destructors one at each end of the City." (Apparently such a proposal had been communicated to them.) We presume each destructor would have to consume about an equal quantity (about 45 tons) per 24 hours. We therefore recommend you to erect a 6-cell installation at each place." According to the information given by the Singapore authorities, this type of destructor cost about $10,000 per cell and, as 18 cells would be required to deal with 130 tons per day, the total cost would be $180,000 as he had already stated. That sum did not include quarters for an Overseer or any special expenditure on the preparation of the site.

With the destructor at Happy Valley, the greater part of the refuse would require to be trundled some miles through the town, whereas, with three piers along the harbour front, it could be run to which- ever of these was within reasonable distance. He therefore maintained that there would be a saving on the scavenging contract under the system he had proposed, which would not be obtained under the destructor system on account of the distance the refuse would have to be conveyed.

The annual cost of disposing of the rubbish under his scheme would be about $12,000 against $18,000 for the destructor, and the former would provide for dealing with a very much greater quan- tity of rubbish than the latter.

Mr. OSBORNE's proposal to have ordinary hopper barges, which would be towed to sea by a steam-tug, would be more expensive than the steam hopper barges as there must be a crew of 2 men to each barge and the system of towing would be inore expensive than transporting the material in a vessel which was self-propelling. Steam hopper barges could also go to sea when the weather was too rough to admit of barges being towed.

On the motion of the Honourable C. P. CHATER, secondled by the Honourable Dr. Is Kar, it was unanimously resolved that the Committee adhere to its former decision with respect to the Refuse Destructor and that the Chairman be requested to put into shape the scheme which he had proposed for the removal of the refuse to sea by means of steam hopper barges, which should then be submitted to the Sanitary Board for its consideration.