1128 SPECULATION IN SEWERS AT CHELTENHAM.

combination of carbolic acid with quinine we are surelygetting more directly (through the circulation) at the causethan indirectly and more laboriously through the manifesta-tion of the disease. In view of the recent epidemics of

small-pox in England, I trust the importance of the subjectmay justify its being brought to the notice of the professionthrough the medium of your valuable journal.

- --- -

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully, -

L. W. SEYMOUR, M.R.C.S. Eng., L.R.C.P. Lond.Hyderabad, March 20th, 1903.

THE ROYAL NAVY MEDICAL SERVICE.To the Editors of THE LANCET.

SIRS,-When the First Lord of the Admiralty visitedHaslar Hospital to distribute the prizes gained by thesurgeons on the termination of their course of instructionthere, in his speech he called attention to some of the advan-tages of the Naval Medical Service as a career, but I do notthink that one-half of the great recent improvements are

known or appreciated amongst the rising generation in themedical profession and I want to try to call the attentionof these gentlemen to the opening which the Naval MedicalService presents, both for their own sakes and because of thegreat interest I take in the service, where, though retired, mywhole heart still is. To those who have sufficient capitalat their command to enable them to purchase their waythrough life or who wish and are able to bid for the

higher prizes of the profession I do not appeal, and the factremains that not all can obtain these latter ; in fact, but fewcan and do. But for the average man the Naval MedicalService offers very many advantages. The pay is very goodand the expenses are very small. The social advantages aregreat: the world is seen in the best circumstances and the lifeis very healthy and free from cares. There remains, how-ever, the professional side of the question, and on thismatter I believe a very great misapprehension existswhich deters many from joining the service. There is anidea amongst medical men in civil life that (1) there is noprofessional work to be done, and (2) that there is no

advantage in doing it when there is any. As regardsthe first : in all the naval hospitals, at home andabroad, the cases are such as are quite up to thecases found in many large civil hospitals ; a good numberof acute and subacute cases are found in the medical wards,whilst nowadays in all the naval hospitals a great deal ofgood modern surgery is done, and well done too. (Duringtwo years and four months I was in charge of surgical wardsin Plymouth Hospital I performed about 140 operations,many of a major character.) The apparatus supplied bothon shore and afloat is of the very latest pattern and of thebest quality and abundant in quantity.As regards No. 2. At one time all fared alike as regarded

professional attainments and work was not encouraged.Now all this has been changed. Sir Henry Norbury, the

present director-general, gives the greatest encouragementto professional services ; in fact, they now come fira in thelist for special promotions and now medical officers are

specially promoted for professional merit, thus giving directencouragement to work. This is the best step ever takenfor the benefit of the Naval Medical Service and the Director-General deserves the highest thanks from all naval medicalmen for this step, though hardly less in importance is thatgentlemen who have held "house" appointments in hospitalsare allowed to count that time towards their service in thenavy. It used to be a drawback to have spent time as ahouse surgeon before entering the navy as being time" wasted." Now all this is changed and a bid is being madeto draw the best men now growing up in the profession to thenaval service.

I do hope that many at the metropolitan and provincialhospitals when they read this will weigh well the pros andcons and if they decide to join the naval service as medicalofficers I am sure they will never regret it either from a pro-fessional, pecuniary, social, or any other point of view. I

hope that what I have written may induce many to do so.. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,

A. G. P. G i rrs,Bideford, April 12th, 1903. Fleet Surgeon, R.N. (retired).

DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.-Under the will ofMrs. Mary Fordham, of The Rookery, Royston, Cambridge,.E100 are bequeathed to the Royston Cottage Hospital.

SPECULATION IN SEWERS ATCHELTENHAM.

(FROM OUR SPECIAL SANITARY COMMISSIONER.)(Concluded from p. 1062.)

The Case for the Owners of Private Sewers.-The Bill toAbolish their Privileges.-The Campaign Against and-Defeat oj the Bill.-The Perpetuation of Privileges andSanitary Abuses.THE argument brought forward by the private owners of

sewers is such as to render it useless to seek out some meansof effecting a friendly compromise. It is acknowledged thatthe private sewers, built some 60 or 70 years ago, are nowso defective that they cannot be repaired. New sewers withdifferent gradients and of much better construction must besubstituted for these old private sewers. But if such newsewers are built by the corporation this would involve anincrease of rates, and in that case the householdersnaturally expect to be relieved from the rent-charge whichthey now pay for the use of the old defective private sewers.But to this comes the reply that such an expectation is wrong

’

both from the moral and the legal point of view. Mr.James B. Winterbotham in defence of this view cites hisown case and says :—

I live at Pittville. I pay to the corporation a rent charge of £6 6s.a year for my house and garden. Mr. Pitt originally reserved this

’ rent charge in return for the right to use the sewers, roads, andgrounds which he laid out at Pittville. By mortgaging this rent-charge, and others like it, he obtained money towards his outlay fromthe County Bank who afterwards, as mortgagees, sold them to thecorporation. The sewers, roads, and grounds have become public,but the rent-charges remain. I also pay my full share in rates, for

! the public expenditure on roads and sewers in Lansdown and therest of the town. But I do not complain (1) because I bought my

, house subject to the rent charge and allowed for it in the price;(2) because my property owes its creation and its past and present

! residential character and value to the original outlay, made from themoney thus obtained by Mr. Pitt, and it is right I shall repay those

. from whom he borrowed it to the extent to which he legally chargedmy property.

This means that if a property is bought subject to rentcharge for sewers this charge is to be paid in perpetuity

. even when the sewers in question have ceased to exist.Whatever may be the legal aspect of this postulate itis quite certain that the public will not continue to pay

- for ever for something which they no longer possess., There are limits to the rights of property. There

, is the copyright law, for instance, limiting the property’

rights of authors and publishers. Therefore it was feltthat in this case also the legislature must interfere and put

. a limit to the payment of rent charges for sewers that must.

be removed. Also from the sanitary point of view it is abso-lutely necessary to put an end to the existence of a dividedauthority. The management of all the sewers must be

. vested in the corporation and private owners cannot be: allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever. Consequently,: after some abortive negotiations with the private owners,

: the town clerk advised that an appeal should be made toParliament. A private Bill was prepared some three years

i ago, but as there was need of legislation in regardto several other matters these were also included and thuswhat is called an "omnibus" Bill was drafted. When,

t however, this scheme was submitted to the town council

. a great diversity of opinion arose and the matter wasabandoned. The discussion had, however, its educationaladvantage. Then year after year the reports of the medicalofficer of health, Dr. J. H. Garrett, rendered it more and

more evident that this question could not be allowed toremain in abeyance. In his report for the year 1899 Dr.Garrett denounced the sewers made for profit " in the

1 Lansdown-road and Bath-road district and insisted that they1 should be "treated in the same drastic way as in other dis-

1 tricts," adding : "I I have specially advised that one sewer in_ particular is a likely source of ill health to the occupants of[ the house close against which it runs and requires immediate

removal from that dangerous position." Returning to thisquestion the following year Dr. Garrett pointed out that Sec-tion 14 of the Public Health Act, 1875, gave permissive powersto a sanitary authority to purchase privately-owned sewers,

. but there were no compulsory powers. Nevertheless, acting

’

on this, the principal owner or representative of privatef sewer-owners was approached. This owner asked for sewers, that he thought were in a good condition a sum equal to 20years’ purchase and for those that were undoubtedly in a