Documentary History of American Water-works

Filtration Technology in American Waterworks

| Hyatt Filters | Jewell Filters |

Filtration was used throughout the 19th Century in American water works, initially with small water filters used by individual consumers that were eventually replaced by filtration systems that could handle all of the water delivered by a water utility.  Although filtration proved ineffective in preventing certain diseases, it is still important in improving the quality and appearance of water.

Also see the references for Disinfection Technology.

References
1750  Nouvelles Fontaines Domestiques, Approuvees par l'Academie Royale des Sciences, by Joseph Amy

1754 Suite du livre intitulé Nouvelles fontaines filtrantes, approuvées par l'Academie royale des sciences, by Joseph Amy

1793 A Short Account of a New Method of Filtration by Ascent ; with Explanatory Sketches, Upon Six Plates. By James Peacock, of Finsbury-Square, Architect

1794 "Art. XXII. A Short Account of a New Method of Filtration by Ascent," The Analytical Review, Or History of Literature, Domestic and Foreign, on an Enlarged Plan 19:295-296 (July, 1794)

1795 "Art. XVII. A Short Account of a New Method of Filtration by Ascent," The Monthly Review 16:178-180 (February, 1795)

1801 "Remarques Sur la clarification," Par le citoyen Parmentier, Annales de chimie ou recueil de mémoires concernant la chimie et les arts qui en dépendent et spécialement la pharmacie 16:113-136 (30 Thermidor an IXᵉ) [August 17, 1801]

1802 "Observations on Clarification," by Citizen Parmentier, Repertory of Arts and Manufactures, 16(92):130-138, 16(98):176-184.

1822 "On Purifying the Water of the Seine at Paris," Technical Repository, 1:316-317 {April, 1822)

1822 "Purification of the Water of the Seine at Paris," Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts 13:423-424 (July, 1822).

1838 "Fonvielle's Filtering Apparatus," The Architectural Magazine 5:278-279 (June, 1838)

1838 "Report Made to the Academy of Science on the Filtering Apparatus of Henry de Fonvielle," by Dominique Francois Arago, Tr. by J. Griscom, Journal of the Franklin Institute (New Series) 22(3):206-213 (September, 1838).

1839 "Fonvielle's Filtering Apparatus," Journal of the Franklin Institute (New Series) 23(5):350-352 (May, 1839)

1850 "Report of a general plan for the promotion of public and personal health," by Lemuel Shattuck, Presented April 25, 1850, commonly referred to as the Report of the Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts  |1948 reprint |

1853 "Die Filtrazion des Wassers im Grossen," von Delbrück, Allgemeine Bauzeitung Mit Ubbildungen 18:103-129

1865 Report on Water for Locomotives and Boiler Incrustations: Made to the President and Directors of the New York Central Railroad

1869 Report on the Filtration of River Waters, for the Supply of Cities, as Practised in Europe: Made to the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, by James P. Kirkwood

1877 A practical treatise on water-supply engineering relating to the hydrology, hydrodynamics, and practical construction of water-works, in North America. With numerous tables and illustrations, by John Thomas Fanning.
Pages 530-556: Chapter XXIII.  Clarification of Water.
Page 533:  Dr. Gunning demonstrated by many experiments that the impur water of the river Maas, near Rotterdam, could be fully clarified and rendeed fit for the domestic supply of the city, by the introduction of .032 gramme of perchloride of iron into one liter of the water.  The waters of the Maas are avery turbid and contain large proportions of organic matter, and they often produce in those visitors who are not accustomed to their use, diarrhoeas, and other unpleasant systems.

1878 The New York Filter Co. : Organized under the laws of the state of New York, January 23d, 1878. : N.G. Kellogg, president and treasurer. R.S. Jennings, vice-president and sup't. : No. 1296 Broadway, East side, two doors below 34th Street. : Factory, no. 45 Gold Street, New York City. : Foundry, 40 & 42 Doughty St., Brooklyn, L.I. [This company is not related to the 1891 New York Filter Company.]

1878 Jennings' system of water filtration : patented in the United States, England, France and Belgium : pure water supplied to all parts of a house, New York Filter Company,

1880 "The Porter-Clark Process for the Softening, Purification and Filtration of Hard Waters," The Sanitary Record New Series 1:398-401 (April 15, 1880)

1879 Rahway Weekly Advocate and Times, December 20, 1879, Page 2.
Our ingenious townsman, P. Clark, Esq., has constructed a water filter, one of which he has introduced into the City Water Works, which is a great improvement on any heretofore made. Most persons who have employed a filter for domestic use, have found its value lessened by the deposition of sedimentary matter on its inner surface. Unless frequently cleansed the filter becomes clogged or the silt, unable otherwise to escape, is forced through the filter, thus destroying the value of the appliance.  For these reasons many persons have discontinued the use of such articles entirely, and prefer accepting the water in its natural state to the care and trouble of keeping a filter in good working order.
Tho improvements made by Mr. Clark obviate all the above-mentioned objections.  His new filter clears itself of all impurities, as it separates them from the water. By an ingenious arrangement the silt and sediment which accumulate in ordinary filter», are carried away by a separate flow of water, and thus tho instrument never becomes foul and cannot become clogged. We believe Mr. Clark thinks of securing a patent for his filter, though he proposes to allow the city tho free use of its advantages, having, as we said, already introduced one into our Water Works, at which place he would be pleased to explain its workings to any one interested in such matters.

1880 Rahway Weekly Advocate and Times, November 13, 1880, Page 3.
We are informed that a patent has been granted to our townsman, Patrick Clark, Esq., for an improvement in filters similar to the one built by him for our Water Works about sixteen months ago, and which during that time has furnished the city with unobjectionable water.  The improvement being fundamental is considered valuable by by those who are competent judges.  [Clark had filed an application for a patent on October 18, 1880, which was granted the following June.]

1880 Newark Filtering Company incorporated December 30, 1880, capital stock $300,000

1881 "Water," by Patrick Clark, Rahway Weekly Advocate and Times, May 7, 1881, Page 1.
It's various relations to animal and vegetable life, and especially to mankind when living in large numbers on limited areas of the Earth's surface.
The writer took charge of the Rahway water-works on the first of June, 1879. The pumping station is on the north branch of the Rahway river, which furnishes a minimum supply of ten million gallons of water every twenty-four hours. The works have no reservoir or stand pipe, but pump directly against the mains. Two duplex compound engines are used alternately month about each engine being capable of pumping one and one-half millions every twenty-four hours.  The daily consumption of the city is about five hundred thousand, but the amount for short periods occasionally runs up to on million gallons. The water remaining in the reserve pumps and mains always became grossly offensive at the end of three or four days after the stoppage of the pumps. In June, 1880, a sand filter was placed between the works and the river. The result was that the water remaining in the idle pumps and mains at the end of a month was sweet and palatable.

1881 "Water," by Patrick Clark of Rahway N.J., Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven, Connecticut), May 13, 1881, Page 1. | also here |

1882 "The Multifold Water Filter," Engineering News 9:1 (January 7, 1882)
Newark Filtering Company.

1882 "Improved Filters," Scientific American 46(1):4 (January 7, 1882)
We give an engraving of a new filter made by the Newark Filtering Company

1882 "The Water-Supply of Certain Cities and Towns of the United States," by Walter G. Elliot, C. E., Ph. D., June 1, 1882, Special Agent, from Statistics of power and machinery employed in manufactures: reports on the water-power of the United States, Part 2, by W. P. Trowbridge, Chief Special Agent, United States. Census Office. 10th census, 1880 (1887).
Page 226:  New Jersey.  Rahway: Filtering apparatus:  Clark filter, 16 feet square; sand, 6 inches deep, on fine-wire cloth; cleaned once in 24 hours.

1882 History of Union and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey: With Biographical Sketches of Many of Their Pioneers and Prominent Men, by W. Woodford Clayton
Page 253:  The water is filtered by an improved filter (a very ingenious contrivance), invented by Patrick Clark, engineer of the Rahway gas-works.

1883 "Improved Filters," Scientific American 48(13):191, 195 (March 31, 1883)
The Hyatt Filter No. 1.

1883 "Methods of Filtration of water in use in the United States and Europe, with details of construction, cost, and efficiency," by J.J.R. Croes, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Water Works Association 3:18-31 (May, 1883)

1883 Water Supply Considered Mainly from a Chemical and Sanitary Standpoint, by Prof. William Ripley Nichols of MIT

1884 "The Porter-Clark Process," by John Henderson Porter, The Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry 3(2):51-55 (February 29, 1884)

1884 "The Hyatt Filters.- Manufactured by the Newark Filtering Co., Newark, N.J.," Scientific American 50(9):129-130 (March 1, 1884)

1885 "Report of  the  Purification of  Drinking-Water by  Alum," by Peter T. Austen and Francis A. Wilber, February 14, 1885, Annual Report of the State Geologist of New Jersey for 1884 141:150 (1885)

1885 "The Purification of Water by Aeration," Engineering News 13:134 (February 28, 1885)

1885 "The Purification of Water by Aeration," Clayton Air Compressor Advertisement, Statistical Tables from the History and Statistics of American Water Works, by John James Robertson Croes, (March, 1885).
Page 32:  December 4, 1884 testimonial letter by Charles B. Brush, Chief Engineer and Superintendent, Hackensack Water Company

1885 "The Artificial Filtration of Water," by M. T. Turner, Engineering News 13:245-246 (April 18, 1885)

1885 "The Purification of Water by Aeration," The Manufacturer and Builder 17:125 (June, 1885)

1885 "The Clarification and Purification of Public Water Supply," by L.H. Gardner, Supt. Water Works, New Orleans, Scientific American Supplement 20(510):1846-8147 (October 10, 1885)
In 1883, Mr. I. S. Hyatt, of Newark, N. J., visited New Orleans with a filter, the principal and must valuable feature of which was a self-cleansing device. The courtesies, privileges, and facilities of the yards and works of the New Orleans Water Works Company were extended to him for some four months. During that time he experimented on an extended scale with every known filtering medium or material, and utterly failed in the filtration of Mississippi River water in such a manner as to deliver continuously a colorless water. Meantime I was experimenting with lime, alum, and the various salts of iron, with a view to reservoir clarification. These experiments were the subject of his pleasant ridicule. Toward the close of his stay in New Orleans, I prevailed upon him, in his disappointment, to try a precipitating agent or coagulant in the water previous to its introduction into his filter. He experimented in this direction, succeeded, and I believe obtained a patent upon the combination. Several of the Newark filters embodying this feature are in use in manufacturing establishments in and about New Orleans.

1886 "Remarks on the Aeration of Water," by Charles B. Brush, Scientific American Supplement 22(541):8641-8642 (May 15, 1886)

1886 Water Purification by the Hyatt System, June 1886, by Newark Filtering Company | pdf |

1886 "The Purification of Water by Alum," by Peter T. Austen, Scientific American Supplement 21(550):8782-8783 (July 17, 1886).

1886 "The Hyatt Pure Water System," advertisement, The Sanitary Era 1:2 (July 31, 1886)

1886 Passaic Daily News, August 16, 1886, Page 2.
The National Water Purifying Company, an organization for the purpose of supplying Jersey City and Newark with pure water, filed articles of incorporation in the office of the County Clerk of Hudson County last Saturday.  The capital stock is $3,000,000.

1886 The National Water Purifying Company was incorporated on August 10, 1886, capital stock $300,000

1887 Descriptive Circular of the Hyatt Pure Water System 

1887 "Purification of the Water-Supplies of Cities," by Albert R. Leeds, Journal of the Franklin Institute (Third Series) 123(2):93-107 (February, 1887)

1887 "Purification of the Water Supplies of Cities," by Albert R. Leeds, Scientific American Supplement 23(583):9309-9310 (March 5, 1887)

1887 Patrick Clark (1818-1887) grave

1887 The Morning Journal-Courier (New Haven, Connecticut), March 7, 1887, Page 2.
Died at Rahway, New Jersey, on Saturday, March 5, or pneumonia, Patrick Clark, in the eightieth year of his age.  Mr. Clark was known not only in New Jersey but quite generally in the United States as a successful inventor of many useful articles pertaining to steam and water, and was directly connected at the time of his death with the "Newark Filtering Works" and with the "Rahway Gas company."

1887 "The Hyatt Filter Infringement Suits," Engineering News 17:210 (March 26, 1887)
The Newark Filtering Co., has instituted suits in the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, against Wm. M. Deutsch, the National Water Purifying Co., and also against Albert H. Leeds and the United States Pure Water Supply Co., for alleged infringements on patents of the Hyatt Pure Water System. The first of these is based upon Letters Patent No. 293,747, the principal claim of which is as follows: "In the art of filtration by means of beds of granular material, the method of preventing the deposition of silt and other obnoxious substance, which consists in agitating the upper part of the bed to a sufficient depth without disturbing the lower part of the bed or interfering with Its functions as a filtering agent, substantially as set forth," The theory of the case is that this claim is infringed by the method of the defendant described in bis circulars, by which he cleanses the upper portion of the bed without disturbing the lower, and which he claims is a great advantage. In the infringement suit against Johnson, Justice Bradley sustained the claims of the Hyatt Patents, perpetually enjoined the defendant and appointed a master to ascertain and assess damages arising from the infringements.

1887 "The Hyatt Pure Water System," advertisement, The Sanitary Era 1:224 (April 1, 1887)

1887 "Important Infringement Suits," The Sanitary Era 1:228 (April 1, 1887)
[This notice was by accident imperfect in our last number, and is therefore reprinted, by request, to repair a serious omission.]
The Newark Filtering Company have instituted suits in the U. S. Circuit court for the District of New Jersey, against Wm. M. Deutecb, the National Water Purifying. Company, the United States Pure Water Supply Company, and Albert II. Leeds, for alleged infringements on patents of the Hyatt Pure Water System.
The first of these is based upon Letters Patent No. 293,747, the principal claim of which is as follows:
"In the art of filtration by means of beds of granular material, the method of preventing the deposition of silt and other obnoxious substance, which consists in agitating the upper part of the bed to a sufficient depth without disturbing the lower part of the bed or interfering with its functions as a filtering agent, substantially as set forth."
The theory of the case is that this claim is infringed by the method of the defendant described in his circulars, by which he cleanses the upper portion of the bed without disturbing the lower, and which he claims is a great advantage.
In the Johnson infringement suit Justice Bradley sustained the claims of the Hyatt Patents, perpetually enjoined the defendant and appointed a Muster to ascertain and assess damages arising from the infringement.

1887 Newark Filtering Company name changed to Hyatt Pure Water Company, May 23; 1887

1888 "New Corporations," The Inter Ocean, January 25, 1888, Page 1.
Springfield, Jan 23.:  Jewell Pure Water Company, of Chicago; capital stock $500,000, for the manufacture of water filters, etc.; incorporators, Frank F. Fisher, James McLean, and William Devine.

1888 American Filter Co. was organized in Illinois on January 25, 1888 with a capital stock of $100,000, of which Ernest H. Riddell and Chester B. Davis received $25,000 each for their patent rights in the United States and Canada.

1888 "New Corporations," The Inter Ocean, January 28, 1888, Page 2.
Springfield, Jan. 27:  American Filter Company, of Chicago; capital stock, $100,000; object, to make, sell and operate filters; incorporators, C. B. Davis, E. H. Reidell, and J. K. Allen.

1888 Morrison, Allen and Company, incorporated at West Orange, New Jersey on May 2, 1889 for the manufacture of filters, etc. with a capital stock of $100,000,

1888 "United States Circuit Court - New Suits," Chicago Tribune, August 14, 1888, Page 8.
Hyatt Pure Water Co. vs. Jewell Pure Water Co.  Bill to restrain use of titles, "Jewell Pure Water Company" and "Jewell Pure Water System."

1889 "The Courts - U.S. Circuit," Chicago Inter Ocean, February 14, 1889, Page 10.
Hyatt Pure Water Co. vs. Jewell Pure Water Co; lv to complts to dis c c and case disd.

1889 "Suits of The Hyatt Pure Water Company," Engineering News 21:249 (March 16, 1889)
The Suits of the Hyatt Pure Water Co. against the Jewell Pure Water Co. for infringement of patents have been dismissed in the U. S. Court of the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Blodgett, at the plaintiff‘s cost.

1889 "Suits of The Hyatt Pure Water Company," Engineering News 21:272 (March 23, 1889)
We learn the suit of the Hyatt Pure Water Co. against the Jewell Pure Water Co. has been discontinued in the United States Court of the Northern District of Illinois, as the same issue is being tried in the United States Circuit Court, District of New Jersey.

1889 The National System of purifying water for public water supply, manufacturing and private residences. July 1, 1889

1890 Engineering News 23:192 (February 22, 1890)
The Morrison-Allen Co. has opened offices at 145 Broadway, New York.  The company manufactures improved water purifiers under patents awarded to L. H. Jewell, J. H. Jewell and Wm. M. Jewell.

1890 "The Mechanical Filtration of Water," Engineering News 23:588-589 (June 21, 1890)

1890 Manual of American Water Works, Volume 2 (June 1890)
Pages xl-xliv: The Filtering Plants of American Waterworks

1890 The Loomis Improved Filter Company was incorporated in West Virginia on July 26, 1890.

1890 "Largest Filters in the World," Chicago Herald, November 27, 1890, Page 5.
A Chicago Company Fitting out the Davenport (Iowa) Water Works.  The possible capacity of the filters in 7,500,000 gallons of pure water a day, while the easy capacity is 6,000,000 gallons.

1891 The Continental Filter Company was incorporated in West Virginia on November 20, 1891.

1891 New York Filter Company incorporated in New Jersey, December 5, 1891, Capital Stock $1,500,000.

1891 The Warren filter : for the purification of water for water works, paper mills, dye-houses, bleacheries, etc. and for the clarification of waste liquors : manufactured and sold by the Cumberland Manufacturing Co. ... 220 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass. | pdf |

1892 "New York Filter Company," Fire and Water 11(8) (February 20, 1892)
We are in receipt of the following communications which explain themselves: 145 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, February 15, 1892. DEAR SIR—The Hyatt Pure Water Company of Newark, N. J., the National Water Purifying Company of New York city, and the American Filter Company of Chicago, Ill., beg to announce that they have consolidated under the corporate name of the New York Filter Company.

1892 Engineering News 27:167 (February 20, 1892)
The consolidation of the Hyatt Pure Water Co., of Newark. N. J., the National Water Purifying Co., New York City. and the American Filter Co., Chicago, I11., has just been officially announced. The new company has incorporated under the laws of New Jersey with a capital stock of $1,500,000, and with the name, the New York Filter Co. The full list of Directors is as follows: C. C. Worthington. John W. Hyatt, Henry P. Jones. A. C Westervelt, Peter Kinnear, W. M. Deutsch, Albert R. Leeds, .Theodore F. Miller and John D. Harrison. The officers are: President, C. C. Worthington. of the Worthington Pump Co., New York City; Vice-President, John W. Hyatt, of the Hyatt Pure Water Co., Newark, N. J.; Treasurer. Henry P- Jones, Newark, N. J.; Secretary, John C. Symons, of the National Water Purifying Co.. New York City. The new company acquires all the patents, about one hundred in number, of the old companies. Its office is at 145 Broadway, New York City.

1892 "Pure Water," The Times-Democrat (New Orleans, Louisiana), March 30, 1892, Page 3.
The Waterworks Company Conclude a Big Deal.  Thirty Immense Filters to be Erected Within Six Months.  The Filter Plant Will Have a Capacity of Twenty Million Gallons.  National Water Purifying Company.

1892 "Pure Water," The Times-Democrat (New Orleans, Louisiana), March 30, 1892, Page 4.

1892 "Trade Publications," Engineering News 27:506 (May 19, 1892)
Mechanical Filters - New York Filter Co., New York; oblong, pp. 85.
This pamphlet describes and illustrates in detail the filters heretofore made by the Hyatt Pure Water Co., United States Water Supply Co., National Water Purifying Co. and American Filter co.  These companies were recently consolidated as the New York Filter Co.  Prices for various sized filters of the different types are given and many testimonials from individuals, manufacturing firms and water-works officials having the filters in use.  [Note:  no copy of this has been found.]

1892 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the National Conference of State Boards of Health, June 6, 7 & 8, 1892

1892 City of Burlington v. Burlington Water Co., 86 Iowa 266, October 18, 1892, Iowa Supreme Court
The company was ordered to install filtration at its own expense.

1892 "The Sterilization of Water," New York Medical Journal 56:526 (November 5, 1892)

1893 Morison-Jewell Filtration Co. incorporated April 14, 1893 in Camden, New Jersey to Manufacture Filters, capital stock $100,000.

1893 "The Litigation on the Coagulatant Patents for Filters," Fire and Water 13(19):205 (May 13, 1893)
The Morison-Allen Company, 145 Broadway, and O.H. Jewell Filter Company, 73 West Jackson Street, Chicago, Ill., New York, May 6, 1893.  DEAR SIRS. The fact has been brought to our notice that one John C. Symons signing himself secretary of the New York Filter Company has been sending letters to our customers in which notice is given that a company by that name has instituted suit to prevent the use of the Jewell filter and claiming that it owns the only patents covering the employment of a coagulant in the filtration of water," etc. In view of this extraordinary claim, we beg to inform you:"

1893 New York Filter Co. v. Schwarzwalder et al, 58 Fed 577, October 16, 1893, Circuit Court Southern District of New York.
O. H. Jewell Filter Company patent infringement

1893 New York Filter Co.: capital $1,500,000, owning the patents (over one hundred in number) of Hyatt Pure Water Co., U.S. Pure Water Supply Co., National Water Purifying Co. June 1, 1893.

1894 "Report of the Results Obtained with Experimental Filters at the Pettaconset Pumping Station of the Providence Water Works," by Edmund Brownell Weston, March 12, 1894.  Appendix to the Seventeenth Annual Report of the State Board of Health of Rhode Island, for the year ending Dec. 31, 1894.

1894 New York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co. et al, 61 Fed 840, June 9, 1894, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York.

1894 "A Filter Patent Decision and Filtration at Providence," Engineering News 31:544 (June 28, 1894)
Ordinary sand filtration may be adopted for the water supply of Providence, R.I., instead of the mechanical filtration system, noted in our issue of June 7, but nothing definite has been decided in the matter as yet. The change of system has been made probable by a recent decision by Judge J. C. Shipman, of the U. S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. The decision was rendered in a suit originally brought by the New York Filter Co. against Henry Schwarzwalder on account of filters of the Jewell type used in the Murray Hill Turkish Baths, of New York. The O. H. Jewell Co., of Chicago, took up the suit in defence of its patron. The alleged infringement is the use of alum, or, perhaps more properly, sulphate of alumina, as a coagulant to aid in removing foreign matter from water by rapid filtration through sand. The decision appears to hold that the use of any coagulant which causes the formation of hydrates upon sand filter beds, with filtration at a rapid rate, is an infringement of Patent 293,740, granted to Isaiah Smith Hyatt, on Feb. 19, 1884, notwithstanding a subsequent disclaimer filed by the inventor excluding aluminum salts. The decision also seems to indicate as permissible the use of any of these coagulants in large quantities and with slow rates of filtration for the purification of water not intended for drinking, or for the purification of sewage. This latter is to be inferred, merely, the main point being that the use of sulphate of alumina in the particular Jewell filter named is forbidden. The effect of this decision on the Providence scheme may be easily understood after the statements: (1) That the city proposed to contract with the Morrison-Jewell Filtration Co., of New York, for a Jewell filter plant, which system a special investigating committee had recommended, and to use sulphate of alumina as a coagulant, (2) The city engineer of Providence, Mr. J. Herbert Shedd, M. Am. Soc. C. E., who was one of the investigating committee, appears to favor the use of sand filter beds, instead of mechanical filters. (3) Finally, it is reported that Mr. Shedd has secured plans for a so-called natural filtration plant and obtained an estimate for building such a plant for $200,000, against $281,000 for the mechanical system, and with an estimated cost of operation of $10,000 for the beds, against $30,000 for the mechanical filters. The beds proposed are six in number, each 150 x 300 ft., giving an effective area of about 612 acres, and designed to filter 15,000,000 gallons of water daily. Brick underdrains are proposed, covering the whole bottom area of the beds, and similar to those used by the New River Co., of London, and by the water-works of Ilion, N. Y., as described in our issue of June 7.   Aside from Mr. Shedd, the other members of the investigating committee were Mr. Robert E. Smith, Superintendent of Public Works, and Health Commissioner Chapin. A general invitation was extended for the submission of systems of filtration for experiment and a long and careful series of experiments were made on both mechanical filters and simple sand filtration. Mr. Edmund B. Weston, M. Am. Soc. C. E., assistant in charge of the water department, had direct supervision of the experiments, and is reported as expressing himself unofficially as in favor of “natural filtration,” but as being of the opinion that a 15,000,000-gallon plant of this type cannot be built for less than $500,000. It may be stated here that the filter beds at Lawrence, Mass. (See Eng. News, Aug. 3, 1893), with an available area of 2½ acres and a daily capacity of 5,000,000 gallons, cost $65,000, or $13,000 per million gallons. The New York Filter Co., prior to the decision referred to, had served notice on the city of Providence that the proposed system was an infringement on patents held by the company and the Morrison-Jewell Filtration Co. had offered to give bonds to protect the city. The decision, although the case has been, or probably will be, appealed, apparently deters the city from using the Jewell patents and will lead it, it appears, to pass by all other mechanical filters and take up simple sand filtration.

1894 Engineering News 32:1 (July 5, 1894)
More infringement suits against parties using mechanical filters are to be brought by the New York Filter Co., which, as we announced last week, has secured a decision from the U. S. Circuit Court sustaining its patent for the use of a coagulant in connection with rapid filtration. This particular decision was against the O. H. Jewell Filter Co., of Chicago, but in case it is sustained by the U. S. Court of Appeals it is said that none of the mechanical filter companies, except the New York, will be able to use alum, sulphate of alumina, or any other coagulant. The further suits will be against infringements of certain mechanical devices used in filtration and have been begun by a suit against the borough of Asbury Park, N. J., which recently contracted with the Continental Filter Co., of New York, for a mechanical filtration plant. The New York Filter Co. is the result of the consolidation of five separate filter companies or interests, is said to control over 100 patents relating to mechanical filters and has apparently set out to secure a monopoly of the mechanical filtration business in this country. There are still quite a number of companies in the business, however, some of which appear to be strong in every way, so that the struggle bids fair to be well contested.

1894 New York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co. et al, 62 Fed 582, July 7, 1894, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York.

1894 "The Filter Manufacturers War," Springfield Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts), July 26, 1894, Page 4.

1895 Schwarzwalder et al v New York Filter Co. 26 U.S. App 547, January 9, 1895, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Includes specification, claims, and drawings.

1895 Schwarzwalder et al. v. New York Filter Co. 66 Fed. 152, January 9, 1895, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

1895 Engineering News 33:40 (January 17, 1895)
An important decision in relation to the mechanical filtration of water has just been rendered by Judge Wallace, of the U. S. Court of Appeals. The use of alum or similar coagulants in water filters has been decided to be an infringement upon a patent owned by the New York Filter Co., provided the alum is admitted to ‘the filter simultaneously with the passage of water to the filter. Where the combined coagulant and water pass to a settling basin before going to the filter, the decision states that there is no infringement. The patent in question was issued eleven years ago to Isaiah Smith Hyatt, and has been the subject of legal contention ever since the use of mechanical filters got well under way, in 1887. The history of the case and the main points in the decision are given elsewhere in this issue.
Although the original patent did not name alum as the coagulant, it was broad enough to include it and the company holding the patent adopted it to the exclusion, practically, of all other coagulants. In fact, alum proved to be so far superior to other chemicals, that one company after another has also adopted it, all of them, it now appears, thereby becoming infringers on the Hyatt patent, except such as employ settling or precipitating basins before filtration.
It is extremely fortunate for the manufacturers of mechanical filters that the question so long at issue has finally been settled, for the recent litigation has ‘been coincident with a new and proper appreciation of the value of ordinary sand filter beds and many possible purchasers of mechanical filters have turned completely away from them and to sand filtration, on account of the possible legal difficulties in which they might become involved if they used a mechanical filter. But this decision affects only one patent. out of a hundred or more, held by the New York Filter Co, and we understand that further litigation is in progress to establish infringement of at least one other patent held by this company. As five water purification interests have already been consolidated into one, it would not be at all surprising if further consolidations should follow until there would be not more than two or three strong filter companies in the field, at the ‘most. Even with litigation wiped out or greatly reduced, mechanical filters will find an increasingly strong competitor in sand filtration, the great merits of which are becoming more apparent every day.

1895 "A Final Decision on a Mechanical Filtration Patent," Engineering News 33:44-45 (January 17, 1895)
After seven years of litigation the legal status of patents covering the use of alum or similar coagulants in the fiItration of water has been determined beyond appeal. It is now settled that the application of such coagulants to water, which after such treatment is passed immediately to and through a filter bed (in other words, without intermediate settling basins), is an infringement upon patent No. 293,740, granted Feb. 19, 1884, to Isaiah Smith Hyatt. This patent was entitled, “A Method of Purifying Water,” and is now owned by the New York Filter Co. The history of the case is as follows:
In April. 1887, the Newark Filter Co., which then controlled the above patent, filed a bill of complaint in the U. S. Circuit Court, District of New Jersey,. against the National Water Purification Co., alleging infringement of the patent. asking for a perpetual injunction and for $50,000 damages. Shortly afterwards the Newark Filter Co. became the Hyatt Pure Water Co., and in June. 1888, it began suit in the U. S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois against another alleged infringer of the same patent, the Jewell Pure Water Co.
The second suit was dismissed at the complainant's cost, on Feb. 13, 1889.  Moreover, on July 27, following, a disclaimer to the original Hyatt patent, mentioned above, was filed, striking out a part of the specifications, in which certain broad claims were made. This disclaimer is cited below. The original suit between the Hyatt and National Cos. was continued, if we are correctly informed, until their consolidation, early in 1892, as the New York Filter Co. as noted in our issue of Feb. 20, 1892. The American Filter Co., of Chicago, was also included in this consolidation, and in addition the new company now holds the patents on the filter known as the Blessing, and certain patents on the aeration of water, formerly controlled by the U. S. Pure Water Co.
On May 1, 1893, the New York Filter Co. again took up the suit on the Hyatt patent, alleging infringement in the case of a Jewell filter, in use at the Murray Hill Turkish Baths, New York city. Meanwhile, the Jewell Pure Water Co. had become the O. H. Jewell Filter Co. On June 9, 1894, Judge Shipman, of the U. S. Circuit Court, for the Southern District of New York, rendered a decision in favor of the New York Filter Co.. as stated in our issue of June 28, 1894. The case was carried to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, a stay of injunction being granted, meanwhile, by Judge Shipman. On Nov. 1 and 2 an argument on the appeal was made before Judges Wallace, Lacombe and Coxe, and on Jan. 9, 1895, an opinion was filed by Judge C. J. Wallace affirming the decree of the Circuit Court.
Judge Wallace's opinion seems much clearer than that of the lower court. He states very plainly that, in using alum in filers without the intervention of settling basins, there is an infringement; but that with such basins there is not.
Having given the history of the case, some reference may be made to the claims of the original Hyatt patent, upon which so much litigation has been based. The claim allowed in this patent was as follows:
The method hereinbefore described of arresting and removing the impurities from water during an uninterrupted passage of same from a supply-pipe into a filtering apparatus, thence through a filter-bed contained therein, and out through a delivery-pipe leading therefrom, which method consists in introducing into the water simultaneously with its passage to or into the filter a substance which will sufficiently coagulate or separate the impurities to facilitate their arrest and removal by the filter-bed, thus obviating the necessity of employing settling basins.
As will be seen, the above claim specifies no chemical to be used as a coagulant. The specifications, however, refer several times to persulphate or perchloride of iron, or “other coagulating agent." or words similar to the three quoted, and in a paragraph stricken out in a subsequent disclaimer. already mentioned, permanganate of potassa, was named. This disclaimer was as follow::
I do not confine myself to the employment of persulphate or perchloride of iron or permanganate of potassa, but make use of any other suitable agent which is capable of coagulating the impurities of the liquid, and preventing their passage through the filter-bed. Neither do I limit myself to any particular proportions or quantities of the coagulating agent, as they may be varied according to circumstances and the character of the liquid to be treated. Nor do I confine myself to any particular liquids. although I contemplate chiefly the purification of water in large quantities.
In this suit the defendants had urged that the Hyatt patent was null through lack of originality and that, whether null or not, the disclaimer limited the patent to the two salts of iron named. After reviewing the case and referring to some references to earlier patents, Judge Wallace says, in answer to the first point:
The patent in suit describes a departure from anything which appears to have been done or known in the prior art, so far as appears by the record.
The departure consists in the discovery, in the language of the Judge. “that the agglomerating action of the coagulants could be obtained without waiting a considerable time for precipitation. or during the passage of the water through the filtering-bed."
Judge Wallace's conclusions, tn regard to the disclaimer and his summary of the case, are as follows:
The patent after the disclaimer is to be read exactly as though the recital had never been inserted. Thus read. it is clear that the claim covers the use of any coagulant having similar properties to the salts of iron. which was a recognized equivalent.
As thus construed, the infringement of the claim by the defendants is established, although they use alum as the coagulant instead of the salts of iron. In some of the plants of the corporation defendant settling tanks are used between the introduction of the coagulant and the filter-bed. In these plants the method of the patent is not appropriated, and there is no infringement.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.
Of course, the decision applies to all companies or persons making or using mechanical filters in which alum or a similar coagulant is used.  Wherever the water receives the coagulant as it passes into the filter, the Hyatt patent is infringed, but if settling tanks are employed, in Judge Wallace's words, "there is no infringement."

1895 "The Effect of the Recent Filter Patent Decision on the Warren Filter," by W. B. Nye, Manager, Cumberland Mfg Co., Engineering News 33:58 (January 24, 1895)
Sir: I have read with interest the editorial note in your issue of Jan. 17 regarding the recent decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of mechanical filtration, but it seems to me that you leave readers somewhat in the dark as to the present status of the manufacturers of mechanical filters other than those mentioned in the article. For this reason I would call your attention to the fact that this company has made it an invariable rule to install a settling tank wherever it Warren filter was to be used with a coagulant. Under this system the water, after receiving the coagulant, remains at rest for a considerable time, during which both coagulation and sedimentation take place. It is evident from this, therefore, that under the decision of Judge Wallace. the Warren filter has never in any way infringed the Hyatt patent, which will doubtless be of interest both to users and those contemplating Its use.  Yours respectfully, W. B. Nye. Manager Cumberland Mfg. Co. Boston. Mass" Jan. 21. 1895.
(The editorial note, to ‘which reference is made, included this sentence:
Where the combined coagulant and water pass to a settling basin before going to the filter, the decision states that there is no infringement.
No mention was made in the note of any specific filter, except those involved in the suit. There seems to be no doubt but that the Warren filter is entirely clear, as well as those Jewell or Morison-Jewell filters with settling hanks mentioned by Judge Wallace in his decision.—Ed.)

1895 "Attachment Against the Filter Trust," The Sun (New York, New York), January 24, 1895, Page 5.

1895 "Business Troubles," The New York Times, January 24, 1895, Page 12.
Attachment for $3,156 against the New-York Filter Company, known as the Filter Trust, of New-York, Newark and Chicago.

1895 "Business Troubles," The New York Times, January 30, 1895, Page 12.
Another attachment has been obtained against the New-York Filter Company (Filter Trust) for $1,500.

1895 "Receiver for the New-York Filter Co.," New York Tribune, January 31, 1895, Page 12.

1895 "Big Filter Company in Trouble," The Inter Ocean, January 31, 1895, Page 2.
Receiver appointed for New York Filter Company

1895 The Hartford Daily Courant, April 17, 1895, Page 9.
The case of Cornell Hiscox and Underhill vs. New York Filter Company was continued form last week.
The case is an important one.  The New York Filter Company, which is located in New Jersey, sold the Hockanum and New England companies two large filters valued at $3,400 January9.  The company assigned for the benefit of their creditors on January 22.  The plaintiffs garnished the property. As notice of assignment had not been send to creditors within three days, the assignment was not valid. 

1895 Official Gazette of the U. S. Patent Office 72:1043-1046 (August 5, 1895)
Schwarzwalder et al. v. New York Filter Co

1895 "An Interesting Case," The Hartford Daily Courant, September 19, 1895, Page 9.
Cornell, Hiscox and Underhill against New York Filter Co.

1895 "Has Jurisdiction," The Hartford Daily Courant, October 10, 1895, Page 9.
Cornell, Hiscox and Underhill against New York Filter Company decision in favor of the plaintiffs

1895 “Sand Filtration of Water, with Special Reference to Results Obtained, at Lawrence, Massachusetts,” by George W. Fuller, American Public Health Association, Public Health Papers and Reports 20:64-71 (1895)

1895 “Sand Filtration of Water, with Special Reference to Results Obtained, at Lawrence, Massachusetts,” by George W. Fuller, Scientific American Supplement 996:15920-15921 (February 2, 1895)

1895 The Filtration of Public Water-supplies, by Allen Hazen | Second Edition (1896) | Third Edition (1900) |

1895 "The Waterworks Wins," The Times-Democrat (New Orleans, Louisiana), November 13, 1895, Page 11.
National Water Purifying Company loses its suit.

1895 New York Tribune, November 19, 1895, Page 8.
John R. Hardin, receiver of the New-York Filter Company has received information that the courts in Louisiana have rendered a decision against the company.

1895 Engineering News 34:349 (November 21, 1895).
The Mechanical Filter Suit Brought by the National Water Purifying Co. Against the New Orleans Water Works Co. has been decided in favor of the latter, in the civil district court at New Orleans. Some time ago the New Orleans Water Co. contracted for a mechanical filter plant, with a minimum daily capacity of 14,000,000 gallons. After the plant had been completed and operated for a number of months, as described in part in our issues of Aug. 30 and Sept. 6, 1894, the water company refused to accept it on the ground that it did not comply with the contract guarantees. The filter company brought suit for about $134,500, the contract price, and it is this suit which has just been decided. The patents of the old National Co. are now controlled by the New York Filter Co., of 145 Broadway, New York city. Mr. L. H. Gardner is Superintendent of the New Orleans Water-Works Co.

1885 Engineering News 34:385 (December 12, 1895)
An appeal to the highest court has been made in the mechanical filter suit between the National Water Purifying Co. and the New Orleans Water-Works Co, noted in our issue of Nov. 21.  The local court decided that the latter company need not accept the 14,000,000-gallon plant built by the company, the suit being for $134,500, the contract price for the plant.

1896 "Judgment for $3,354," The Hartford Daily Courant, January 11, 1896, Page 11.
Decision in the Interesting Case Against the New York Filter Company.

1896 Engineering News 32:256-257 (April 16, 1896)
A good illustration of the reason why some cities fail to secure pure water supplies is afforded by the account in another column of the filtration schemes at Providence, R. I., which, within the past three years, have seemed on the point of being adopted, but which have not yet been carried out. At one time it appeared certain that mechanical filtration would be adopted, but an obstacle more apparent than real intervened just as the contract seemed about to be made, and the advocates of filter beds came quickly to the front. Their progress was then in turn impeded by the friends of mechanical filtration, and these last were aided at just the right juncture by the irrepressible artesian well advocate, who always bobs up at such times, regardless of the existing geological conditions or the quantity of water required. Nothing has ever come of any of these schemes at Providence, but there is now talk of reviving the filtration idea. At the outset, the City Council appears to have been strongly in favor of mechanical filtration, but there has not come to our attention any indication that this was due to engineering advice. Throughout the discussion the city engineer, Mr. J. Herbert Shedd, M. Am. Soc. C. E., expressed himself, whenever called on, as in favor of sand filter beds. Requests for his opinion, however, were generally informal. In fact, the City Council instructed the Commissioner of Public Works to contract for a “suitable system of mechanical gravity filters” without any official recognition of the city engineer further than to ask him for an informal expression of opinion, and to make him one of a commission of three to approve the System selected before the contract was awarded. When sand filtration came to the front it was doubtless largely through Mr. Shedd’s efforts; but he had previously expressed himself as in favor of contracting for mechanical filters rather than none, and intimated his fear that nothing would be done for a long time unless a mechanical system was adopted, a prediction which has been fulfilled. The agitation at Providence, however, has by no means been Valueless. Filtration of some sort will probably be adopted there eventually, and the agitation, led to a series of valuable experiments on mechanical filtration, made by Mr. Edmund B. Weston, M. Am. Soc. C. E., as recounted at length elsewhere in this issue. These Providence experiments furnish far more data than has previously been available to engineers from any source regarding the methods and results of mechanical filtration as a means of removing bacteria from water. Aside from indicating that a high and continuous bacterial efficiency can be obtained with properly constructed and carefully operated mechanical filters, the experiments seem to show conclusively some other things which we have tried to bring out in our abstract of Mr. Weston’s report and shall only mention here: (1) That the bacterial efficiency of mechanical filters depends very largely upon the use of a coagulant. (2) That a heavy dose of the coagulant when the filter is first started after washing hastens the formation of the film of hydrate of alumina on the surface of the filtering material, upon which the success of the process is said to depend very largely. (3) That the filtrate should be wasted for some minutes (fixed by Mr. Weston as 30) after newly starting a filter, owing to the poorer results then obtained, and the possible risk from alum carried through the filter during the heavy dosing. (4) That only during the first few minutes of the run of the filter could any alum in solution be found at Providence, and this in minute quantities. This is a very important conclusion, as the opponents of mechanical filtration have laid great stress upon the danger from using alum as a coagulant. Comparatively small quantities were used at Providence, and these were regulated with great care. The results on this point indicate that as mechanical filters have heretofore been operated, some alum may have got into the filtrate, especially just after Washing, where the filtrate is wasted only until it runs clear, as is generally the case, and when large quantities of alum are being used. (5) The comparatively short average run at Providence, where the water was generally clear, indicates that the frequency of washing, under some conditions, coupled with the wasting of the filtrate for a half hour afterwards, would make the total amount of water wasted Very high in Some cases. Mr. Weston gives this figure for Providence as 7.8% of the total quantity filtered during the run. If washing was done with filtered water, even this quantity would be an important factor, and when it was materially exceeded the percentage of wasted water might become a serious matter. Mr. Weston first based his estimates on washing with filtered water, but afterwards changed to unfiltered, materially reducing thereby his estimate of the cost of operation. Whether washing with unfiltered water would be advisable under all or any circumstances we cannot discuss now, Mr. Weston appears to think it would be safe for Providence,

1896 "The Providence Experiments of the Mechanical Filtration of Water," Engineering News 35:262-264 (April 16, 1896)

1896 The National Water Purifying Company v. The New Orleans Waterworks Company, 48 La. Ann. 773, April 20, 1896, Supreme Court of Louisiana

1896 New York Filter Manufacturing Company incorporated in New Jersey, May 15, 1896, capital stock $600,000

1896 "New Companies," Engineering News Supplement 35:176 (May 28, 1896)
New York Filter Mfg. Co., Newark, N.J.; $600,000; Jos. Bushnell, Newark, N.J.; Wm. M. Deutsch, Elizabeth, N.J. Nelson B. Warden, Philadelphia, Pa.

1886 "Filtration," by S. A. Charles, with discussion, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Water Works Association 16:117-135 (May 26-28, 1896)

1896 "The Jewell Mechanical Water Filter Plant at Wilkes-Barre, Pa.," Engineering News 35:330-331 and supplement (May 21, 1896)

1896 "The Jewell Mechanical Water Filter in 19 Cities," Engineering News 35:354-359 (May 28, 1896)

1896 Fire and Water 20:345 (July 11, 1896)
A filter plant has been decided upon for Niagara Falls, N.Y., the cost not to exceed $75,000, the capacity to be 6,000,000 gallons every twenty-four hours.

1896 Engineering News Supplement 36:21 (July 16, 1896)
The New York Filter Manufacturing Company, 145 Broadway, New York city, has been organized to succeed the New York Filter Co.  The new company will control all the patents held by the old one, known as the Hyatt, United States, National, American, and Blessing, and including the Hyatt patent No. 293,740, of Feb. 19, 1884.  The company announces that it proposes to prosecute all infringers of its patents, past and future.

1896 "Elmira Water Works Improvement," Fire and Water 20:443 (September 12, 1896)
Morison-Jewell Filtration Plant, 6,000,000 gallons per day

1896 "Purification of City Water Supplies by Sand Filtration," by Frank J. Firth, Annals of Hygiene 11:329-340 (June 1896)

1896 "Purification of City Water Supplies by Sand Filtration," by Frank J. Firth, Water and Gas Review 7(6):8-11 (December 1896)

1896 New York Filter Manufacturing Company v. Niagara Falls Waterworks Company, 77 F. 900, December 29, 1896, Circuit Court, Northern District of New York.

1896 Purification of City Water Supplies by Sand Filtration, by Frank J. Firth, O. H. Jewell Filter Company [This book was reprinted by Hanse in 2016 and despite the title is actually a reprint of the following 1897 publication by the Jewell company, which includes Firth's article.]

1896 "The Jewell Water Filter," advertisement, Engineering News 36:xxxv (December 31, 1896)
Includes that it is constructed in accordance with the Circuit Court ruling.

1896 Report of the results obtained with experimental filters at the Pettaconset pumping station of the Providence water works, by Edmund Brownell Weston

1897 "Another Decision Regarding the Use of Coagulant in Mechanical Water Filters," Engineering News 37:7 (January 7, 1897)
The use of a coagulant in mechanical filters has again been pronounced as an infringement on the patent No. 293,740, granted to Isaiah Hyatt, Feb. 19, 1884, and owned by the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. The former decision to this effect was noted in our issue of June 28, 1894. In that decision the judge distinguished between the use of alum, where settling tanks intervene between the admission of the alum to the water and the passage of the water to the filters and its use where tanks are not employed, limiting the injunction to plants without such tanks. Both suits were brought against users of the Jewell filter, the first suit being brought by the New York Filter Co., and the second by its successor, the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. The outcome of the last suit was the granting of a preliminary injunction against the use of Jewell filters by the Niagara Falls Water-Works Co., the suit being in the U. S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, and the opinion being by Judge Coxe.
Since the decision of 1894, some, if not all, competitors of the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. have been relying upon the use of settling tanks to avoid infringement of this Hyatt patent, relying largely on the following sentences in the decision of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
In some of the plants of the corporation defendant settling tanks are used between the introduction of the coagulant and the filter-bed.  In these plants the method of the patent is not appropriated and there is no infringement.
The defendants in the case just decided claimed that they had settling tanks that would exempt them from infringement, in view of the above statement. The tanks in question have a capacity (Eng. News, May 28, 1896) of 38,000 gallons and the filters a daily capacity of 4,500,000 gallons. The court held that the passage of the water through the tanks at so great a rate as would be necessary with the present output of 3,500,000 gallons per day affords no time for sedimentation, as practiced when the patent was granted, the inventor stating in his description that "settling basins or reservoirs as now commonly employed" are unnecessary in his process. Aside from this prima facie evidence the judge cites testimony submitted by the complainants which he considered as establishing beyond a doubt that practicaliy no sedimentation occurs in the Niagara Falls plant, the whole work being done by the bed. Evidence to the contrary, submitted by the defendant, he dismissed as inconsequential.
We are informed that the Niagara Falls Water-Works Co. has taken the case to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals; also that a hearing on a stay of the injunction will be heard on Jan. 12 and that possibly the injunction may not be formally served until after the hearing on appeal.

1897 Engineering News 37:81 (February 11, 1897)
A temporary injunction against the use of Jewell filters, at Elmira, N. Y., in such a manner as to infringe upon the Hyatt patent, No. 293,740, has been issued against the Elmira Water~Works Co. and the Morison-Jewell Filtration Co., by Judge Coxe, of the U. S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York. The hearing on the application for a permanent injunction has been set for Feb. 16. The suit was brought by the New York Filter Manufacturing Co., which controls the Hyatt patent. The patent involves the use of alum in mechanical filters, without the intervention of settling or precipitating tanks. The above information is given on the authority of the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. The Elmira filter plant has just been constructed, with a daily capacity of 6,000,000 gallons, but has not been put into operation.

1897 Engineering News 37:97 (February 18, 1897)
The Filter Plant at Elmira, N.Y., wrongly stated in our last issue as not yet in operation, has been running since Jan. 19.  When the injunction, also noted last week, restraining the Elmira Water-Works Co. from using alum under the Hyatt patent was served Feb. 8, the alum was shut off.  The Paget process of introducing alum, said to be materially different from the Hyatt process, is now being installed.  The above information is on the authority of the Morison-Jewell Filtration Co., contractors for the filter plant.

1897 Niagara Falls Water Works Company v. New York Filter Manufacturing Company, 51 U.S. App. 355, May 26, 1907, Court of Appeals, second circuit

1897 Engineering News 37:337 (June 3, 1897)
The decision regarding the use of a coagulant in connection with the filter plant of the Niagara Falls Water-Works Co., recently rendered by the U. S. Circuit Court, has been affirmed by a majority oi the U. S. Circuit Court oi Appeals. Both courts hold that the use oi alum as practiced in the Jewell filters at Niagara Falls, is an infringement on the Hyatt patent, controlled by the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. The defense in the case was that the use of settling basins prior to the admission oi the water and coagulant to the filters avoids the infringement, but the court states that at the nominal full capacity oi the filters, the water would be in the basins only 13 minutes and maintains that this cannot be termed settlement.

1897 "The Niagara Falls Filter Decision," Engineering Record 36:31-32 (June 12, 1897)
Text of the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

1897 New York Filter Manufacturing Co. v. Elmira Water-Works Co. et al. 82 Fed. Rep. 459, September 20, 1897, Circuit Court, Northern District of New York.

1897 Engineering News 38:216 (September 30, 1897)
The latest decision regarding the use of alum in mechanical filtration, printed in full in another column, will doubtless give additional strength to the already strong ‘tendency towards slow sand filtration. This tendency has been due, in part, to the rapid advances in knowledge regarding the great efficiency of slow sand filtration, and in part to the litigation over the use of coagulants in mechanical filtration that has been waged so fiercely for the last three or four years. Although the decision of Sept. 20 is more sweeping than any of the previous ones, there will probably be still more litigation before the various mechanical filter companies now competing with -the New York Filter Manufacturing Co., the successful complainant in the present case, yield to that company a practically absolute monopoly of the mechanical filter field.
Moreover, the Hyatt patent on the use of coagulants expires in less than four years, and recent developments tend to show that some of the work done by coagulants can be accomplished more effectively outside than within a filter, that is, in settling basins. It will, wherefore, be a natural step, in the case the present decision stands, and is as broad as it seems to be, to adopt combined settling basins and filter beds operating at a moderate rate, with the idea that by the time the consumption of water has so increased as to demand a higher rate the patent in question will have expired and the desired rate may be secured by the addition of the coagulating process. The same general course might be pursued with mechanical filters. In many instances all thoughts of mechanical filtration, with or without a coagulant, will be abandoned, and slow sand filtration be installed once for all, rather than choose between a possible monopoly on the one hand and possible litigation on the other, even if both are sure of termination in a very few years.

Those who have had occasion to follow the course of patent causes are well aware that sharp distinctions are often drawn between the meaning of the same term at different stages in the development of an art or science. It is only by keeping this fact in mind that one can understand how Judge Coxe can advance the ideas regarding settling basins expressed in his decision, published in another column, regarding the use of coagulant in mechanical filters at Elmira, N. Y. Even with this fact in mind, there seems to be good reason to question whether the judge's conception of settling basins is correct.
The decision seems to hold that in the year 1884 the term “settling basin," as used in connection with the purification of water, meant a receptacle in which water was brought to a state of rest for a number of hours for the purpose of depositing suspended matter on the bottom of the receptacle, and that this definition of the term would, throughout the life of a patent, exclude from all consideration as a settling basin a receptacle through which water passed continuously, a coagulant being used in each instance.
In the case under consideration the defendants claimed that a tank through which water containing alum passed continuously on its way to a filter bed effected a material amount of sedimentation, was a settling basin, and thus avoided an infringement of the Hyatt patent for purifying water in such a way as to make settling basins unnecessary. As to the amount of sedimentation effected in this case we do not concern ourselves, as apparently the court also did not, for it says:
Even though they (the defendants) should increase still further the capacity of the cisterns through which they pass the flowing stream, it would not avail them.
And in another part of the decision the court holds that if the particular cisterns, as it terms them, are settling tanks, then others effecting less sedimentation are as truly so. To put the matter in another way, settling basins, to be such, must be opera.-ted on -the intermittent plan, all basins operated continuously, without regard to their size, or the amount of actual sedimentation accomplished, being not settling basins. Now, as a matter of fact, settling basins, without the use of coagulants, were operated on the continuous plan in connection with sand filter beds long before the date of the Hyatt patent, and though some, at least, were small, they were found to be valuable aids to water purification, and it was known that if they were larger they would be still more effective. In the purification of sewage the consensus of opinion among American engineers who have designed works for this purpose, is that continuous settling tanks are to be preferred to intermittent tanks. In the present state of the art, it is certain, intermittency of action is not the test of whether or not a given receptacle is a settling basin, the real question being, is sedimentation accomplished?  The most important point to be decided is, which plan is the most efficient. The time element is an important factor. Chemicals have long been used in both water and sewage purification to lessen the time required for sedimentation, and it seems very doubtful whether in view of both past and present practice, the term "settling basin" can be correctly limited to a receptacle operating on the intermittent plan.

1897 "Another Court Decision Regarding the Use of a Coagulant in Mechanical Filters," Engineering News 38:221 (September 30, 1897)
Under this decision it appears that any use of a coagulant in mechanical filters, without previous sedimentation of the water and coagulant in an intermittent settling basin of relatively large capacity, is an infringement of the patent, No. 298,740, granted to Isaiah S. Hyatt, on Feb. 19, 1884.

1897 Fire and Water 27:ix (October 2, 1897)
Elmira filter decision.

1897 "Decision Regarding Use of Coagulant in Mechanical Filters," Municipal Engineering 13(5):310 (November 1897)

1897 New York Filter Manufacturing Co. v. Elmira Water-Works Co. et al. 83 Fed. Rep. 1013, November 26, 1897, Circuit Court, Northern District of New York.

1897 The Jewell water filter gravity and pressure systems, by O.H. Jewell Filter Company

1897 Loomis Filters, Loomis-Manning Filter Co. | pdf |.

1897 Water Supply, Considered Principally from a Sanitary Standpoint, by William P. Mason

1898 New York Filter Manufacturing Co. v. Loomis-Manning Filter Company, 91 Fed. 421, February 26, 1898, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York.
Infringement of Hyatt Patent No. 293,740.

1898 Engineering News 39:37 (March 3, 1898)
The Consolidation of Two Mechanical Filter companies after several years of bitter conflict, as noted from time to time in this journal, has been effected as set forth in the following official statement:
Within the past few days, and as the result of the long and successful litigation of the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. against the Jewell filter, the O. H. Jewell Filter Co., of Chicago, Ill., has made settlement for its past infringements and taken a license under the Hyatt patent, by the terms of which it becomes the exclusive licensee under the Hyatt patent for all territory west of Pennsylvania, north of the Ohio River and west of the Mississippi River, including Tennessee and Kentucky. Hereafter the New York Filter Manufacturing Co. will confine its business to the eastern territory, and within that territory will supply the Jewell filter. The Morison-Jewell Filtration Co., of New York and Philadelphia, has likewise made a settlement, and is to retire from business. The New York Filter Manufacturing Co. has elected as its President, Mr. W. G. Warden, of Philadelphia, and as General Manager, Mr. Samuel L. Morison, heretofore Vice-President and General Manager of the Morison-Jewell Filtration Co. The emcee of the company will continue for the present to be located at 120 Liberty St., New York city.
In the some connection it may be noted that the Loomis filter, manufactured by the Loomis-Manning Filter Co., of Philadelphia, has been declared to be an infringement on the Hyatt patent, in so far as the use of alum is concerned. This declaration was made on Feb. 26, in connection with a preliminary injunction granted by Judge Lacombe of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.

1898 "Filtration Companies Agreement," Fire and Water 23:76 (March 3, 1898)
Within the past few days, and as the result of the long and successful litigation of the New York Filter Manufacturing Company against the Jewell filter, the O. H. Jewell Filter Company of Chicago, Ill., has made settlement for its past infringements and taken a license under the Hyatt patent, by the terms of which it becomes the exclusive licensee under the Hyatt patent for all territory west of Pennsylvania, north of the Ohio river and west of the Mississippi river, including Tennessee and Kentucky. Hereafter, the New York Filter Manufacturing Company will confine its business to the eastern territory, and within that territory will supply the Jewell filter. The Morison-Jewell Filtration Company, of New York and Philadelphia, has likewise made a settlement, and is to retire from business. The New York Filter Manufacturing Company has elected as its president, Mr. W. G. Warden, and as general manager, Mr. Samuel L. Morison, heretofore vice-president and general manager of the Morison-Jewell Filtration Company.

On Saturday, Feb. 26, 1898, Judge Lacombe of the United States Circuit court for the southern district of New York, filed the following opinion, granting an injunction against the Loomis filter, manufactured by the Loomis-Manning Filter Company, holding it to be an infringement of the Hyatt patent of the New York Filter Manufacturing Company.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
The validity of the patent has been established by repeated adjudications; some of them upon evidence of the identical alleged anticipating device here relied on. No new case against validity is made out and the earlier decisions are to be followed. Infringement seems clear, and, indeed, is not disputed. The only objection seriously urged to the granting of the relief asked for is laches in not sooner proceeding against defendant and its predecessors, who have been openly infringing for years. But complainants have been reasonably diligent in prosecuting other infringers and sustaining the validity of the patent upon two successful appeals of the Circuit court of Appeals. Under the rule followed in this circuit, laches are not made out (Edison Electric Light Company vs. Sawyer Mann Electric Company, 53 F. R. 597, Edison Electric Light Company, vs. Mt. Morris Electric Light Company, 57 F. R. 644). I do not find anything in the suggestion of an equitable estoppal by reason of the letter of the National Water Puritying Company written to one of the defendant's predecessors at a time when the last-named company was fighting the patent. It cannot be assumed that any improper use will be made of preliminary injunction, and the order will, of course, be strictly confined to the relief prayed for in the bill, which is against using, selling, practising, etc., “the invention and discoveries of the patent,” of which invention an essential feature is the use of a coagulant Making, using, or selling filters which do not require or employ a coagulant will, of course, not be covered by such an injunction.

1898 "Announcement," advertisement, Fire and Water 23:x (March 3, 1898)
The New York Filter Manufacturing Co. of New York and the O.H. Jewell Filter Company of Chicago respectfully inform the public that their respective companies will in future control the manufacture and sale of Gravity and Pressure Filters constructed under the Hyatt, Jewell and New York Filter Manufacturing Co's Patents.

1898 New York Tribune, March 4, 1898, Page 3.
After long and successful litigation, the New-York Filter Manufacturing Company has compelled the O. H. Jewell Filter Company, of Chicago, to take out licenses under the Hyatt patent.  An amicable arrangement has been made by which the former corporation confines its operation to Eastern territory, and the later to a part of the West.  The Morrison Filter Company retires from business, and its head becomes a vice-president in the New-York company.  Meanwhile, the Loomis-Manning filter, of Philadelphia, has been found guilty of infringing the Hyatt patents, as least in so far as alum is used in their products.

1898 "Pact of Filter Men," Chicago Daily Tribune, April 9, 1898, Page 1.

1898 "Filter Combination," New England Stationer and Printer 12(2):17 (April 1898)
The New York Filter Manufacturing Company last week purchased from the Cumberland Manufacturing Company, of Boston, all of the latter's patents and good will for the United States and foreign countries, and completed an arrangement with the O. H. Jewell Filter Company, of Chicago, whereby the latter pays a royalty for the privilege of manufacturing filters for the Western territory under the patents owned by the New York Filter Manufacturing Company. The Warren filter, manufactured by the Cumberland Manufacturing Company, and the most dangerous rival of the Hyatt filter, manufactured by the New 'York Filter Manufacturing Company, thus comes into the hands of the latter company.
The Morrison-Jewell Filtration Company, of New York, was forced to the wall on February 21 last. The company owned the Jewell patent, and in connection with the O. H. Jewell Filter Company, of Chicago, its Western associate, it has been doing a big business in open gravity filters, pressure filters and sectional washing filters. The forcing of the Morrison-Jewell Filtration Company out of business was the first step toward the formation of a filter combination that was designed to absorb all the important filter interests. The Morrison-Jewell Filtration Company is now engaged in winding up its affairs. Samuel L. Morrison has associated himself with the New York Filter Manufacturing Company. An agreement has been made with the O. H. Jewell Filter Company, of Chicago, by which the latter will have control of the Western territory. It will manufacture and sell filters under the New York Filter Manufacturing Company's patents, for which it will pay the New York Filter Manufacturing Company a ''suitable" royalty.
It is the plan of those who brought about the combination of filter interests to divide the territory in order to facilitate deliveries and "economize expenses." The main office of the New York Filter Manufacturing Company will be changed on May 1 to the Havemeyer building, 26 Cortlandt street. It will have charge of the Eastern, Middle and Southern States. The New England office will be at 220 Devonshire street, Boston, where Walter B. Nye will continue in charge. The other officers of the New York Filter Manufacturing Company are: W. G. Warden, Jr., president; John C. Symons, secretary; John Dennison, treasurer; Samuel L. Morrison, general manager, and Walter B. Nye, assistant. William Deutsch will for the present be continued as general sales agent.

1898 "The Continental Filter," Fire and Water 24:267 (August 13, 1898)
The Continental Filter Company (as already announced) has secured the services of Mr.William M. Deutsch, who was formerly the manager of the New York Filter Company and before that was intimately connected with the original Hyatt interests.

1898 Engineering Record 38:258 (August 20, 1898)
The Continental Filter Company, 44 Wall Street, New York City, has prepared a circular concerning its new gravity filters used in connection with settling tanks and a coagulant. it also announces that it has secured the control of a discovery of Mr. Hyatt covering the production of a coagulant resulting from certain manipulations of aluminum, which has been tried with success for over a year in a large filter plant treating turbid canal water. The management of the company is now in the hands of Mr. William M. Deutsch, formerly manager of the New York Filter Company, and before that time connected with the original Hyatt interests.

1898 "Man's Imitation of Nature in Purification of Water," by Dr. Gardner T. Swarts, Read September 15, 1898, Journal of the New England Water Works Association 13(1):1-19 (September 1898)

1898 Report on the Investigations Into the Purification of the Ohio River Water: At Louisville, Kentucky, Made to the President and Directors of the Louisville Water Company, by George Warren Fuller

1898 The Purification of Public Water Supplies, by John Willmuth Hill

1899 Report of the Filtration commission: of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, January, 1899

1899 Test of a mechanical filter installed by the New York Filter Manufacturing Company of New York for the East Providence Water Company

1899 Potable Water and Methods of Detecting Impurities, by Moses Nelson Baker | Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged (1906) |

1899 Examination of water: (Chemical and bacteriological), by William Pitt Mason.

1899 The Microscopy of Drinking Water, by George Chandler Whipple

1900 Designs of Filter Plants, January 1900, New York Filter Manufacturing Company. | better pdf scan |
includes descriptions and drawings for Jewell filter plants in East Providence, RI; Norfolk, VA; Washington, DC; Providence, RI; Rome, GA: Pittsburg, PA; Lewiston, ME; Manchester Mills, Manchester, NH; Benwood, WV; Atlantic Mills, Providence, RI; Paris, France; Winschoten, Holland; and a Warren filter for Pittsburg, PA.

1900 "The Continental Filter Company," Fire and Water 27:47 (February 10, 1900)

1900 In 1900, the New York Filter Manufacturing Co., the O. H. Jewell Filter Co. and the Continental Filter Co. consolidated as the New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. Omar and William Jewell made a five-year contract with the consolidated company.

1900 New York Filter Manufacturing Company, name changed to The New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. and capital stock increased to $1,750,000, July 25, 1900.

1900 Feasibility and Propriety of Filtering the Water Supply of Washington, D.C.: Letter from the Secretary of War, Transmitting Copy of a Communication from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Submitting Report of an Investigation of the Feasibility and Propriety of Filtering the Water Supply of the City of Washington.  56th Congress, 1st Session, S. Doc. 259.

1900 Forty-Third Annual Report of the Louisville Water Company for the year ending December 31, 1900.
Pages 6-7:  Extension of the Hyatt water patent

1901 Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Waterworks, Cincinnati, O., January 1, 1901
Pages 42-44:  Extension of the Hyatt Patent of Filtering Water

1901 "To Bleed Water Companies," The Owensboro Messenger, January 4, 1901, Page 1.
Efforts to extend a patent on Alum filtration.

1901 "Water Board Protests," Reading Times, January 9, 1901, Page 1.
Resolution adopted opposing the Renewal of the Hyatt Filtration Patent.

1901 Congressional Record, Volume 34, Part 1
Page 18: December 3, 1900, House. By Mr. CUMMINGS: Also, a bill (H. R.12238) for the relief of the widow of Isaiah
Smith Hyatt-to the Committee on Patents.
Page 199: December 9, 1900, Senate.  Mr. STEWART introduced a bill (S. 5089) for the relief of the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Patents.
Page 497:  January 3, 1901. Senate. Mr. BURROWS presented a memorial of the board of public works of Grand Rapids. Mich., remonstrating against the enactment of legislation granting relief to the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt, authorizing her to make application to the Commissioner of Patents for an extension for the term of ten years of the patent granted her husband for the method of purifying water; which was referred to the Committee on Patents.
Page 525:  January 3, 1901.  Senate.  By Mr. SHATTUC: Petitions of the Wefugo Company and commissioner of waterworks, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the defeat of a bill granting an extension of patent to I. S. Hyatt-to the Committee on Patents.
Page 527:  January 4, 1901,  Senate. Mr. Gallinger.  I have a letter from Elbert Wheeler, of Nashua, N. H., protesting against the passage of the bill (S. 5089) the relief of the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt. The bill proposes to extend a patent by special act, and as I have on one or two occasions undertaken to accomplish that result for constituents of mine and have failed upon the ground that it was contrary to the policy of Congress to extend patents in this way, I beg to refer the letter to the Commmittee on Patents.
The President pro tempore.  Teh letter will be referred to the Committee on Patents.
Page 622:  January 7, 1901.  Senate.  Mr. McMILLAN presented a memorial of the board of public works of Grand Rapids, Mich., remonstrating against the enactment of legislation for the relief of the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt, relative to the extension of ten years on a patent granted to her husband for a method of purifying water; which was referred to the Committee on Patents.
Page 670:  January 7, 1901. House.  By Mr. NEEDHAM: A bill (H. R. 13333) extending Letters Patent No. 293740, issued to Isaac S. Hyatt, for seven years from February 19, 1901-to the Committee on Patents.
Page 671:  January 7, 1901. House.  By Mr. BROMWELL: Petition of the board of trustees, commissioners of waterworks, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the defeat of a bill granting an extension of patent to I. S. Hyatt-to the Committee on Patents.
Page 805:  January 10, 1901.  Senate.  Mr. Kean. He also presented a memorial of the board of street and water
commissioners of Newark, N. J., remonstrating against the enactment of legislation granting relief to the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt; which was referred to the Committee on Patents.
Page 916:  January 11, 1901.  House.  By Mr. STEVENS of Minnesota: Protest of the board of water commissioners of St. Paul, Minn., against the passage of the bill for the relief of the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt-to the Committee on Patents.

1901 Congressional Record, Volume 34, Part 2
1282 January 21, 1901, House. By Mr. NEEDHAM: Petition of Mary E. Hyatt, and papers, to accompany House bill No. 13333 for extension of patent-to the Committee on Patents.
1593 January 29, 1901, Senate. Mr. Penrose. He also presented a  memorial of the board of water commissioners of Reading, Pa., remonstrating against the enactment of legislation for the relief of the widow of Isaiah Smith Hyatt, relative to the method of purifying water; which was referred to the Committee on Patents.

1901 "Water Purification at Louisville," Engineering Record 43:5-6 (January 5, 1901) | Part 2 43:51-52 (January 19, 1901)

1901 "A proposed new system of mechanical filtration for Louisville, Ky.," Engineering News 45:51-53 (January 19, 1901)

1901 Purification of the Washington water supply, edited and compiled by Charles Moore.

1901 Filtration at Lorain, Ohio: A Development in the Art of Coagulation of Waters Prior to Filtration by the Use of Sulphur and Scrap Iron, by William Marshall Jewell

1901 Water Filtration Works, by James H. Fuertes

1902 The Municipal Year Book, edited by Moses Nelson Baker
Pages viii-xix: Table IX. - Water Purification Plants

1903 Purification of the Washington water supply, Second Edition, edited and compiled by Charles Moore.

1903 "The Filtration Works of the East Jersey Water Company, at Little Falls, New Jersey (with discussion)," by George W. Fuller, Presented April 1st, 1903, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 50:394-472.

1903 "Descriptive Notes on the Filtration Works of the East Jersey Water Co., at Little Falls, N.J.," by George W. Fuller, June 24, 1903, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Water Works Association 23:226-252 (June, 1903)

1903 "The Failures and the Possibilities of Water Filtration," by Allen Hazen, Engineering News 50-582-584 (December 31, 1903)

1904 "On Sedimentation," by Allen Hazen, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 30:350-376 (April, 1904)

1904 "Purification of Water for Domestic Use, American Practice (with discussion)," by Allen Hazen, Papers of the International Engineering Congress, St. Louis, October, 1904, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 54(Part D):131-154 (1905)

1906 "Works for the Purification of the Water Supply of Washington, D. C." by Allen Hazen and E. D. Hardy, Proceedings of the America Society of Civil Engineers, 32(7):586-642  (September 1906)

1904 Gravity filters, pressure filters, water softening plants;pure water for all purposes, by Pittsburgh filter manufacturing co.

1906 "Billion Dollar Steel Trust Makes Microbes Pay Dividends," by Henry M. Hyde, The Technical World Magazine v(2):107-114 (April, 1906)

1906 "Development of Mechanical Filtration," by F. B. Leonard, Fire and Water Engineering 40:740-741 (December 29, 1906)

1907 William Millar Deutsch (1840-1907) grave

1907 "Death of W. M. Deutsch," Fire and Water Engineering 41:148 (March 30, 1907)

1909 "Water Filters of Providence, R.I.," Municipal Journal and Engineer 27(3):85-89 (July 21, 1909)

1909 “Mechanical Water Filtration,” Municipal Journal and Engineer 27(24):893 (December 15, 1909)
There are two general classes of water filtration. In one of these a large part of the purification is performed by bacteria, the process involving a slow passage of the water through sand or a similar fine-grained mass [slow sand filtration]. In this there is practically no pressure head, but the water simply trickles through the interstices, although in a greater or less time a collection of mud and fibrous and other organic matter collects on the surface and a slight head of water is necessary for forcing the water to be purified through this material. This was the method of purification originally adopted in England, and is sometimes called the English method.
In mechanical filtration [rapid sand filtration or granular media filtration] the water is passed under greater pressure and at much higher rates of speed through sand or similar material, and the purification is entirely one of straining. Owing to the high speed, however, and the absence of any mat on the surface, it is found necessary to introduce a coagulant into the water before it reaches the filter. This coagulant collects together the suspended matters in the water, including a large percentage of the bacteria, and the suspended matter thus coagulated is strained out by the filter….
The mechanical filters were apparently so named because of the entirely mechanical nature of the purification as distinguished from bacteriological, and because of the fact that the entire apparatus was, in effect, a mechanism of iron and steel, while the English filters consisted of outdoor beds of sand simply retained by earthen banks or stone walls.

1909 Purification of the Washington Water Supply: Third Edition, Compiled and Indexed by John H. Walker

1910 Colonel Livingston Hall Gardner Sr (1836-1910), grave.  Superintendent of New Orleans Water Works Company.

1910 "L. H. Gardner, Dead," Fire and Water Engineering 48:386 (December 7, 1910)

1913 Water purification, mechanical filtration: New York Continental Jewell Filtration Company, by New York Continental Jewell Filtration Company

1913 The Purification of Public Water Supplies, by George A. Johnson, USGS Water-Supply paper 315

1916 Manual of American Steel and Wire Company's Process of Water Purification with Sulphate of Iron, January, 1916.  This book was written by Charles Arthur Brown, and my thanks to William D. Gollnitz for bringing it to my attention.

1917 State Sanitation: A Review of the Work of the Massachusetts State Board of Health, Volume 1, by George Chandler Whipple | Volume 2 |

1921 A half century of public health: jubilee historical volume of the American Public Health Association, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary celebration of its foundation, New York City, November 14-18, 1921
Pages 161-180:  Fifty Years of Water Purification, by George C. Whipple, C.E.

1922 "Water Supply and Water Purification: A Symposium," Presented at the meeting of November 17, 1921, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 85:475-517 (1922)
By Messrs. George C. Whipple, Allen Hazen, C. A. Emerson, Jr., C.-E. A. Winslow, C. A. Holmquist, Robert Spurr Weston and Samuel A. Greeley, with discussion by Messrs. Louis L. Tribus, G. F. Catlett, John R. Baylis, P. H. Norcross, H. Malcolm Pirnie, C. M. Baker, George W. Simons, Jr., M. N. Baker, H. N. Bundesen, and Charles Haydock.

1922 Report of the Ohio Conference on Water Purification, November 21 & 22, 1921.

1923 "Twenty Years of Filtration Practice at Albany," by George E. Wilcomb, Journal of the American Water Works Association 10(1):97-126 (January, 1923)

1932 "Design and Operation Data on Large Rapid Sand Filtration Plants in the United States and Canada," by Eugene A. Hardin, Journal of the American Water Works Association 24(8):1190-1207 (August 1932)

1934 "Sketch of the History of Water Treatment," by Moses Nelson Baker, Journal of the American Water Works Association 28(7):902-938 (July 1934)

1935 Elimination of Taste and Odor in Water, by John R. Baylis

1939 "New Jersey Birthplace of the Filter," by M. N. Baker. Engineering News-Record 122:777 (June 8, 1939)

1941 "The three Jewells: Pioneers in mechanical filtration," by M. N. Baker, Engineering News Record 126:179 (January 30, 1941)

1948 The quest for pure water; the history of water purification from the earliest records to the twentieth century, by Moses Nelson Baker
Table of Contents
Front Material | pdf |
I.   From the Earliest Records Through the Sixteenth Century 1-8 | pdf with references |
II.  Seventeenth Century 9-18 | pdf with references |
III. Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries 19-28 | pdf with references |
IV.  Four Centuries of Filtration in France 29-63 | pdf with references |
V.   British Contributions to Filtration 64-124 | pdf with references |
VI.  Slow Sand Filtration in the United States and Canada 125-178 | pdf with references |
VII. Inception and Widespread Adoption of Rapid Filtration in America 179-247 | pdf with references |
VIII. Upward Filtration in Europe and America 248-252 | pdf with references |
IX.   Multiple Filtration: Seventeenth to Twentieth Centuries 253-264 | pdf with references |
X.    Drifting-Sand Rapid Filters 265-272 | pdf with references |
XI.   Natural Filter: Basins and Galleries 273-285 | pdf with references |
XII.  Plain Sedimentation 286-298 | pdf with references |
XIII. Coagulation: Ancient and Modern 299-320 | pdf with references |
XIV.  Disinfection 321-356 | pdf with references |
XV.   Distillation 357-360 | pdf with references |
XVI.  Aeration in Theory and Practice 361-390 | pdf with references |
XVII. Algae Troubles and Their Conquest 391-414 | pdf with references |
XVIII. Softening 415-439 | pdf with references |
XIX.  Cause and Removal of Color 440-444 | pdf with references |
XX.   Iron and Manganese Removal 445-448 | pdf with references |
XXI.  Taste and Odor Control 449-455 | pdf with references |
XXII. Medication by Means of the Water Supply 456-464 | pdf with references |
Epilogue 465-466 | pdf |
Bibliography 469-510 | pdf |
Index 511-527 | pdf |

1952 "One Hundred Years of Progress in the Filtration of Water," by John R. Baylis, Engineer of water purification, a paper presented at the Northern Illinois Water Works Institute, October 19, 1951, Pure Water 4(1):1-22 (January, 1952) | Part 2 4(2):44-67 (February, 1952)
In 1876, Patrick Clark, city engineer at Rahway, N.J., recommended the construction of a large settling reservoir and filtering apparatus.  Clark became chief engineer of the Rahway Water Board on May 5, 1878.  Two and one-half years later he resigned and the water board voted that the filter constructed by Clark be retained.

1956 "Design and Operation Data on Large Rapid Sand Filtration Plants in the United States and Canada," by Kenneth W. Cozens, Journal of the American Water Works Association 48(7):819-853 (July 1956)

1959 "Review of Filter Bed Design and Methods of Washing," by John R. Baylis, Journal of the American Water Works Association 51(11):1433-1454 (November 1939)

1963 "Fifty Years of Progress in Water Purification, 1913-63," by Gordon M. Fair, Journal of the American Water Works Association 55(7):813-824 (July 1963)

1977 Tastes and Odors in Water Supply - A Review, by S. D. Lin, Illinois State Water Survey

1981 The Quest for Pure Water: The History of Water Purification from the Earliest Records to the Twentieth Century, Volume 2, by Michael J. Taras
Table of Contents
Foreword, by Michael J. Taras v-vi
Prologue, by Abel Wolman vii-xvii
Authors' Biographies xix-xxii
Table of Contents xxiii
List of Illustrations xxiv-xxv
I.     Disinfection by Chlorine, by George C. White 1-23
II.    Other Methods of Disinfection, by George C. White 24-46
III.   Filtration, by George P. Fulton 47-79
IV.   Coagulation, Flocculation, and Settling, by George P. Fulton 80-97
V.     Iron and Manganese Removal, by F. James Dart 98-109
VI.    Lime Softening, H.O. Hartung 110-116
VII.  Ion-Exchange Softening, by A. Eugene Bowers, 117-127
VIII. Annoying Algae and Actinomycetes, by J.K. Gwynn Silvey 128-133
IX.    Aeration, by Ross E. McKinney 134-138
X.     Taste, Odor, and Organics Treatment, by  Michael J. Taras 139-150
XI.    Color Removal, by Russell H. Babcock and Kenneth F. Knowlton 151-152
XII.   Water Quality in the Distribution System, by Michael J. Taras 153-159
XIII.  Fluoridation Franz J. Maier 160-167
XIV.  Desalting, by Michael J. Taras 169-193
XV.   Waste Treatment, by George P. Fulton 194-216
XVI. Wastewater Reuse, by F. M. Middleton 217-256
Epilogue: Post-1940 Trends, Michael J. Taras 237-256
Bibliography 257-276
Index 277-284

1990 The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health, by John Duffy
Page 201-202:  The conquest of typhoid came in part from the sanitarians' quest for pure water and in part from the findings of bacteriology. In 1886, before the American medical profession was convinced that typhoid resulted from a specific bacillus, the Massachusetts State Board of Health established the Lawrence Experimental Station, essentially an engineering laboratory to measure water quality and study methods for improving it. In 1890 the town of Lowell requested the state bacteriologist, William T. Sedgwick, to investigate an outbreak of typhoid. Although he was unable to isolate the bacillus from the town's various water supplies, he systematically traced the epidemic to its source and thus pointed up the need to purify drinking water. Sedgwick's findings and the work already done by Hiram Mills, head of the Lawrence Engineering Laboratory, paved the way for the construction of the first open slow sand filter in 1893, an effective method for producing safe drinking water.
Almost at the same time, studies in Providence, 1893-94, and Louisville, 1895-97, demonstrated that the addition of coagulants to a mechanical filtration system could remove bacteria. The net effect of this and other research was that filtration of water was rapidly adopted in European and American cities, with most American cities relying· upon mechanical systems. By 1911 about 20 percent of America's urban population was using filtered water.  The next major step was the treatrnent of water with chlorine. It was used fairly extensively in Europe in the treatment of sewage in the late nineteenth century, but it was not until the early years of the twentieth century that it was used to purify water. In 1908 Jersey City, New Jersey, began treating its water supply, and within a few years chlorination was adopted by many cities. Chicago, which had one of the highest typhoid rates in the country, solved itS problem, first, by draining its sewers away from Lake Michigan, its water source, and, second, through chlorinating its entire water supply by 1916. In consequence, the typhoid rate, which had averaged 67 cases per 100,000 people in the 1890s, fell to 14 by 1910, and to 1 per 100,000 by 1919, the lowest rate in the country.

1991 Manual of Design for Slow Sand Filtration

2005 "A Century of Water Treatment, 1804-1902," by Edward H. Winant, On Tap (Summer, 2005)

2017 Graphene-based sieve turns seawater into drinking water, by Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website

History of Water Filters (Wikipedia)

Also see the general bibliography page, which includes links to several lists of waterworks with information about pipes.

Water Filtration books on Hathitrust

© 2016 Morris A. Pierce