the construction of a main road and were erecting on and adjoining this road dwellings for artisans not of the poorest class, and were taking other steps to form a new colony. Powers were being sought to enable the Manchester corporation to provide shops, schools, churches, and other institutions, but a complete scheme had not yet been framed. Meantime, the Manchester corporation were endeavoring to provide model dwellings of various types which would assist in improving the future provision of houses by private enterprise. The corporation had bought Blackley estate of 237 acres at £150 ($729.97) per acre and were erecting 80 dwellings on it at moderate rents; but a portion of the estate would not be built on, being intended for allotments. In the center of Manchester eight unsanitary areas had been dealt with, of which three were to be left open spaces, while on the other side provision had been made for 2,729 people in lieu of 3,127 displaced. Apart from the humanitarian aspect of the question, it was good finance for municipalities to remove as many people as possible from the centers of cities to a more wholesome atmosphere and all-round better conditions of the outskirts.

PURIFYING WATER BY OZONE.

Splendid results have recently been obtained at Wiesbaden and Paderborn in the purification of water by the use of ozonized air. Water of an inferior quality is thus turned into very good drinking water. Ozonizers of the Siemens type are used to treat the air.

One

The plant at Wiesbaden contains 48 of these ozonizers, forming duplicate groups of 24 each. A set of eight ozonizers receives an alternating current of 8,000 volts from a step-up transformer. pole of the apparatus consists of the cooling water of the glass tube, and is earthed, while the other pole, connected to the transformers, is placed in an inaccessible position, and therefore causes no danger to the attendant. The ozonizing tubes are inclosed in a cast-iron case consisting of three parts: (1) A completely closed central portion, into which are firmly screwed the eight ozone tubes; (2) an upper part, acting as a reservoir and distributer of the air; and (3) a lower part, forming the ozone-collecting chamber. In the upper chamber, removed from all possible touch of the attendant, are fixed the terminals from the transformers. On the floor of the lower compartment are placed the high potential cylinders with their insulating glass rods, and in addition an automatic device to prevent a shortcircuit through any leakage of the cooling water. This consists simply of a strip of filter paper stretched across a metal spring. If the filter paper gets moist it tears, the spring opens out and automatically places the particular ozonizer off duty.

COBURG, GERMANY, July 17, 1903.

OLIVER J. D. HUGHES,

Consul-General.

DISTRIBUTION OF SEWAGE ON BACTERIA BEDS.

At a meeting yesterday of the British Institute of Sanitary Engineers, held at Wolverhampton, a report was read on the "Distribution of sewage on bacteria beds," an abstract of which as it appeared in the public press I send herewith for publication in CONSULAR REPORTS.

MARSHAL HALSTEAD,

BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND, July 17, 1903.

Consul.

DISTRIBUTION OF SEWAGE ON BACTERIA BEDS.

At this meeting a paper prepared by Dr. J. C. Thresh and Mr. Martin Priest on the "Distribution of sewage on bacteria beds' was the principal subject for discussion. The writers pointed out that it was now generally admitted that in the processes of sewage purification bacterial action was the most important factor with which they had to deal, and that the condition and quality of a sewage effluent would vary according to the different bacterial influences to which the sewage had been subjected. From the point of view of sewage purification, bacteria were divided into two classes, viz, anaërobies and aërobies, the anaërobies producing putrefaction fermentation, while the aërobies produced the true putrefaction, and it was the aërobiotic bacteria that they must chiefly endeavor to cultivate and employ in their sewage schemes. If-bacterial treatment was the main factor in sewage purification, the proper utilization of the bacteria beds was the crux of the whole problem. The best means for the distribution of sewage on bacteria beds were: First, the so-called contact beds, in which the beds are filled with sewage, allowed to stand a certain time, then run off, and the beds allowed to aërate; second, distribution by means of alternating siphons, with or without arrangements for distributing the sewage over the whole surface of the beds; and, third, the continuous, or sprinkler, system. Many installations of the contact system for some reasons had not proved satisfactory. As regards aëration, the contact beds compared very unfavorably with the sprinkler bed; because, while the contact bed is alternately filled and emptied, the continuous, or sprinkler, bed worked under constant aërobiotic conditions, with always an ample supply of oxygen. In conclusion, the writer pointed out that the bacterial system of purification merely improved the sewage from a chemical point of view and left it nearly as impure as before from the bacteriological standpoint, and possibly, therefore, quite as dangerous, so far as disseminating germs of typhoid fever, cholera, and other water-borne diseases were concerned. Aldermen Gibbons opened the discussion and stated that at Wolverhampton they dealt with an average flow of 2,500,000 gallons every twenty-four hours and at times a much greater quantity. At the corporation sewage farm at Barnhurst they had had a tank working on the bacteria principle for thirty years, and Dr. Frankland, who had visited it, had said that the effluent was as pure as some of the water that was used for domestic purposes in London. Dr. Reid said the Wolverhampton sewage works would compare favorably with any in England, so far as results were concerned.

GERMAN FINANCIAL STATISTICS.*

During the first six months of 1903 the new emission of stocks and bonds listed in the German bourses amounted to 923, 180,000 marks ($219,716,840) nominal value and 923,990,000 marks ($219,909,620) market value. Of these, 804,780,000 marks ($191,537,640) represented domestic securities and 118,400,000 marks ($28,179,200) foreign securities. The shares of joint-stock companies amounted to but 91,460,000 marks ($21,767,480) in the foregoing. During the corresponding six months of 1902 the new securities placed on the market aggregated 1,483,390,000 marks ($353,046,820). During the first six months of 1903 the number of new joint-stock companies organized in Germany was but 42, having a total share capital of 78,000,000 marks ($18,564,000).

Since the year 1899 the creation of joint-stock companies has steadily decreased, owing to business crises, which checked industrial and financial activity, more especially in the lines of metalworking industries, machine building, electrical plants, and breweries. A few of the large banking joint-stock companies have increased their share capital, having extended their business by buying out private banking concerns or taking up the business of joint-stock. companies which had failed. SIMON W. HANAUER,

FRANKFORT, GERMANY, July 12, 1903.

Deputy Consul-General.

BRITISH INVESTMENTS ABROAD.

In its issue of July 20 the Birmingham Daily Post calls attention editorially to "a side of the tariff controversy to which little attention has hitherto been given, yet it is one of very considerable importance, viz, the position of British holders of foreign and colonial bonds." The article is as follows:

With that very numerous body of investors may be also placed the British merchants and manufacturers and others who have invested their capital in private or public enterprises in the colonies or in foreign countries. What will be their position should a system of preferential tariffs be adopted by the Imperial Government? Let us look at the subject more closely. The fundamental idea of the preferentialtariff scheme is understood to be this: Colonial goods imported into the United Kingdom are to be given a tariff preference over competing goods imported from foreign ports. At present the preference is to be limited to food stuffs and possibly to raw materials. In return, so it is proposed, the colonies are to give a reciprocaltariff preference over competing goods imported into these colonies from foreign

* Statistics covered by Mr. Hanauer's report were also received from Consul Warner, of Leipzig.

countries—this preference, by the very nature of the case, being limited to manufactured articles. As Great Britain is a free-trade country, any preferential treatment of the colonies in our ports would mean the placing of a duty on the foreign competing articles; but should Great Britain adopt protective tariffs all round, then the tariff on colonial imports is to be lower than the tariff placed on the competing material imported from foreign countries. In either case, the foreigner is to be handicapped for the sake of the colonial. When we turn to the other side of the proposal, we find that the colonies, which have already very high protective tariffs, are expected either to raise their tariffs as against the foreigner or lower them as in favor of the mother country. Our present point has to do with the preference to be given at home, and a simple illustration will take us at once to the question we desire to raise. Our meat imports into the United Kingdom-including beef, mutton, and pork—come from the colonies to the extent of 20 per cent of the whole and from foreign countries to the extent of 80 per cent. The proportion is important in itself, if foreign meat is to be taxed on reaching this country; but that is not the immediate consideration, which is this: In 1902 we imported from Argentina 93,000,000 pounds weight of beef and 152,000,000 pounds weight of mutton. From New Zealand we imported in the same year 26,500,000 pounds weight of beef and 183,125,000 pounds weight of mutton. We also receive beef and mutton from Australia, though not to the same extent. Now, under preferential tariffs, the exporters who send us meat from Argentina are to be penalized and the exporters who send us meat from New Zealand are to receive a bonus. But who are these exporters? Indirectly they are the capitalists who provide the means of commerce-the railways, the docks, the banking facilities, and the like. But these capitalists are not New Zealand colonists on one side and Argentine "foreigners" on the other. They are to a large extent British investors who have invested their money in both of these countries.

What is the exact extent of British investments in New Zealand and in Argentina we have no means of discovering, but some approximate estimate is possible. In 1902 the outstanding external debt of the Argentine Republic, including "national loans," was £46, 197,424 ($224,819,763). This took no notice of provincial and other debts of £30,212,000 ($147,026,698). How much of this £76,409,424 ($371,846,461) had been borrowed from British investors we have no information, but it must be a very large proportion. It is well known that the more important commercial and agricultural banks within the Republic are largely in the hands of London financiers. For example, there are the London and River Plata Bank, the London and Brazilian Bank, the British Bank of South America, and others. It is further to be noticed that the Argentine Great Western Railway Company and the Argentine Northeastern Company are practically English companies, while the Argentine Northern Central Railway Extension is financed by loans largely raised in this country. It would, indeed, be safe to say that the commerce of the Republic is maintained in an active condition by the use of British capital. Any alteration of our fiscal system which imposed a penalty on Argentine commerce-say, the carrying trade and the meat-exporting industry-would be, in effect, imposing a penalty on British investors in the Argentine Republic loans and industries. On the other hand, we find that the public debt of New Zealand in 1902 was £51,837,631 ($252,267,830). Here, again, there is no return available to show how much of that debt is represented by loans from British investors, but certainly the greater part of the whole has been found by capitalists in the mother country. In other words, both New Zealand and the Argentine Republic are largely financed with British money. Both countries now find for their beef and mutton a free market in Great Britain. Roughly speaking, they send about an equal quantity; but, under a system of preferential tariffs, the British capitalist who has invested his

money in New Zealand loans is to be given a bonus at the expense of the British capitalist who has invested his money in the Argentine Republic. Here, it will be seen, it is not a question of the colonial being favored over the foreigner; but it is a case of preferential treatment in favor of one British bondholder over another British bondholder. We have taken this particular case because it offers an illustration of a tangible kind, but it is only offered as an illustration. What we ask attention to is the position of the British investor who has put his money in foreign stock or other securities, contrasted with the position of the British investor who has selected colonial stock or other security. American railways, for instance, have attracted vast sums of English money. In all parts of America the railways are in a preeminent degree essential to the export trade of the country; and anything which struck a blow at the export trade would strike a blow at the railways, and hence at the dividends of the shareholders. As far as the shareholders are British subjects, any such blow would be a blow at our own countrymen. Of course, a British investor who invests in colonial or foreign security must take the risks of the security; but the point of interest here is that it would be the British Government which would, by a system of preferential tariffs, incre se the risk to one set of investors and diminish the risk to another set. How far the investor would suffer it is quite impossible to say; but, seeing the vast amount of British money invested in the colonies and in foreign states, the effect on those investments of any sweeping reversal of the fiscal policy existing when the investments were made becomes a proper subject for very close examination.

It is somewhat remarkable that official information on this subject of foreign and colonial investments is of the most meager description. Still, there are some instructive figures available. The Statist for last week published an article on our national trade in which occur some instructive returns collected from the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom presented to both Houses of Parliament. In the year 1880-81 the income derived from our Indian, colonial, and foreign investments, as ascertained for income-tax purposes, amounted to less than £30,000,000 ($145,995,000). By 1890-91 the total reached a little under £58,000,000 ($282,257,000), and the return for 1900-1901 showed over £60,000,000 ($291,990,000). The latest return for 1901-2 reaches the total of £62,600,000 ($304,642,900). Assuming that the yield on our Indian, colonial, and foreign investments averages about 5 per cent, the income thus shown would indicate that our investments abroad had risen from under £600,000,000 ($2,919,900,000) in 1880-S1 to the enormous sum of £1,157,000,000 ($5,630,540,500) in 1890-91, or very nearly double in the course of ten years. Including the capital of private traders, the investments abroad in the ten years referred to amounted to a much larger sum. Since 1891 the overflow of British capital into Indian, colonial, and foreign countries was greatly checked by the unfavorable financial position of many of those countries. Still, the sum total in 1901-2 amounted to £1,252,000,000 ($6,092,858,000). Three points are worth notice: First, the vastness of our foreign investments goes far to explain how it comes about that we receive as imports goods so much exceeding the goods sent out as exports. ments.

The balance is, in fact, paid for on the spot by the interest on investSecond, the falling off of our foreign investments in the years 1891-1901 was accompanied by a great increase of capital expenditure at home. Third-and this is the point of interest now before us-the question arises how this gigantic investment of capital in India, in the colonies, and in foreign countries is likely to be affected should the proposal of preferential tariffs come into operation. If there is to be a check placed on importations from foreign countries, that must, it would seem, necessarily affect the value of British investments in those countries-certainly of investments representing the capital of private traders. In any case it would greatly disturb-at any rate for some years-the employment of the income derived from foreign investments. We can not trace any official distinction in the