L ETTEE 
FROM 
A COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS 
TO THE 
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY 
ON THE PROPOSED 
SCHUYLKILL DROVE-YARD AND ABATTOIR. 
PHILADELPHIA: 
COLLINS, PRINTER, 705 JAYNE STREET. 
1 874. L E T T E 11 
TO THE 
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY 
ON THE 
SCHUYLKILL DROVE-YARD AND ABATTOIR. 
Philadelphia, Nov. 16, 1874. 
To the President and Directors of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. 
Gentlemen : The Committee representing the signers of the 
remonstrance against the proposed stock-yard and abattoir on 
the Schuylkill, above Market Street, has, at the invitation of your 
officers, inspected the site in question and has also visited the 
similar establishments erected under your auspices nearNew York. 
It has given the matter the careful consideration which its impor- 
tance requires and has sought to obtain all the collateral informa- 
tion on the subject within reach, and it now desires to convey to 
you respectfully, but earnestly, its deliberate conviction that the 
carrying out of the project would be a grave injury to our city. 
There would seem to be no question that on both economical and 
sanitary grounds the modern system of large abattoirs, in which as 
far as practicable all refuse matter is turned to account for manu- 
facturing or agricultural purposes, is far preferable to the small 
slaughter-houses scattered throughout a city, each one conducted 
with such care or negligence as may suit the disposition of the 
owner, and supplied with live stock by driving herds of cattle 
through crowded streets. The greater facilities afforded by the 
modern system for a thorough inspection of cattle and meats 
are further obvious. Yet in removing one nuisance it would be 
a fatal error to establish another and a greater one. 
The unanimous opinion of those members of the Committee 2 
who visited the drove-yard and abattoir at Harsimus Cove near 
Jersey City, and the hog-killing and fat-rendering establishment 
on the Hackensack, is that the arrangements and management at 
both of these places are highly creditable to those who planned and 
have carried them on. It is true that but little live-stock was on 
either premises at the time, and the Committee was thus unable 
to judge of the probable amount of noxious emanations from 
large numbers of animals, especially hogs, when crowded to- 
gether under such conditions. It is true, also, that these estab- 
lishments have been running for only about ten months, and it 
may well be questioned whether they may not become greatly 
more offensive with prolonged occupancy, which even the 
use of carbolic acid and other disinfectants so freely employed 
by the lessees may not be able to avert. Yet with these allow- 
ances, the Committee has much pleasure in stating that, in so far 
as a visit under the circumstances enables it to judge, in both 
establishments the unpleasant results inseparable from the busi- 
ness appear to be kept at a minimum, and that, short of the arbi- 
trary regulations, enforced by military surveillance, of the Paris 
abattoirs, it would be hopeless to expect anything more perfect, 
in view of the varying character of labor obtainable in our large 
cities. 
The Committee, however, is forced to the conclusion that the 
conditions of the respective localities and the nature of the 
establishments are so different, that no fair deductions can be 
drawn from those near Jersey City, as applicable to Philadelphia, 
except that such evils as have been entailed by the former would 
be greatly exaggerated in the latter. The Committee is informed 
that bitter complaints are made by the citizens of Jersey City of 
the discomforts caused by them, and that the value of the unim- 
proved property lying in the neighborhood of the one on the 
Hackensack has been greatly depreciated since its establishment 
by arresting the spread of population in that direction. That 
these effects, in a greatly heightened degree, would follow on the 
creation of a vast drove-yard and abattoir as proposed on the 
Schuylkill, would seem to be unavoidable on comparing the 
respective plans and places. 
At Harsimus Cove are cattle-yards and an abattoir for oxen 
and sheep. On the Hackensack there is a hog-killing estab- 
lishment with fat-rendering works, the offal from Harsimus 
Cove being transported thither in closed cars on a railroad ele- 3 
vated above the surface from the North River as far as Bergen Hill. 
In Philadelphia the Committee understands that you propose to es- 
tablish, on the Schuylkill between Market Street and Fairmount, 
drove-yards of a capacity ultimately for 7500 oxen, 8000 hogs, and 
12,000 sheep—a week’s supply—with an abattoir for all classes 
of animals, while the fat-rendering works are to be placed further 
down the river, and the offal is to be transported in boats when 
the river is navigable, and in closed cars when navigation is 
obstructed by ice. Here at once is evident a difference of great 
importance. While in both places the fat-rendering is to be 
carried on at a distance from town, the swine which, on the 
Hackensack, are likewise kept afar as equally objectionable, are 
with us to be brought into the centre of the city. No one who 
has ever come within range of a car load of hogs need be re- 
minded of the foul odors generated by them when crowded to- 
gether for transportation, and the vast numbers which must fre- 
quently accumulate in the pens can scarcely fail to contaminate 
the atmosphere for long distances. 
Harsimus Cove, moreover, which thus is considered too near 
to population for storing and slaughtering hogs, has very great 
sanitary advantages over the proposed site on the Schuylkill. It 
lies to the north of Jersey City, separated by the very extensive 
property of your road; the whole establishment, cattle-pens 
and abattoir, are built over the river on piling, with the water 
flowing freely beneath, to the depth, at the outer extremity, 
of thirty feet. The tide rushing in from the sea, only about twenty 
miles away, gives a fair current to wash away all impurities, 
while the drainage falls directly into a vast body of salt water of 
considerable depth, and more than a mile in width to the oppo- 
site shore. There is thus no risk that the water will ever be so 
surcharged with filth as to be unable to purify itself by oxida- 
tion and diffusion, while the dense population of New York is less 
likely to be affected by it than would Philadelphia be by such an 
establishment in Camden. Moreover the southerly winds which 
prevail in warm weather, when the risk and discomfort are great- 
est, in New York come fresh from the sea, purifying and invigo- 
rating and charged with ozone, in place of being relaxing and 
debilitating as with us. 
Thus the conditions which, at Ilarsimus Cove, reduce the 
evils of such an establishment to a minimum, would, on the Schuyl- 
kill, make them almost reach a maximum. However great 4 
might be the desire of the managers, both from praiseworthy and 
economical motives, to gather up all filth and refuse, yet the stor- 
age and slaughtering of so many thousands of oxen, sheep, and 
hogs weekly must necessarily cause not only deleterious effluvia, 
but large amounts of decomposing animal matter must be daily 
drained into the Schuylkill. The very efforts which will be 
made by constant and abundant flushing to keep the pens and 
slaughter-houses clean, can only result in increasing the pollution 
of the stream. The river at this point is narrow and shallow, the 
distance between wharf lines at Arch Street being but 425 feet, 
and at Race Street but 380, with an average depth at low tide of 
only about ten feet, and shallows along the western shore. The 
tide is cut off by Fairmount Dam but a short distance above, and 
the amount of water, at ordinary stages, discharged over the 
dam, through the canal, and under the water-works, is not large. 
In fact, during the hot season, we know by costly experience 
that the supply is scarcely sufficient to keep the wheels of the 
water-works running, and to prevent their stoppage the canal 
has more than once been closed. For a considerable portion of 
each tide there is scarcely a perceptible current, and thus there 
exists every condition fitted to intensify the evil. Several com- 
petent experts have suggested to the Committee that to obviate 
the pollution of the river an intercepting sewer ought to be built 
to take the drainage of the establishment and carry it to a 
point below the city, but such a plan would entail not only a 
very large expenditure in construction but also extensive pump- 
ing apparatus in consequence of the absence of grade to current 
and discharge the sewage. Besides this, it must be borne in mind, 
in looking to the future, that the Schuylkill is the only possible 
source of drainage for a large and rapidly increasing population; 
that the time is not far distant when the utmost care will be neces- 
sary to prevent its becoming a source of infection from the ordi- 
nary and unavoidable sewage, and that, therefore, all prevent- 
able sources of contamination should be averted. What its condi- 
tion may soon become, when not only the water may be saturated 
with the drainage of your vast cattle-yard and abattoir, but the 
soft mud at the bottom and-the flats below the wharfing, left bare 
at low tide and exposed to the sun, shall be charged with putres- 
cing animal matter, is not pleasant to contemplate, nor can its 
importance to the well-being of Philadelphia be easily exaggerated. 
The wooden wharves themselves, on both sides of the river, would 5 
in time become thoroughly impregnated with such putrescible mat- 
ter, and your Committee has the authority of Dr. Bell, the distin- 
guished editor of the New York “Sanitarian,” after a careful in- 
spection of the ground, for saying that the proposed establishment 
would eventually render imperative the facing with stone of both 
banks of the river for a considerable distance above and below the 
spot. No man in England stands higher as a sanitarian than the 
Hon. Lyon Playfair, and in his address, but a month ago, to the 
Social Science Association, at Glasgow, on the subject of Health, 
he gave especial prominence to the commandment of the ancient 
Egyptians, “thou shall not pollute rivers,” to the neglect of 
which he attributed wide-spread disease and death, urging “ that 
all municipalities and manufacturers should now be prohibited 
by heavy penalties from fouling rivers.” In this respect the 
experience of Chicago may well be a warning to us, especially 
as we cannot have recourse to the expedient there adopted of 
reversing the current of a river and making Lake Michigan 
drain into the Mississippi. 
In view of the very great disadvantages of the Schuylkill as 
compared with Ilarsimus Cove, you must therefore permit us to 
express our regret that you should propose to add to your estab- 
lishment here what you have refrained from inflicting upon the 
vicinity of Jersey City—the storage and slaughter of hogs in 
large numbers. \ 
The Committee has sought to learn, from the experience of 
other cities, and from the opinions of experts, whether it was 
correct or not in the views suggested by its consideration of the 
subject. 
The example of the abattoirs of Paris may at once be set aside, 
on account of their strict regulations, alluded to above, which 
could not -here be enforced. What these are may be estimated 
from the single fact that there all cattle when brought in are 
bathed in a granite bath, twenty by one hundred feet in area, and 
two feet deep, in which they are carefully scrubbed by attendants. 
The committee is also informed that the drainage is not allowed 
to run into the Seine. 
In London, the Committee believes that the abattoir is re- 
moved from the city to a distance of about ten miles. 
In New York, the Board of Health, which is armed with very 
extensive powers, has recently made an order that all private 6 
slaughtering-houses shall be removed before January 1, 1876. 
The President of the Board, Prof, C. F. Chandler, whose standing 
as a man of science is unquestioned, however informs the Com- 
mittee, “ we do not intend to oppose the erection of one or two 
large abattoirs within the city limits on the water fronts in the 
upper part of the island, in which case the abattoirs will be 
within half a mile of the best portions of the city.” It should be 
borne in mind, however, that the drainage into an arm of the 
sea, with a rapid tidal current like the East River, or a vast body 
of water such as the North River, is a very different matter from 
drainage into the Schuylkill. Moreover, Dr. E. H. Janes, the 
Assistant Sanitary Superintendent of the Board, and a gen- 
tleman of great experience in such matters, says, in the 
“Sanitarian” for Oct. 1874: “In briefly summing up, I would 
say that the sanitary necessities of a town require its slaughter- 
houses to be situated remote from its centre or its business por- 
tions, and if possible by the water side.” The same gentleman, 
in describing the one at Ilarsimus Cove, in an official report of 
June 9, 1874, says, “ Situated on an immense pier, which extends 
from the river shore of the cove to the line of the river shore 
proper, being a distance of half a mile, it has the advantage of 
the regular flow and ebb of the tide under the entire establish- 
ment, washing away every*particle of filth, whether liquid or 
soli/d, which may, either accidentally or -otherwise, escape into 
the water. . . . The hog-slaughtering establishment connected 
with this abattoir is located on the Hackensack River, some three 
or four miles from Jersey City, so far remote from all human 
dwellings as not to be a source of offence or annoyance to any 
one.” And that the absence of offence is the result only of the 
absence of population is intimated by the same gentleman in the 
“ Sanitarian” of the present month, November, 1874, when, speak- 
ing of the latter establishment, he says, “We all know that live 
swine carry with them an odor which is diffusive, persistent, and 
offensive, and which the parties conducting the abattoir do not 
pretend to repress. It must also be acknowledged that all 
machinery is liable to temporary derangements, and when the 
object of such machinery is to suppress or destroy offensive odors, 
any defect in its working will be attended with a proportional 
failure in the accomplishments of its object. For this reason 
alone, to say nothing of the nuisance connected with live stock, I 
would not like to be understood as recommending the erection 7 
of an establishment like the one on the Hackensack in a location 
likely soon to become the centre of a great city. I think one of 
its chief merits is its remoteness from human dwellings.” 
In Boston, the State Board of Health, composed of gentlemen 
of high scientific acquirements and experience, in their report of 
Januar}q 1870, say : “ If anything is settled as to the causes of dis- 
ease, it is the influence of decomposing organic matter in giving 
rise to diarrhceal affections and typhoid fever, in depressing the 
vitality of children, thus rendering them less capable of resisting 
disease in every form, and in making all the epidemics more 
active and virulent.” And the President of the Board, Dr. Henry 
I. Bowditch, well known as one of the highest authorities on 
such subjects in the United States, in answer to an inquiry 
from the Committee, says: “In my opinion it would be 
very injurious to the health, comfort, and convenience of any 
large and populated district to be near any establishment for 
slaughtering animals, especially if the establishment was to be of 
such immense proportions as your letter indicates, and so near to 
dwellings as that was to be placed.” It was in accordance with 
these views that the State Board of Health, in breaking up all 
the private slaughter-houses in the vicinity of Boston, directed 
the establishment of a large drove-yard and abattoir at Brighton 
on the Charles River, several miles distant from the city. 
In Chicago, the stock-yards and abattoirs have been the source 
of endless complaint on the part of the citizens, and of constant 
litigation. No one is allowed to carry on the slaughtering 
business without taking out a permit and giving bond, and it is 
a penal offence to allow blood, offal, or other offensive matter to 
escape into the Chicago River. Under this unrelaxing pressure 
the nuisances caused by these concerns have been considerably 
abated, and partial relief has been gained by reversing the South 
Branch of the river, and making its current flow into the Michi- 
gan and Illinois Canal. It is now contemplated to apply the 
same remedy to another of the branches, while heavy pumping 
machinery is being erected to connect the North Branch with the 
lake. The result of the experience thus gained may be seen in the 
following answers made by Dr. Rauch, late Sanitary Superin- 
tendent of Chicago, and one of the founders of the American 
Public Health Association, to questions propounded to hirn in 
the recent meeting of that body in this city:— 8 
First. Can the disposal and utilization of refuse be made invariably perfect 
(as a matter of experience) as regards water and air ? 
A. No. Occasionally atmospheric conditions obtain, especially at night, 
when it is impossible to conduct, as far as my experience goes, the disposal and 
utilization of refuse without offence. This is sometimes observed near the es- 
tablishment, and sometimes remote. Generally speaking, however, under favor- 
able atmospheric conditions, these processes can be carried on without being 
offensive or injurious to health, provided the scientific appliances for rendering, 
drying, and the disposition of the gases arising therefrom are strictly and care- 
fully maintained, under vigilant police supervision. 
Second. How far may the odor of such an establishment, including cattle- 
yards, be detected with certainty ? 
A. The odor of establishments of this character can be detected at varying 
distances, dependent upon temperature, condition of atmosphere, and wind. 
Have recognized them in a marked degree at a distance of ten miles. The odor 
of the cattle-yards under like conditions of atmosphere, temperature, and wind, 
has been detected at a distance of one mile. 
Third. From what is known, can the drainage of an abattoir be safely allowed 
to enter a fresh-water stream flowing through a town ? 
A. Not as a general rule. It depends upon the amount of the drainage into, 
the quantity of water in, and the rapidity of the current of the stream. Under 
all circumstances it is important that this drainage should enter streams below 
the limits of a town or city. 
Fourth. What effect has been observed upon property values and settlement 
near an abattoir ? 
A. As a necessary consequence they will diminish the value of property for 
residences. People generally keep at respectful distances from such establish- 
ments. 
The views of the Public Health Association, composed of the 
most eminent sanitarians of the country, may be gathered from 
the following resolutions which were unanimously adopted at its 
recent meeting:— 
Resolved, 1. That, for a city properly arranged and conducted abattoirs, sub- 
ject to municipal regulation, are always preferable to a number of private 
slaughter-houses. 
2. That the best practicable management of large abattoirs, with cattle and 
hog-yards, cannot be depended upon at all times to prevent their drainage from 
contaminating water and the atmosphere in its vicinity. 
3. Therefore, such establishments should be located as far as practicable from 
the centx*es of population, and, if possible, upon tide water. 
The Committee has also sought the opinion of Dr. Henry 
Harrshorne, whose position as Professor of Hygiene in the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, and Vice-President of the American 
Public Health Association, is sufficient assurance of his qualifi- 
cations to speak decisively on such a subject. His exhaustive 
analysis of the question cannot well be condensed, and is appended 
hereto for }’-our consideration. To this may be added that since 
the Remonstrance was laid before your Board, copies of it have 
reached the Committee, and are transmitted herewith, signed by 
the entire medical faculty of the University, and by nearly all 
the professors of Jefferson Medical College. Indeed, so far as 
the observation of the Committee extends, the medical profes- 
sion of the city is substantially a unit in condemning the pr.oject. 9 
That your Company formerly entertained the same views is 
apparent from the fact that, as the Committee is informed, all the 
building lots which you have sold from the tract of land which 
you now propose to use in this manner were subjected by you 
to the following restriction as expressed in the deeds of convey- 
ance: “ Under and subject to the restriction and express agree- 
ment between the parties hereto that no slaughter-house, skin- 
dressing establishment, hose or engine house, blacksmith’s shop, 
carpenter shop, glue, soap, candle, or starch manufactory, livery 
stable, or other building for offensive occupation, shall at any 
time hereafter be erected or used upon any part of the hereby 
granted premises;” and the Committee would respectfully sub- 
mit whether, in effecting sales under such conditions, your Com- 
pany did not enter into an implied obligation, in morals at least, 
to protect its vendees in so far as its use of the ground reserved 
for its own occupancy is concerned. 
If Philadelphia were so situated as to present in its environs no 
appropriate site for such an establishment, it might be a question 
whether the' evils of the proposed location in the heart of the 
city had better be endured or not, but this is not the case. There 
are many spots, both above and below the city, which are, in 
a great measure, free from the sanitary disadvantages of the 
Schuylkill above Market Street, while possessing at the same 
time abundant facilities for communication by rail and water. 
Indeed, even in a commercial point of view, the site in ques- 
tion would appear to be one of very doubtful expediency, as the 
river is subject to sudden and violent freshets. It is but a few 
years since the water rose to a height of eleven feet above the 
wharf logs on this very ground, and a repetition of this, which 
may at any time occur, would entail upon your Company and the 
lessees very great losses in buildings and live stock, and very 
great inconvenience to the community from the interruption of 
a business so essential to the public welfare. 
In thus submitting these views for your consideration the 
Committee is fully assured that nothing has been further from 
your intention than to inflict any injury upon Philadelphia. It 
recognizes that your object has been, while providing increased 
facilities for the enormous and rapidly growing cattle traffic of 
your road, to also benefit the community by the construction of 
an establishment which would remove acknowledged existing 10 
evils, and give scope for almost illimitable future expansion. 
Yet the Committee cannot but hope that on further deliberation 
you will, without abandoning the project, transfer its site to some 
place where its advantages may be preserved while its objection- 
able features will disappear. If not, the Committee feels im- 
pelled by a sense of duty to protest, in the most decided manner, 
against the establishment as now proposed. 
Asking of you the favor that your definite conclusion may be 
communicated to us at your early convenience, in order that the 
Committee may determine what ulterior action may be necessary, 
we have the honor to remain 
Your obedient servants, 
JOHN SELLERS, Jr., Chairman. 
WM. HENRY RAWLE, 
EDWIN M. LEWIS, 
GEO. CADWALADER, 
E. H. WILLIAMS, 
EYAN RANDOLPH, 
W. S. W. RUSCHENBERGER, 
HENRY BALDWIN, 
W. P. JJ]NKS, 
E. SPENCER MILLER, 
JAMES L. CLAGHORN, 
HENRY C. LEA, 
CHAS. T. PARRY, 
john McLaughlin, 
CLARENCE H. CLARK, 
CLAYTON MACMICHAEL, 
Secretary. 11 
OPINION OF PROFESSOR HENRY IIARTSHORNE. 
MEMORANDUM. 
On the question of the location of an abattoir, the following considerations 
suggest themselves; most conveniently placed in the form of questions and 
answers:— 
Q. Is not one large abattoir, under direction of an organized and responsible 
corporation, preferable to a number of scattered private slaughter-houses ? 
A. Other things being the same, yes. 
Q. Is the slaughtering of animals not shown to be devoid of unsanitary effects 
by the usual good health of butchers, as a class ? 
A. Only robust men, as a rule, choose such a vocation. As, however, it is 
true, that they commonly maintain ordinary health, this comports with the fact 
that unsanitary effects are to be apprehended not from the mere slaughtering of 
animals, or from contact with sound fresh meat, but from the incidental and 
secondary results of the. business; i.e., the solid and liquid refuse, subject to 
rapid putrefactive decomposition, which seriously taints both air and water. 
Q. May not all such refuse be disposed of, under a vigilant and efficient super- 
vision and administration, so as to prevent all the injury dependent upon it ? 
A. Conceivably, theoretically, this may be possible; actually, in practice, it 
is very improbable. Under the greatest official vigilance and fidelity, a certain 
minimum of failure in administration is to be counted upon. And, the larger 
the scale of operations, the more extended is likely to be the aggregate result 
of such a deficiency. 
Q. Will not thorough drainage into the Schuylkill River, below Fairmount 
dam, afford security from local contamination ? 
A. No. Water-contamination, especially that of a river not larger than the 
Schuylkill, and inhabited on both of its banks, is a most serious result. If not 
used at all for drinking purposes, its emanations may yet deleteriously affect the 
atmosphere for a considerable distance. 
Q. Have not the actual effects of emanations into the air from rivers (as the 
Thames, etc.) been thought by some observers to have been exaggerated on 
theoretical grounds ? 
A. Temporary and partial immunity from the worst of such effects, so far as 
it has been shown, merely indicates that the unsanitary influence referred to 
cannot be measured ; but its existence is not at all a matter of doubt. 
Q. Is there any other objection to an abattoir being within a few hundred 
yards of a central and well-built portion of the city ? 
A. Yes; the presence of large numbers, say hundreds or thousands, of living 
animals, prepared for slaughtering. These, especially hogs, give off an offensive 
odor (most of all when brought close packed, through long distances, in railroad 
cars), which is a sufficient indication of unsanitary influence upon the air. 
Conclusion : With all appliances and methods of utilization so far known, and 
with all obtainable vigilance of supervision, the absolute freedom of a large 
abattoir from the local decomposition of refuse cannot be relied upon. Negligent 
administration of such an establishment wTould allow this to become an enormous 
evil. 
Drainage from an abattoir into a river in the midst of a city is to be pronounced 
an abuse, a nuisance, according to all accepted sanitary principles. When to this 
is added the effect upon the air of the foul odors from immense numbers of 
animals in drove-yards, the same terms become doubly applicable; no matter 
what may be the carefulness of the management. 
For the sanitary protection of a city, the only principle which it is safe to 12 
recognize is, that all agencies and procedures, subject to allowance or prohibition, 
whose influence is clearly likely to have an injurious effect upon public health, 
should be rendered impossible ; not merely subject to the contingency of good 
or bad administi’ation., 
On these grounds, an abattoir on either side of the Schuylkill River, within a 
mile or more north or south of Market Street, may be pronounced to be a 
nuisance ; such as ought not to be allowed to exist. 
Very respectfully, 
H. HARTSHORNE.