Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-10-20
THE SANITARY DECISION.
It Eas Been Misunderstanding Obstacle
to the Sanitary Reform-What the Court

It Eas Been Misunderstanding Obstacle
to the Sanitary Reform-What the Court
Did Decide.
Recently the Superior Court of this county,
Judge Armstrong presiding, rendered de.
cision in o case involving one of the sanitary
regulations Of the city, which has created
much misunderstanding, and, as a conse-
queuce, considerable uujustifable criticism
has been indulged in regarding the decision,
and its effect upon the sanitary reform
recently instituted in this city, and which has
met the almost unanimous approval of the
citizens Some days have passed since the
decision, and efficient time has elapsed for
the case to be considered calmly, and the de-
cisicn examined critically. Judge Armstrong
did not have time to file \ written opinion at
the time. and consequently he has been COZ
suited concerning the extent and real purpOrt
of the ruling. In brief, this appears TO be a
fair statement of the whole matter, and by
which it will be seen that there has been de-
cidsd nothing that at all initiates against
the power or duty of this city to enforce all
proper sanitary regulations or to carry out
any and all laws necessary to the proper sani-
tation of the city. The case before the Court
was a criminal one. A man was charged
with crime. The intent to commit crime
must in all cases, be shown to have existed
before there can be a conviction. In
his case the defendant was char ged
with misdemeanor in permitting
to exist upon premises owned by him, nui-
sance detrimental 70 the public health. All
the Court Lad to do was to ascertain if the
defendant did permit it to exist. If he did,
it presupposed the power to reside in him TO
abate it. The facts proven on trial were that
the defendant had rented the premises to 3
Chinaman year or more before, with the
right to sublet and TO extend the leasehold for
five years. The hcss year had expired and
the tenant had commenced to hold under the
extension, and had subles several parts of the
premises. When the tenant took possession
there was no nuisance upon the premises
whatever, the place being IN good repair, &C
cording to the proofs made. Tne pipes drain
ing the kitchen sink connected with the sewer,
with catch sieve III the basin OF the sink, so
as to retain all solid matter. The tenant re-
moved the bottom OF the basin, cut off the
pipes from the saver snd permitted the whole
drainage to fall upon the grouad, or to flow
into cesspool-it is immaterial which-and
out IF these acts arose the nuisance. The
Court held it to be the law that as the tenant
had committed the act, and as the landlord
had not the power to prevent it, and had no
luJtub III Iuc udSbcif anu t'uAu LOb butCA du4
vacate the lease because of the act of the ten
ant, that therefore the defendant could not
be criminally held. The issue, had it been
civil proceeding, would have been
presented in different manner
but in a criminal proceeding all the Court can
do is to ascertain if a crime had been COM
mitted by the party charged. The facts,
says the Judge, showed that not defendant
but the tenant had committed the crime.
ubara ainn Init 6ntU to rerfnrnn affaF
that. 1t should be borne in mind that there
is nothing in the law to prevent the punish
mentof the tenant if the tenant is the Oie lders
Tne party in possession of premises Is the
one who is, priBsG fdcie, responsible for their
couditiou-but, OF course, it may be shown
that the owner has contracted to keep them
clean. 1t must, moreover, be remembered
that there is nothing in the decision Of the
Court whatever that at all initiates againstthe
right or power of the city to command prem
ises to be cleaned up, and to make the ex-
peuse thereof lien against the proper ty,
where the owner, the one in control, or the
responsible party, refuses or negiects to sbste
the nuisance. All these and kindred ques-
tions were not before the Court, and were
not passed upon or presented IN any light,
and could not arise in the case. The Judge
wa, asked how tenant in such case as that
which he decided could be arrested or pur-
sued. where it WAS matter of great dl fficultY
IN identify He replied that it could Ger.
tainly be shOwn-and the inquisitorial power
of a magistrate can be exercised to
disclose ito whom the landlord had
leased and if there was a sublet-
ting. go the sub-lesses could be discovered.
and such lessee, or sub-lessse, being the party
in possession or control, would, of course, be
the responsible party. The Judge was ex-
plicit in stating to his interviewer that in this
decision be had but followed the law as under
stood for ages, and az settled beyond all Gues-
ton Of dispute, and that, so far from imped.
ing the sanitation of the city, it really should
aid it, since it enables the city to pursue the
really guilty party. de had no right TO give
expression as to possible cases to arise, but as
a citizen deeply interested in all measures to
advance the town and make it the most de-
sirable place in the State for residence. he
had right to say and did not hesitate to
say, that the most stringent sanitation should
be insisted upon and carried out. All needed
abatements should be worked, and the cost
made lien upon property where possible,
and where the owner refuses to do his duty
to the community. Where the ordinary
tenant is notified to abate nuisance on prsm.
ises be holds, he believed it wise for him to
sbate II at the landlords cost, unless he aim
self Is bound to do it, or else surrender the
premises back to him. In this connection it
may be well to explain the case of
the St George building, house where
rooms are let to q large number of
persons. This case has been used to illustrate
a discussion before. 1t has been supposed
that, under the late decision, nuisance
could not be abated in such premises to
which all the tenants contribute, for the de-
gree OF contribution could not be shown. but
it will be seen that the decision amounts, :"
this that the person in control 10 resPonssl,Di
The ST. George is like hotel A iSndso1JJ nJ
is in control, and has the right OF entry 1.i L;1
is in possession of the premises, an9 9,,urs @
roomers are not The decision OF tne me- E'G,s tns
does not, it appears, operate to cheSh Sass si IL
sanitary movement now on foot n0r aaa.ts p-ts IN
give any excuse for relaxation Oh iaCsJ sl,O in
that direction. This city must oe P..odJu Pmd ~ ~
the best possible sanitary condition, sba ban % bo
public will not be content that therS SHSi .p Se
any lack of diligence on the par. ,bs Dsons Os ehs
officials. Thcse who move among tne people,
and seek to ascertain their sentiment on the
subject, are ynced that they are nssGly
a unit in favor of the most ''SO'''' t'''9''1'
ton of sanitary reforms