The record-union., 1895-05-04
L TRIUMPH FOR SANITARY So
CIALISM.

The Century for May tells the story of
recent decision of the Court of Appeals
In that State, that is related to the annals
of most interesting subject It serves
to show how as people we are really
progressing in defensible socialism, that
kind of socialism which does not propose
to revolutionize the world in an hour, nor
to force upon communities that for which
they are not prepared; that social advance
which is consistent with individuality.
and yet that conserves the greatest good
of all; is not utopian but practical; Is not
dream of fancy and the vagary Of a
theory; but the result of the advance of
human intelligence along the path of
human knowledge.
Every adult man and woman will
easily recall period when sanitary sci
enee was an almost unknown quantity in
the social economy, when individualism
was so radical that none cared to suggest
that he possessed a right in the order
ing of sanitation on another's premises.
But in recent years we have SO far ad
vanced that the right is no more disputed,
and the doctrine so use your own As not
to injure your neighbours Is carried out to
its fullest extent. Recently the New
York Court Of Appeals advanced deci-
sion that puts the right of the community
to conserve sanitation in city or town,
and Of private premises, away ahead of
any claim heretofore made for it. namely,
that the social State may through its po-
litical power compel one even to add to
or rebuild his house. in order that the
public health may be conserved.
In this connection, to show the enor-
nous strides made in this matter, the
editor of the Century relates story which
we repeat in much briefer form, to the
loss of some Of its strength. Just before
the war DR.. Stephen Smith, who for
forty years has been connected with the
sanitary department of New York City,
was in charge of a fever hospital OF the
city. There was an outbreak of typhus at
one time, and there came from a single
tenement house more than fifty cases
The frequency of the cases from one
house of course had the DOCTORS atten-
ton. He discovered that as one family
would be afflicted it would move out anG
another would move in. and when fever
assaulted that conner, and it vacated, the
active agent for the landlord secured a
new tenant There were ten tenements
in the brick building. which was fair
appearing structure enough, but was rot
ten within. Examination showed that it
was dilapidated, Uttered with refuse, full
OF -gatherers, and generally the home
of fever.
The doctor with difficulty found the
agent, but was unable to make the fellow
disclose the owner. The police was ap-
pealed to, and it replied that there was
no law to compel the disclosure of the
owners name. What surprise such
failure would cause in this day when we
condemn premises regardless of owner
ship and agency. As last resort the doc
tor went to the tax books, finding no law
whatever for closing the house, and there
he fished out the owners name. But
there was no law to compel the man to
correct the condition Of his premises. He
was wealthy, member and officer of q
church, and defied the doctor in his
effort to save human life by compelling
the cleansing of the house.
In this dilemma DR.. Smith applied to
his friend William Cullen Bryant, the
kind-hearted poet. Editor Bryant said:
s'Get the fellow into court on any sort Of
pretext so can get at him, and will ex-
pose him to the public in the EUeniHg
Post.p On a weak pretext the man was
arrested, or brought to bar in some way.
He was cool and defiant when the doctor
took the stand to tell his tale, knowing
that the case would not hold water in the
then state of the law. But as the arro-
CANT landlord looked about he saw
young man busily plying his pencil at
desk. 'What is that fellow doing ?" he
asked Of one of the court officers. "Oh,"