St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-04-05
GARBAGE PROBLEM PROMISES A
RESTORATION OF ALL THE OLD
TROUBLES.
DR.. STONE REJECTS A BILL
FILED BY THE CONTRACTORS BE-
CAUSE THEY HAVE LEFT THE
GARBAGE
AT THE COMMISSION HOUSES.
No Clause in This Years Contract to
Relieve Them From That Work,
He Says.

1t is about time for big fuss over the
perennial garbage problem. and one is al
ready in sight Yesterday Messrs. Fielding
and Shepley, the garbage contractors, sub
mitted to the health commissioner their
bill for the month Of March. The amount is
81, 2270S that being one-twelfth of the total
contract price, which is $14, 725. Dr. Stone
refused to audit the bill. and transmitted it
to the city clerks Office with his reason
therefor Endorsed on the bill. Hence trouble
is in store.
When the bill reaches the council without
the health commissioners audit, DR.. Stone
will be called upon to explain. His reason
for refusing to approve the bill, as stated by
him, Is that the garbage contractors have
failed to perform their contract, by refusing
to collect and remove garbage from the COM
mission houses The health department has
received numerous complaints from the COM
mission men during the past month, inform
ing the department that their garbage has
not been taken away. When DR.. Stone
brought the matter to the attention of the
garbage contractors, they are reported to
have taken the ground that they were not
obliged to remove garbage from the commits
sion houses. An examination of the con-
tract. however, fails to disclose any excep-
ton of this nature. 1t requires the contract
ors to remove garbage.
The misunderstanding over the matter
seems to have arisen because of the fact
that last years garbage contract excepted
the commission houses. This was discovered
early in the season, when the commission
men came before the joint committee on
garbage with protest against what they
regarded as discrimination against them.
The garbage committee admitted that a
mistake had been made In drawing the con-
tract, owing to an oversight, but, as 1t
was too late to amend it, nothing could
be done to relieve the commission men. The
latter were assured, however, that the fault
would be corrected in the next contract.
Accordingly, when the present contract was
drafted, the committee was careful to pro-
vide for the collection and removal of all
garbage in the city.
The contractors, however, say that they
do not understand that they are required to
collect garbage from commission houses.
Assemblyman Johnson, the chairman of
the Joint committee on garbage, when spok-
en- to concerning the matter, said:
81 sincerely hope that this misunderstand-
ing will be settled without delay, for the
whole city will suffer if the work of the
garbage contractor ceases for any appreciable
length of time and therein lies the point of
my objection to letting one contract for the
removal of the garbage of the entire city.
If we had a crematory within the city lin
its or near them, the city could be divided
into small districts and contract let for
each district to as many different parties.
Instead of being obliged to haul the garbage
ten miles beyond the city limits, each con-
tractor could take it to the crematory. Fur
thermore, if any contractor failed to live up
to his contract, which could easily be dis
covered when the work is confined to small
territory, the council could declare it for
feited and award a new contract to another
party"