The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1899-12-22

nf nay Foitemporti irlier Boo
yesterday Advertiser puts iha case %
lho hoard ~ Health ~ the LEGISLATURE
81 Hawaii aud The People OF Honolulu
as we'll 40 g careful avoidance 1f fb.
main polnr VIII warrant
Tho Doctor rccltos the iaD that tho
fund 40 che disposal OF the Board flr
removing city garbage amounts 10 slO.-
400 annually and s NOT sufficient
There ~ not enough money az the
control Df the Board" he explains.
"ilr the systematic cleaning OF Homo
lulu" We quite agree with this state
ment but out Of respect 10 the law
governing the Board OF Health are
compelled to remind the Doctor that
the Board Is not expected 10 pay for
the systematic cleaning OF Honolulu
brit TO compel the properly owners ID
pay for II. Even where the actual
work has TO be done under authority
of the Board the bill OF costs falls up
on the prOperty-owners and not upon
the public No one can seriously argue
that the Board of Health has not funds
enough TO Pay for the notification of
delinquent property-owners that their
premises must be cleaned and. in case
Of their neglect, to set the machinery
OF the Attorney-General' office in mo-
ton.
This point is skirted by Dr. Day in
the following clause of his letter:
As to the failure of the Board 30
compel the property-owners 20 clean
up their premises, any fair-lninded per-
son knows that a government also has
obligations. 1t must provide ways and
means. No city in the civilizal world
that | know of requires the property
owners or tenants individually to de-
wise methods of disposing OF refuse.
and it certainly is not the fault of the
Board of Health that Honolulu is with
out sewer system until the las gasp
of the nineteenth century
We say again that the Government
has provided ample ways and means
for the Board to do all that the Law
asks of 1t. Nearly 5000, 900 have been
appropriated for four years work and
of this over a quarter of a million dol /
lars have gone into salaries--the sala- |
ries of men whose business included
the notification of property-owner to |
abate nuisances. DR.. Day says that |
no city in the civilized world that
he knows of, requires the property
wise methods of disposing of refuse.
No city? This one does precisely that,
and this is the only town that Dr. Day
and his colleagues need to worry about.
But for their information we will say
that scavenging in San Francisco has
been done for several years on that
basis. Each householder, is com
PEELED by law to deliver his garbage to
private scayengers who organized as |
the demand for their services. The
charge from 90 cents TO Il
dollar or more a month for doing the |
work and they in turn pay private
crematory, which has a city franchise,
at the rate of twenty cents a cubic yard
for burning the garbage up. The whole
service does not cost the municipality
a nickel. Indeed San Francisco COM
pe,s the crematory to pay a certain
sum annually aud thus makes money
by the process,
The way is open for that mind of a
solution OF the garbage problem here.
Let the Board notify property-owners
that, on and after a given date, they
must dispose in a sanitary. way of
their household garbage. fhen some
one will be quick to form scavenger
company and the garbage crematory |
will follow. But the patronage of the |
Board of Health will of course not be
extended. We can understand why the
Board might like to add Il hundred or
more employees TO its following, but
that is only another reason why the
people should prefer to have scaveng- |
ing done by private contract, The Board |
doing nothing more than TO see that |
the regular delivery and collection of
uffal is not permitted to lapse.
l.