The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-12-21

Or. Days gOOd-tempered letter in
yesterdays Advertiser puts the case %
the Board of Health VS.. the Legislature
of Hawaii and the People of Honolulu
as well as a careful avoidance OF the
main point Will warrant
The Doctor recites the fact that the
fund at the disposal of the Beard for
removing city garbage amounts TO $40
400 annually and IS not sufficient.
There is not enough money at the
control of the Board" he explains.
for the systematic cleaning of Homo
| lulu" We quite agree with this state
ment but out Of respect TO the law
| governing the Board of Health are
| compelled to remind the Doctor that
| the Board is not expected TO pay for
the systematic cleaning Of Honolulu
b"t 10 compel thu property owners %
pay for It. Even where the actual
work has to be done under authority
Of the Board the bin Of costs falls up
On the pToperty-owners and no. 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 Generals office in mo
Ion.
This point is skirted by Dr. Day in
the following clause of his letter:
AS to the failure of the Board 20
compel the property-Owners - clean
up their premises, any fair-minuad per-
son knows that q government also has
obligations. IL must provide ways and
means. No city in the civiliza world
that | know OF requires the pro, arty
owners or tenants individually To de-
wise methods of dispOsing OF refuse,
and 1t certainly is not the fault of the
Board of Health that Honolulu is with
out a 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 it. Nearly 100000 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-owners to |
abate nuisances. DR.. Day says that |
no city in the civilized world" that |
he knows of. requires the property I
owners or tenants individually TO de |
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 tnat
basis. Each householder is COM
PEELED by law 10 deliver his garbage TO
private scavengers who organized as q
Scavenger's Protective Union to meet
the demand for their services. The
scayengers charge from 90 cents TO n
dollar or more a month for doing the
work and they in turn pay a private
crematory. which has Il city franchise,
ut the rate OF twenty cents cubic yard
for burning the garbage up. The whole
service does not cost the municipality
\ nickel. Indeed San Francisco com
pels the crematory to pay a certain
sum annually and thus makes none,
by the process.
The way is open for that kind of
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. Then 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 a hundred or
more employees to it's 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 10 see that