The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-26
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT
The Permits of Garbage Collectors
to be Revoked.
The New Regulation to Go Into Eff
feet May I-opinion of the Attor
ney on Right to Sell Refuse-Wires
for TenIeytown-The Water Tower

ney on Right TO Sell Refuse-Wires
for TenIcytoun-The Water Tower
The permits to private parties to col
lect garbage from hotels, restaurants or
private houses. will be revoked on May l.
This action has been taken by the Com
missioners after due consideration with
the advice of the Attorney for the Dis
trict and on the recommendation of War
ner Stutler, Superintendent of Street
Cleaning.
The Attorneys opinion upon the subject
was submitted some time ago when action
of the same kind was contemplated. The
opinion was framed upon the proposition
whether the owner of the garbage had a
right to sell it under private contract,
and to provide for its removal by private
parties. Upon this point the Attorney
said:
The contract for the collection and
disposal of garbage made by the Com
missioners under authority of clause in
the District Appropriation bill for the ifs
cal year ending June so. 1891. requires the
contractor Ito collect and dispose of gar
hage as may be directed by the Commits
sioners for a period of five years begin
ming December l. 1906"
Section of Article " of the contract
declares that The term garbage
wherever it occurs in these specifications
means all refuse of animal and vegetable
matter which has been used as food for
man, and all refuse animal and vege-
table matter which as intended 10 be so
used, and includes condemned food
Garbage as defined in the contract
made by the Commissioners is property
but all property is held subject to the
general police powers of the State to so
regulate and control it's use in a proper
case as to secure the general safety and
the public welfare.
This contract in respect to its subject
matter bears a striking resemblance to
that executed by the city of Grand Rapids
under an ordinance which was reviewed
and sustained by the Supreme Court of
Michigan April 3. 1900. in the case of the
City of Grand Rapids VS.. De Vries. The
court there said the city ordinance for the
disposal of garbage did not attempt to
regulate in any manner the disposition
of wholesome substances by the house
holder. It is aimed only at refuse: that
fs, discarded, worthless matter-matter
unfit for food. The householder has per
feet liberty under the ordinance to con-
sumo or to sell or give away all the leav-
ings of his table or kitchen that are fit
for food; but he is not supposed by the or
dinance to have around his premises in
open baskets. pans. pals, heaps that
which is known as refuse. Matter of this
character he is required to care for by
depositing the same in water-tight YES
sells or tanks and dispose of it in such a
way that will not endanger the public
health
Police regulation By the State. under
certain conditions, may justify even sum
mary destruction of property.
In Sentell VS. Railroad Company the
Supreme Court said: That State. in a
bona fide exercise of its police power, may
interfere with private property, and even
order its destruction. is as well settled as
any legislative power can be, which has
for its object the welfare and comfort of
the citizen. For instance, meats, fruits,
and vegetables do not cease to become
private property by their decay. but it is
clearly within the power of the State TO
order their destruction in times OF cpl
dennic. or whenever they are so exposed
as TO be deleterious to the public health.
So far as property is inonenslve ana |
harmless, it can only be condemned or |
notice to the owner: but so far as it is |
dangerous to the safety or health of the /
community, due process Of law may au- 4
thorize its summary, destruction.
THE owner of garbage doubtless has a |
right of property therein, but that right /
is subjcc- to the Limitation that he retain /
and dispose Of 1t under such conditions as |
shall not interfere with the health aud |
safety of himself or the public.
The handling and removal of garbage
as usually carried on is in its nature |
dangerous to the public health. and, there |
fore. IL IL a proper and usual subject OF |
police regulation. II has been held TO be |
subject to such regulation. too, irrespec- |
tive Of whether it is noxious or innoxious. |
As was said by the court in State VS.. |
Orr (6s Conn. lob: There is so much OF |
this kind of matter that is offensive and |
ds ngerous to the health of the communi- |
ty that all may properly be made the |
subject Of public supervision and con-
troll . Any occupation comes within |
the range of police power which Is such |
as to be naturally liable to create a nuis |
anCe unless subjected 10 special regula- |
tons: whether ii be so conducted as in |
fact to create a nuisance or not The |
prevention of nuisances is quite as import |
ant as their abatement.
In that case. il was held that refuse |
matter which had been separated, but |
not abandoned as worthless, remained |
property which, so as it did not in fact |
constitute a nuisance might be sold or |
otherwise disposed of at the will of the |
owner; that it was not essential that the |
garbage, at the time of its transporta- 1
tion. should be in fact a nuisance and |
IL was such refuse matter as accumulated ,
in the preparation of food for the table; |
and that person, who for many years l
had engaged in that business, had no alb !
Solute right to license or permit to en-
gage in the business Of collecting and re- /
moving garbage, although the ordinance |
provided for granting licenses or permits !
to private collectors.
'In the Michigan case above mention
cd. the contention was that the ordinance |
was unreasonable and therefore void, and /
that it created monopoly But the |
court held that the ordinance was valid !
and said The charter provisions en-
power the council to pass ordinances to |
Regulate the collection. removal and dis |
the ordinance the words garbage and Of |
fal are defined to include every refuse ac- /
of animal, fruit, or vegetable |
matter. liquid or otherwise, that attends I
the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in |
or storing of meat, fish. fowl. fruit or
vegetables. These matters in and of /
themselves are regarded as nuSances;
that is. the ordinary and accepted mean
Ing of the words garbage and offal is |
such refuse matters that in and Of them
selves are nuisances. The gather
ing Of garbage is not a trade. business,
or occupation in any proper sense and |
the doctrine in reference to legislation in ,
restraint Of trade. II is a matter in
" hich the public agencies are authorized
To pursue the best means to protect the
public health The ordinance
treats garbage or offal as deleterious to
public health and directs the manner Of
it's disposition for the benefit of the pub
lie health. 1t Is one Of the police rea1ila-
lions OF the city for the benefit of the
public health The resuondent
asserts that the ordinance does not IL
cense or control but prohibits what he
denOinlnateS "A lawful and proper bust
ness. The business of handling and cart
ing garbage through the public streets
Of a city is a business which munich
the public health. No person has the
right to carry garbage or other refuse