The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-11-19
HE IS CLEARED.
City Council Puts Official o. IL.
on Farnsworth.
Exonerated on All the Charges
That We're Made.
WANT NEW ORDINANCE.
Health Committee Plans Many
Important Changes.
Commend Howard foT. Showing
WANT NEW ORDINANCE.
Commend Howard for Showing
Defects In the Law.

J. P. Farnsworth, city food inspector,
was at the council meeting last night |
officially cleared of all charges of mall |
feasance or neglect in his official ca
pacity. The secret report of the COM |
mittee on health was read and adopted. |
It exonerated Mr.. Farnsworth at all
points.
The report recommends a complete |
revision of the laws and ordinances gov
erning the inspection of food and milk.
The committee wants the food inspector
placed under the charge of the city
physician and board of health.
There is some possibility that while
the ordinances are being revised, it will
be possible to so define the powers of
the city physician that he will have to
give up the car business. or at least
quit working overtime at the trade.
City Physician Storrs needs a few good
stiff ordinances to keep him company.
The following is the whitewash report
of the health and sanitation committee
in the Farnsworth affair: .4s,-f
We, the committee of health and
sanitation, to whom was referred the
petition for removal of City Food In
spector ]. P. Farnsworth, beg leave to
report as follows:
Ordinance No. S34, page 1873 of revised
ordinances of city of Topeka as to re-
moval of officers for misconduct in Of
fee prescribeS substantially the follow
ing: Any officer of the city of Topeka,
elective or appointed by the mayor with
the consent of the city council, may be
removed from office in the following
manner: Charges and specifications
thereof shall be in writing. distinctly
and specifically alleging act or acts of
misconduct. 1t shall require a vote of a
majority of the councilmen to enter
tain charges. The remainder of this
| ordinance shows the procedure, the
mayor presiding, the city attorney COM
Quoting the prosecution, and the council
as whole hearing the evidence and
rendering the verdict.
Under this ordinance. the committee
of health and sanitation clearly has very
| limited power as to the investigation OF
a petition for removal of city food
| inspector. $500
The petition for removal of City Food
Inspector J. P. Farnsworth signed by
H. B. Howard and others and placed
in the hands of this committee recites
| the following reasons for removal he
| (Farnsworth) utterly failed to fulfill
the duties incumbent upon him as an
officer of public health, and neglected
and refused to inforce the city ordinance
prescribing those duties.
| No formal charges were presented to
this committee demanding the removal
of J. P. Farnsworth as city food in
spector as prescribed in ordinance No.
1874.
We believe an officer of the city Sc
Iected by mayor and council can only
be removed for cause upon charges dis
tinctly and specifically alleging the act
or acts as prescribed in form OF proceed
ure given in ordinance S34. We do not
believe that city officer can be re-
moved by petition.
We have carefully examined the pc
tition and evidence presented. The eyi-
dence consisted of certain statements
and affidavits of citizens of Topeka and
of experts. and the verbal statement of
Mr. H. B. Howard. We hereby report
to the city council that as no specific
charges as prescribed in ordinance 1874
have been filed and that as the petition
and evidence yet produced is not suffl-
cient in our Judgment, to warrant an
official investigation by the city coun-
Gil as to the official conduct of CITY
Food Inspector J. P. Farnsworth, we
recommend that petition for removal be
refused.
The evidence indicates that at inter
walls certain foods, more especially milk,
have been adu1terated and that proba-
blv INJURIOUS preservatives have been
used It.2vas not shown that this state
of affairs was called to the attention OF
the city food inspector until after 1t
was given general publicity after which
time Mr. Howard admits that several
tests were made and no authorizations
found.
There was no evidence showing that
: City Food Inspector Farnsworth had
O60n Negligent III the QUl1Co VI MS VI
. fee. that he had lacked in vigilance
, or that he had ever refused to investi-
gate supposed cases of food adultera-
. ton where complaint was made, OF
that he failed to investigate at reason
F able intervals the city dealers as tc
purity of food when complaint had not
) been made. The only inference thai
can be taken from the testimony was
that food authorizations had occurred
without any knowledge on the part Of
the city food inspector.
We believe that H B. Howard and
others should be commended for then
efforts in behalf of public health. By
so doing they have made prominent
( what we regard as serious defects il
our food inspection laws.
We believe the laws as to the duties
: of the city food inspector should be Sc
J, A STRONG STAFF