Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-04-15
Sanitary inspectors
Is the Question
Or Political Workers

Shall the Board Of Health appoint
its own employees or shall 1t have to
consult the Republican Central Com
n.ittee regarding each and every APP
pointment? This was the question
brought up at the meeting Of the Board
Of Health yesterday. 1t caused warm
discussion, the four members present
splitting evenly, two VS.. two.
The matter started when Acting At
torney General L. c. Peters made q
motion that the matter Of appointments
OF Board of Health employees be re-
ferred to the Central Committee. The
motion was Immediately seconded by
J. c. Lane.
Fred c. Smith spoke strenuously
against such course OF action. The
first matter to be acted on in connec-
ton with the question would be the APP
pointment Of sanitary inspectors. There
we're now twelve Of these but as the
appropriation for their maintenance
had been cut from $1,000 to $500
month, five Of these would have to be
discharged. Mr.. Smith was Of the opin-
ion that the Board should certainly
decide who Of these should remain
and who should be let out and not the
Central Committee. The committee
ought to have sufficient confidence in
the Board to let 1t appoint its own EN-
ployes.
Peters suggested that the Central
Committee did not have such con-
hdence in the Attorney Generals De-
rartment that 1t would let 1t appoint
Its own employees.
Smith answered that because one de-
partment did wrong 1t was no reason
why another department should Go 50
also.
Peters contended that the Attorney
Generals Department did not do wrong.
Furthermore all the other departments
were doing the same thing as the At
torney Generals Department.
Smith said that the Board ought to
get down to business and leave pol
itics severely alone. He thought that
1t was high time that this was done.
He thought that In referring the ap-
pointment of the sanitary inspectors
10 the Central Committee dangerous
precedent would be established.
DIR. Mays warmly seconded Mr..
Smiths views on the question.
Lane said that Governor Carter had
established that precedent when he
| consulted the Central Committee re-
garding the appointment OF l.. L. Pink
ham as president OF the Board of
Health.
! Peters said that the motion had been
made and seconded that the Central
Committee should pick out the seven
men who should keep their jobs as san
itary inspectors.
Smith wanted to know what the Gen.
trail Committee had to do with the
Board Of Health.
Lane repeated that Governor Carter
had given the lead which should be
! followed by the Board.
Smith stated that the Board OF
Health was more competent to pict
out its own employees than the Cen,
trail Committee, as II knew who were
the most competent men.
Peters asked who should decide who
the most competent men were. All tn,
inspectors had been appointed by tn,
Board and were therefore all OF then
supposed 10 be competent.
Smith said that while they al
might be competent, still in a body o
twelve men some would always be bet
ter than others. DR.. Pratt, who wa:
directing the work of the inspectors
knew who the best men were. DR.. Pratt
should be consulted regarding who thu
seven best men were and these shoull
he chosen.
Peters stated that he did not know
which was the greater evil: to hav'
The Central Committee or DIR. Pratt
make the selection Of the men.
Smith again said that II the Contra
COMMITTEE was consulted In regard Il
this matter a very dangerous preceden
would be established. The Board o
Health would then be supposed to leav
the matter Of appointment Of It's EN-
ployes to the Central Committee II
every instance.
Peters contended that that was ex
actly what the Board ought to do. Ii
this case 1t should ask the Contra
Committee who the seven best politica
workers were and these should be ap
pointed.
Smith wanted to know II the Boar
wanted the seven best political work
ers or the best sanitary inspectors?
Peters answered that the Boar
wanted the best political workers. Al
the men were supposed to have goo
qualifications for the work as sanitar
inspectors.
Peters motion was put to vot'
which resulted in n tie, Peters an
Lane voting for and Smith and ID
Mays against 1t. Peters then withdre
the motion and action on the matte
!. was deferred.