The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1904-04-01
CITY SHOULD GET
PROPER PLANT
SAYS ALDERMAN GLATIGNY.
MORALLY 1T is NO RIGHT TO DE-
sTROY PROPERTY AND NOT PAY.

Chairman of Joint Committee on
Health and Finance Says, NOtwith-
stmnding supreme Court, II Is Not
Morally Right TO Destroy Property
and Not Pay for It-Insists City
Should Have DisinfectinE Plant
savannah Remarkably Healthy or
IL Could Not Afford TO Pay for De-
strOycd Property.
Morally it is not right, the Supreme
Court, or any other court notWith-
standing" said Alderman John +.
Glatigny, yesterday, in speaking of the
city's destroying property, to prevent
the spread of disease. and not paying
for it.
I know the city has a legal right to
do this" explained Alderman Glatgny
"The Supreme Court has decided that
the city is not responsible for articles
destroyed by order of the health de-
partment but it is not right to destroy
these articles for the good of the whole
community, and then make just one
person in the community suffer.
THE city has no more moral right
to destroy property and not pay for
it, than has the individual. OF course,
If we were in the midst of an cpl
demic it would probably be all right
to take advantage of that decision and
let the individual suffer for the bene-
fit of the entire city.
Savannah Wonderfully Healthy.
But we have had no epidemic. Sa-
vanrah has been wonderfully healthy
and has probably suffered less than
any other city of its size in the coun-
try.
What are we to do? The persons
whose property is destroyed can i'll
afford to stand the loss The benefit Is
not to that one person alone it is to
the entire community. Should the one
person be made TO pay for protecting
the entire city? l do not think so, and
any one who gives the matter "a few
minutes sincere consideration will
agree with me, l am sure.
Take for example, the case that was
brought so prominently before Council
at the last meeting There was wild
oW, struggling along to make a living
without applying to anyone for help.
Persons came to board with her. They
came from outside Of the city, and she
diseased. The health authorities We're
called in, and they of course destroyed
all articles that had been used by these
dodgers. Did the destruction of these
articles benefit that widow, who was
struggling along to make a livelihood.
any more than 1t did every other man,
woman and child in the city?
Wants Disinfecting Plant.
Certainly not To properly protect
the city, we must disinfect a large
amount of personal property. When
we do, this the entire city is benefited,
and not the. Individual. The whole
city should bear the loss, therefore,
III there is to4be any, loss.
but there need be no great loss. We
should have g disinfecting plant, and
then there would not be this destruc-
ton of individual property. l intend
to bring the matter before Council
again. i don't know whether I will have
the figures all ready to present at the
next meeting, but / am going to bring
ii UP in the near future.
I'VE must, of course, protect the city,
but there Is no reason why we should
do 1t at the expense of the few for
the benefit of the many. All are pro-
tected and all should pay. But with
an up-to-date disinfecting plant, the
loss to personal property would be
very small. That is what the city
needs. That will solve the problem,
and that is the only solution there is
to IT,"