The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-31
CARRIAGE RELIEF IMPERATIVE.

CARRIAGE RELIEF IMPERATIVE.
Inquiry yesterday among the ofilc-
ials of the board OF health illicited
the highly enlightenlng information
that that board would meet In the
course Of few days" to consider the
garbage question; and that there was
nothing more than that to be said Of
ficlally at this time. The board Of
health had been given greater credit
In the matter than this statement
would justify, 1t had been thought
that the board had considered the
matter many times this summer and
had decided upon no more radical ac-
ton simply because Of It's conscien-
tious belief that such action would not
be justified. II would now seem that
the board had not considered the gar
bage situation this summer worse
than that Of any previous season, In
spite Of the hundreds OF complaints
that have come to 1t weekly and the
hot-fre Of denunciation that has
never been focused upon the board
because 1t has been thought useless to
do so.
Looking at the situation In this
light. then. the meeting of the board
of health the early part of this week,
at which certain fines were decided
upon for the contractors. was simply
part OF the routine work OF the
board. A matter OF III complaints
for the month previous the board con-
sidered mere bagatelle and not
much more than was to be expected.
When the board had the right, under
its contracts with the two garbage
men, to fine the latter by deducting
from their bill any amount from
minimum Of fifty cents TO maxi
mum OF five dollars for every justified
complaint, It was only decided to
fine the western contractor s47 and
the eastern contractor 81. The for
mer had had sos complaints regis
tered against him, OF which 200 were
second complaints. Even supposlng
that the board thought the work was
being done so we'll, on the whole, that
the minimum fine Of fifty cents should
be asked where there had been over
sights" the S47 would only have COW
cred less than half OF the number Of
second complaints received. Against
the eastern contractor. i7s complaints
had been registered. OF which fifty
were second complaints. At the ffty
cent rate OF fine, the 81 he will
be obliged 10 pay would only cover \
little over one-tenth Of the number OF
second complaints,
To say that one-haif OF the num-
Der of second complaints in the vest
ern half OF the city and nine-tenths Of
them in the eastern half were un-
founded would be unreasonable. Ex-
perience has shown that little enough
satisfaction has resulted from COM
planning TO the board anyway and
that the householder who has perse-
vered enough to write a second time
may be reasonably presumed TO have
a well-founded cause for action.
This paper does not want to see
the contractors fined just for the sake
of fining them. But It believes that
the fines offer a way to compel better
service and demands why the board
has been so needlessly lenient, The
city Is paying s10,150 year for the
removal Of garbage that is not being
removed. The law provides that all
garbage carts shall be painted at least
twice a year and shall conspicuously
bear the sign; CITY Garbage Service"
Where is there a cart that meets those
requirements? The contracts provide
that there shall be no sub-letting
without the consent of the board, yet
1t is being done right and left The
board provides but poorly for immed-
late consideration Of complaints, let
alone immediate or delayed relief for
them. 1t arbitrarily decides that som
plants must all be written. In that
form they are filed away for consid-
Grafton ct the next meeting Of the
board, which, at times, may not be
for weeks The city demands relief
from these conditions.