The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1916-08-03
LET THE MAYOR ANSWER.

Having stopped the dumping OF garbage
at AIcaniz street, having prevented con-
tagion being spread as result OF the city
commissioners violation of the state san
itary laws, The Journal would faln let the
filthy past sink into oblivion 1t is indeed
not a thing to be proud of, and we have no
desire of prolonging the unsavory discus
sion. preferring to fill Our columns with
stories of Pensacola's sanitary improve
ment. commercial welfare, and civic de-
ve1opment.
But until Mayor Hinrichs ceases to issue
false statements, Pensacola will never be
able to forget its past, for any utterance
that does not square with truth on this sub
iect, we deem it our moral duty to expose
Mayor Hinrichs In published interview
bearing his name, refers to The Journals
description of garbage conditions at Alcan1z
street, as absolutely false He adds that
the condition could have been "remedied''
without the newspaper publicity had
either The Journal or the state health Off
Ger been as sincere for the welfare OF the
city as they would have people believe:
The attempt to involve DR.. los. Y. Porter,
state health officer, proves more than all the
argument in the world that Mayor H1nr1chs
doesn't know what he is talking about. So
the expose here. He certainly was not in
terviewed by this paper.
In referring to "rcnedy of the Alcaniz
street conditions, Hinrichs convicts him
self There should never have been any
necessity Of remedy. The condition should
never have existed. Hinrichs knows they
should not have existed Hinrichs knew
they should not exist
Hinrichs knew that Section 1858 (Rev.
Stat.) makes it an offense, punishable by
SIS to $25 fine, to allow filth, garbage, or
decayed animal or vegetable matter to be
placed or allowed to remain on any street,
in any private premises, or on any lot within
the city limits.
Hinrichs and the commissioners have
violated this law He knows it, and tries to
hoodwink the people by asserting that The
Journals exposure is absolutely false"
Not incorrect in one or two details, mind.
but absolutely false-in every particular.
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that there
was single fly at the Alcaniz street dump
on Friday of last week when The Journal
staff, and other witnesses, visited the monu-
ment of garbage being built to commemo-
rate the commissioners sublime disregard
of human health.
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that sin
gle watermelon rind even was dumped
there on Friday-The Journal stated that
fourteen loads of garbage and refuse were
dumped.
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that
there was the slightest smell there on Fri
day
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that there
was single puddle of water there on Fri
day.
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that there
was a single tin can containing water ana
breeding mosquitoes there Friday.
That is to say, Hinrichs denies that Al
caniz street is in the city limits.
And he denies all this for Thursday.
And he denies it for Wednesday.
And he denies it for Tuesday
And he denies it for Monday.
And so on, back until the time when the
refuse wouldn't burn, so to speak, of its
own volition-i e., with little paper found
in the garbage.
We challenge you, Mayor Hinrichs. to
disprove one fly, one tin can one puddle,
one Whit, of our charge.
We challenge you to disprove the state
law as quoted.
If The Journal has not told the truth.
prove 1.-THE issue is plain, the charges are
clearly stated: your refutation should be