Arizona republican., 1919-07-30
WHAT GARBAGE
 IS AND |S NOT
 |S CLOSE PO|NT I
Little Known Subject Makes Debut in Court as a Legal Debatable Point - Case Taken Under Advisement

Garbage is a state of mind. As there are no two minds alike, garbage is not quite alike to any two men. In that respect but no other, garbage can is like a rainbow. No rainbow was ever visible to two persons; that is, precisely the same rainbow. A gar bage can is not really a garbage can, that is to say, a. can of garbage, until the garbage has been put into it and as no two persons would put the same things into it. no two garbage cans are alike. Quod erat demonstration which means, There it is, nailed to the cross
 These views of the interesting and little known subject of garbage were suggested yesterday during the trial in superior court of the case of the city against Joseph Georgeouses charged with a violation of the city ordinance regulating the disposition of garbage. Under the ordinance the city claims the sole right of disposition. It had contracted with Harry Hurley for handling garbage. The defendant. who is one of the proprietors of restau- rant. prefers to handle the garbage from that institution. He is the owner of a ranch and he keeps lot of hogs tc which garbage is a delicacy. Though garbage in itself is not apparently worth much, when it can be turned into hog flesh now worth 2S cents q pound it is not to be despised.
 Georgeouses once before had a run in with the city on the subject of gar bage and in that case he attacked the validity. the constitutionality, of the ordinance, which was sustained by the court Georgeouses was arrested on July as his wagon containing three or four cans of garbage was about to leave from the rear of his place of business. The defendant. the wagon and its cargo were taken to the city hall where little later the defendant was tried in police court and con- victed. An appeal was taken to the superior court. where the matter was heard yesterday before Judge Stan ford.
 The defendant was represented by Captain Alexander and Leon s. Jacobs of Bullard and Jacobs. Assistant City Attorney Nelson and R. W. Kramer appeared for the city. The defense was disclosed in the afternoon session when it was brought out from the de- fendant that the so-called garbage had undergone special treatment so that il would not come under an ordinance fer the preservation of the public health. It was shown that before il vas put into the cans, it had all been boiled or baked. On cross examina- ton the witnessed said practically everything that had been rejected as food for human consumption. the offal Of fish and chickens, spoiled meats decayed vegetables, everything. in fact except long overdue eggs. were put into the pot pourri and treated in the ever or on the kitchen range.
 A witness for the defense was Dr. W. W. Watkins, who said that the treatment of the garbage described by the defendant would kill all the bac- teria that might have developed. would arrest further decomposition for 2i hours and would not become a menace [ to public health for days. On cross ! examination he did not at first think that the odor that might arise from garbage was in itself damaging tc health. but later he admitted that the discomfort suffered by those in the vicinity of it might result in illness just as one may become nervously i'll from any species of discomfort.
 There was some other rather i'm mater ial testimony as to the state of the garbdEe al the time or the arrest and the attorneys settled down to a discussion of what is garbage. There were two schools of thought. By one it was held that whatever went into the garbage can was garbage; by the other it was maintained that whatever ought to go into the garbage can was refuse. This difference was illustrated by Captain Alexander. who said that a year ago. during the food shortage in consequence of the war, patriotic citizens were asked to take a pledge that at least one meal a day should consist of the leavings of the previous meal, leavings that otherwise would have been thrown away.
 It was the theory of Mir. Kramer that whatever went into the can was garbage. whether it was of value for food or not. It then became the prop erty of the city under the ordinance and could be disposed of by no on, without the consent of the city
 At the conclusion of the argument the case was taken under advisement
 -O---