Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 38.djvu/769

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
STREET-CLEANING IN LARGE CITIES.
749

born population, from the crowded condition of a considerable part of its people in tenement-bouses, and from its peculiar street and block construction, whereby it is necessary to remove ashes, garbage, and house refuse through a front entrance to carts in the public street, affords an example of the worst possible conditions for street cleanliness. But the more fortunate towns are not entirely exempt from the difficulties and embarrassments which have for a long period surrounded this subject in New York; and, although they may be interested in a less degree in the solution of this great sanitary and social problem, it will be observed that the history of street-cleaning in New York during the past twenty-five years is not uninstructive, and that the improved methods necessary in the metropolis are more or less applicable to all large American cities.

During the past twenty-five years the people of New York have earnestly demanded cleanliness of the streets; the press has echoed public opinion by a vigorous censure of the officials responsible for their filthy condition, and the sanitary authorities have urged from time to time an improvement in this part of the municipal service, as necessary to the public health and comfort. When the Metropolitan Board of Health was organized in March, 1866, it inherited from the city inspector the duty of enforcing an existing contract for cleaning the streets and removing the ashes and garbage of the city. The board made an earnest effort to perform its duty; charges of inefficient and unsatisfactory service and breach of contract were frequently made against the contractors; voluminous testimony was taken and counsel were heard, but without the desired results. In answer to the testimony of sanitary inspectors as to the condition of the streets, the contractors were always able to produce abundant evidence from their employés that the streets had been thoroughly cleaned in accordance with the provisions of their contract; and they also claimed that any just cause of complaint was due to the non-enforcement by the police of the laws and sanitary ordinances designed, directly or indirectly, to aid and facilitate their important work.

The hearings of the street-cleaning contractors by the Metropolitan Board of Health demonstrated that cleanliness of the streets is comparative and relative, and a subject upon which men entertain different opinions. A dwelling which a good housewife declares is filthy and intolerable, another housekeeper, less tidy, industrious, and exacting, will pronounce cleanly and satisfactory; so the contractors insisted that the streets of New York were clean, or "thoroughly cleaned," while the board and its officers were firm in the belief that they were dirty, detrimental to health, and discreditable to the city. It was also demonstrated