In many such contracts it is found necessary to insert clauses binding the contractor under all sorts of fearful penalties, to be always at the disposal and under the commands of the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer or officers as the Sanitary Authority may appoint. The contractor's men also are forbidden to refuse gratuities (an order which they no doubt fully carry out?) and are directed on no account to remove either trade or garden refuse, and they are also enjoined to be "careful to consult the convenience of the householders in their visits, and to thoroughly clean up all dirt and litter that they may cause in the discharge of their duties." If they fail in any or either of these injunctions and commands, or for any other dereliction of duty, the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer as the Sanitary Authority shall appoint, may summarily dismiss them, without any reference being made on the subject to their employer the contractor, and in fact the conditions have necessarily to be made so stringent and binding as to be either totally inoperative or open to grave abuses, or, on the other hand, the work can be carelessly and improperly executed by the contractor.
I am, therefore, strongly of opinion that the work of the collection of house refuse and cleansing the streets should be carried out by the Local Authority with their own officers and staff, and that executing this work by contract is a mistake and a false economy. It is, perhaps, true that it may be done in the latter manner at less actual cost to the ratepayers, but all public work should be done in the best manner possible, irrespective of cost, thoroughly, but without extravagance, and the result of such work, especially where it affects the cleanliness and the appearance of a town, soon fully repays any moderate extra cost that may thus have been incurred, irrespective of the enormous benefit that is conferred upon any community by the reduction of disease and the death-rate by a proper attention to such necessary sanitary work.
[Chapter XI.]
"£ s. d."
A question of the greatest importance to the ratepayers, and one in which they often take the most lively interest, is that of the cost of maintaining the necessary staff for the purpose of carrying out the scavenging of the town, or for paying the contracts for a similar work.
It is, of course, not possible to lay down any hard and fast line as to the cost of scavenging in any city or town, as it must necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances; much depends upon whether the district to be scavenged is an urban one, consisting of houses closely packed together, or whether it is suburban, with scattered villas and mansions standing in their own grounds; the question, also, of the distance of the depôts to which the material has to be carted, considerably affects the result of any estimate, as also does the cost of horse hire, the rate of wages, and whether the district is of a hilly or flat nature, and, as I have before shown, the manner in which the streets are formed and paved, the habits of the people, and last, but not least, the manner of the eventual disposal of the rubbish after removal; all these points must bear with great weight upon any question of cost, and make the results widely different.
On referring to the returns to which I have more than once alluded, it is found that the cost of removing the house refuse and cleansing and sweeping the streets combined, varies considerably in different localities, in one case the sum amounts only to the rate of one half-penny per annum per head of the population of the town, whereas in another case the amount is at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per head. On calculating the average cost per head of population per annum of the ninety towns from which I received replies on this point, I find that it amounts to about tenpence half-penny, after giving credit for any sum of money realised by the sale of the refuse to farmers and others; so that if this work is costing the ratepayers of a town or city anything under a shilling per head of the whole population every year they have no cause to grumble, as they are so frequently found to do that their rates are higher, and what they have to show for them less than any other town in England.
I have discussed the question of "contracts" or "administration" in a former chapter, but there is still another question which is also closely connected and intermingled with the question of cost, and that is when the Sanitary Authority carry out the collection and removal of the house refuse and cleanse the streets with their own staff, whether it is better and more economical for them to keep their own stud of horses or to hire them.
To do thorough justice to the work I am of opinion that both the horses and carts should be the property of the Sanitary Authority for the following reasons:—