In a discussion of the advantages of the incineration method of disposal the American Journal of Public Health says that ashes may be used for incineration on account of the percentage of unburned coal which they usually contain. The percentage of unburned coal in ashes is between 19½ and 24½. Several experts call attention to the cost of incineration. Mr. Gregory believes that when refuse is incinerated it may be more expensive to burn all ashes with garbage and rubbish than simply to burn the garbage and rubbish. He points out that in some cities it may be found advantageous to adopt the combined system in certain districts and separate collections in others, depending upon local conditions.
Careful consideration should be given to the following reasons for and against keeping ashes and garbage separate: It is not necessary to collect ashes so frequently as it is garbage; different methods of disposal require separate handling; garbage with its moisture when mixed with ashes will not freeze in the can as readily in winter, thus facilitating collection. Some experts, however, assert it is more desirable to keep the wastes separate in order to use the ashes for fill and to sell the reclaimable rubbish. Many cities require the separation either of all wastes or of garbage. Of the fifty largest cities in the United States and all cities in New York State only thirteen do not require that each class of refuse be kept separate. One or two report that the plan had to be abandoned as it was found difficult to get the people, especially those living in the poorer districts, to comply with the rule of keeping the wastes separate. Other cities, which do require a separation, report that while it was found difficult at the beginning to enforce the regulation, persistent educational work and patience eventually brought their reward. Where all of the waste is dumped many cities prohibit the mixing of paper or combustibles with ashes and rubbish. If this is not done the experience of many cities is that there are liable to be serious dump fires.
Methods of Collection
Some cities have ash and rubbish collection done by contract; in others the work is done by city employees; in a few both plans are used; and in many small communities the work is done by licensed collectors. The last Census Report shows that in eighty-five of the 158 cities for which statistics are given the collection is made either by contract or by the city, 72 per cent. being collected by the cities and 28 per cent. by contract.
Collection by private collectors is by no means confined to the small cities, as the following table indicates:
| Table III.—Ash Collection by Private Collectors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Name of City | How Much Does Collector Charge Householder? | Does He Furnish Can and if so, Does He Require Deposit? | Type of Wagon Used | How are Ashes Disposed of? | Does City Own or Rent Dump |
| 100,000 | Duluth,[[36]] Minn | 15¢ per can | No | Box | Dump | Own |
| 17,000 | Glens Falls,[[36]] N. Y. | 10¢ per can | Furnishes can, no deposit | Dump | Own | |
| 10,447 | Johnstown, N. Y | 50–75¢ trip | No | |||
| 12,273 | Little Falls, N. Y | $1 a load | No | 1 horse, box | Dump | Own |
| 40,093 | Elmira, N. Y. | 10¢ per can | Yes, $1 deposit | Dump | Rent | |
| 13,000 | Cortland, N. Y. | $1 per load, 15¢ per can | No | Any wagon with tight box approved by sanitary inspector, canvas cover | Fill | Rent |
| 110,000 | Albany, N. Y | 10 to 13¢ | No | Dump | Free | |
| 10,474 | Oneonta, N. Y. | Dump | Own | |||
| 165,000 | New Haven, Conn. | 15¢ per can | No | Fill | ||
| 11,136 | Fulton, N. Y. | 10–15–25¢ a can | No | Dump | Own | |
| 8,317 | Oneida, N. Y. | 75¢ to $1. | No | Any type | Dump | Own |
| 23,368 | Oswego, N. Y | 10 to 15¢ | No | Dump and fill | Own and rent | |
| 131,000 | Grand Rapids, Mich. | 15¢ a week for residence, special for others | Dump | |||
| 10,711 | Rensselaer, N. Y. | 10 to 13¢ | No | Covered | Fill and dump | Own |
| 58,571 | Portland, Me. | 10¢ barrel | No | Open cart | Fill and dump | Free and own |
[36]. City also collects.
John H. Gregory is of the opinion that, as a general rule, the best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of collection equipment. The Chicago City Waste Commission reports that where the householder hires a private scavenger to remove ashes and rubbish it usually results in greater cost than when the work is systematically done by the city at public expense. If work is done by contract supervision at public expense is almost imperative when the best results are desired. Regulation must be strict and well enforced. The experiences of cities which have used all three methods are in favor of municipal collection.
The stringent contract regulating the collection of garbage and ashes by contract in West Orange, New Jersey, contains some suggestions. That part referring to the collection of ashes provides that the contractor must have an office in town with a telephone and a person in attendance from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. If notified of the failure of any employee to remove ashes the same must be removed within two hours. Ashes must be kept separate from garbage and collected in a different vehicle. Ashes must be placed in covered wagons and “properly constructed so as to conceal the contents and to prevent scattering on public streets and highways. Rubbish, papers, tin cans, etc., shall be considered ashes.” It further requires that wagons must not be overloaded, must be numbered and painted once a year and cleaned each day. The contractor must discharge employees guilty of neglect or insolence. The dumping ground must be kept clean, and papers, tin cans, etc., must be covered with three inches of dirt. “If the work is unsatisfactory the Council may by resolution terminate the contract and the surety company will be compelled to make good the damages the city shall suffer as a result of the breach of contract.”