The health commissioner's refutation of the health commissioner's answer to the Bureau of municipal research on health violations in East Side slaughter houses.

  • Bureau of Municipal Research (New York, N.Y.)
Date:
1911
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The health commissioner's refutation of the health commissioner's answer to the Bureau of municipal research on health violations in East Side slaughter houses. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    9/20 (page 5)
    (b) that the legalizing of this business took the place of a thorough investigation and report promised to the mayor by the commissioner, November 4, 1910 but not even yet forth- coming, and (c) that even after legalizing the issuance of permits he allowed the business to continue under permits that had been issued contrary to the sanitary code in Novem- ber, 1910. Is it not significant that the minutes of the meet- ing of March 21, 1911, report the amendment (p., 2580 City Record) but do not mention the report leading to the amend- ment? 9. After arguing in behalf of oflFal boiling and fertilizer render- ing that efiforts to remove offensive waste outside the city limits may lead to serious embarrassment by injunction (page 2) he reports a recommendation of his own in March, 1911, that cities outside New York be permitted to bring shop fats to New York for rendering (page 10). 10. When he claims that the department has always considered disposition on the premises the most feasible and satisfactory method and that most easy to control, he fails to inform you that Swift & Company has been permitted to use the less feasible, less satisfactory and less-easy-to-control method of transportation outside of the city and that during his present term no violation orders have been issued against Swift & Company (page 7). 11. After showing that the most feasible and satisfactory and easy to control method is one that requires no transportation (page 7) he recommended permitting other cities to transport shop fats to New York (page 10). 12. After implying that there is no place except two east side slaughter houses (within the city limits) where offensive waste may be disposed of he notes that garbage and dead animals are disposed of at Barren Island (page 2), although every argument against transporting fats would apply with greater force to garbage and dead animals. 13. While it is true that the department can keep comprehensive records of the direction of wind and that during the hot weather these districts are under continuous 24 hour in- spection (pages 7, 8) it is also true that proper records were not kept and continuous 24 hour inspection had not been in- stituted until after our report. The records that had been kept did show, however, that in answer to a citizen's complaint six visits were made February 18-23, 1911, when the wind was blowing away from the complainant: and again that 22 rein- spections of Sulzberger & Sons and United Dressed Beef Co. plants, June 13 to September 26, 1910 were reported Not Complied With. 14. Failure to comply with the sanitary code (section 88) is speci- fically admitted and justified on page 11 when the commis- sioner says, It is not necessary to issue separate permits . . . for treating sheep skins in slaughter houses or in adjacent buildings within the slaughter house district. The Bureau did not argue the wisdom of the sanitary code. It stated, what the commissioner now admits, that the sanitary code was being violated by the department.