Amongst the questions which I addressed to the surveyors of the principal towns of England was the following:—"Is the house refuse collected by the Sanitary Authority or by a Contractor?" and out of the ninety towns from which I received replies, only thirty were found to employ contractors for this purpose, and of these the authorities of two of them proposed to dispense with the services of the contractor, and to administrate the work with their own staff, as they found the existing state of things was thoroughly unsatisfactory.
This is hardly to be wondered at when the nature of such contracts comes to be considered. The "dust" or "slopping" contractor, or whatever he may be designated, can hardly be expected to be a philanthropist, whose principal object in carrying out his contract is that of benefiting his fellow creatures and not himself; on the contrary, it may fairly be assumed that the contractor's object is toserve his own interests, and to make his contract pay. It is but natural, although the result may not be eminently satisfactory either to the ratepayers, who require a careful and systematic cleansing of their dustbins and streets, or to the Sanitary Authority and their officers who have to look after him. The officers, if they do their strict duty, will probably be engaged in constant disputes and litigation with the contractor as to the due and proper observance of the terms of his contract, and the consequence of their time being thus occupied instead of in other more important matters, is naturally detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers.
If we turn to the articles of agreement or contract usually drawn up between a Sanitary Authority and a contractor for scavenging, we find that they are generally very binding in their phraseology, and enter fully into the details of the work; they should state very clearly the number of times in every week that the contractor shall cause all the ashpits in the districts enumerated to be emptied and cleansed, the manner in which this work shall be performed, and how the materials thus removed shall be disposed of and the place of their ultimate destination. The conditions should further specify what amount of manual, team labour, and carts, are necessary for thework, and also what plant the contractor must keep in the way of ladders, baskets, shovels, and brooms, &c. The conditions should also contain a carefully prepared list of the streets to be swept, and the manner and number of times this work must be executed, and arrange for the disposal of the materials thus removed.
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 infact 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.