[71]It must be borne in mind that the figures taken from the first registration covered but a part of the camp and shack population.[72]Computation made on the basis of the number of tents issued by the army, the proportion of tents obtained from other sources and in use at the end of June, and the average number of persons to the tent.
[71]It must be borne in mind that the figures taken from the first registration covered but a part of the camp and shack population.
[72]Computation made on the basis of the number of tents issued by the army, the proportion of tents obtained from other sources and in use at the end of June, and the average number of persons to the tent.
The first of June a San Franciscan wrote toCharities and the Commons[73]an account of conditions, which gives a picture of what life in the camps meant to some of the refugees:
“The courage and energy of the population of San Francisco in the face not only of disaster but of extreme terror and sudden homelessness has not been exaggerated, but to a great many the full effect of the strain is not even yet apparent. The discomforts of living, in spite of adequate relief, are very great. Wind and fog—for the weather has been unusuallycold for a month, dust unspeakable, cooking out of doors in camps and streets, lack of water for toilet appliances, the incessant boiling of water and milk for fear of fever, absence of light and means of transportation for some time—in short, the total uprooting of all the ordinary habits of life, is bearing more and more heavily on the women and children. Schools are closed, thus turning thousands of children literally into the ruined streets. It is now proposed to have a vacation school in Golden Gate Park for the children in camps there, but this is only a very small part of the whole number.“And for those who stay by the city much of this discomfort will go on for several months to come. That under such circumstances men and women become apathetic and lose pride and self-respect when they can no longer endure the strain of petty hardships, is not surprising. Archbishop Riordan, on his way to the scene of the disaster, is said to have predicted, as the worst effect of it, the deterioration of health and character which would be its inevitable result upon those who are not of the exceptional stuff of which heroes and pioneers are made.”
“The courage and energy of the population of San Francisco in the face not only of disaster but of extreme terror and sudden homelessness has not been exaggerated, but to a great many the full effect of the strain is not even yet apparent. The discomforts of living, in spite of adequate relief, are very great. Wind and fog—for the weather has been unusuallycold for a month, dust unspeakable, cooking out of doors in camps and streets, lack of water for toilet appliances, the incessant boiling of water and milk for fear of fever, absence of light and means of transportation for some time—in short, the total uprooting of all the ordinary habits of life, is bearing more and more heavily on the women and children. Schools are closed, thus turning thousands of children literally into the ruined streets. It is now proposed to have a vacation school in Golden Gate Park for the children in camps there, but this is only a very small part of the whole number.
“And for those who stay by the city much of this discomfort will go on for several months to come. That under such circumstances men and women become apathetic and lose pride and self-respect when they can no longer endure the strain of petty hardships, is not surprising. Archbishop Riordan, on his way to the scene of the disaster, is said to have predicted, as the worst effect of it, the deterioration of health and character which would be its inevitable result upon those who are not of the exceptional stuff of which heroes and pioneers are made.”
[73]Smith (Coolidge), Mary Roberts: Relief Work in its Social Bearings.Charities and the Commons, XVI: 311 (June 2, 1906).
[73]Smith (Coolidge), Mary Roberts: Relief Work in its Social Bearings.Charities and the Commons, XVI: 311 (June 2, 1906).
The army had control of some camps from the beginning and gradually assumed charge of others until 21[74]camps were under military discipline. These camps became known by the rather misleading title of “permanent camps.” The first to be brought under army control were four situated in the Presidio, three in Golden Gate Park, one in Harbor View, and one in Lobos Square.
[74]For complete list of official camps, dates of opening and closing, and maximum population, seeAppendix I,p. 404.
[74]For complete list of official camps, dates of opening and closing, and maximum population, seeAppendix I,p. 404.
During May the Franklin Square camp, those at Fort Mason, and at 19th and Minnesota Streets were taken over by the army. Early in June the camps in Jefferson Square, Lafayette Square, Mission Park, Duboce Park, Hamilton and Washington Squares were added, and in July, Alamo Square, Precita Park, and Columbia Park. Each camp was in charge of a camp commander, who according to the size of the camp, had on his staff clerks, foremen, laborers, and a nurse for the hospital department.[75]One or two of the larger camps had a camp carpenter. Plumbing and carpentry for the smaller camps were done by mechanics from headquarters.
[75]SeePart I,pp. 90-91.
[75]SeePart I,pp. 90-91.
Tent camp, opened May 9, 1906CottagesCamp No. 9, Lobos Square
Tent camp, opened May 9, 1906
Cottages
Camp No. 9, Lobos Square
During July and August the tents in the permanent camps were floored. Buildings were put up in each camp containing latrines and wash and bath-houses with hot and cold running water.
The unofficial camps, whose moral and sanitary condition was very unsatisfactory, harbored a large number of refugees. As late as September 1, 1906, their estimated population was from 10,000 to 15,000. The Finance Committee had tried to have the campers move into the official camps, but had failed because the police department, which was the only authority that could eject, was unwilling to remove any large number of persons. The police, of course, reflected the attitude of the general public, which seems to have classed as official, though it was not recognized as such by the Finance Committee, a large independent camp, which was a private business venture, renting land to refugees on which they might erect their own tents. General Greely, as has been described,[76]had tried to induce removal to the official camps. The importance of having all camp life under military discipline can be readily appreciated when one considers how difficult under any auspices it would be to give sanitary and moral protection to a large body of persons living under abnormal conditions.
[76]SeePart I,p. 44.
[76]SeePart I,p. 44.
The three essentials for camp tenants laid down as rules by General Greely were decency, order, and cleanliness. The camp commanders tried to get rid of the disorderly element as far as they could without causing hardship to others. When a person was ejected from one camp all other camps were notified and he was not allowed to enter any of them.
The following statement of the number of ejectments from May, 1906, to January, 1908, shows that there was constant attention to this problem. The dashes which appear in the columns representing ejectments, opposite June, 1906, and February and March, 1907, indicate that no ejectments were reported for these months, though it is probable that ejectments which were not reported occurred in the months mentioned and in the months between January, 1908, and the close of the relief work.
TABLE 23.—EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK, BY MONTHS
TABLE 23.—EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK, BY MONTHS
Reasons for ejectments, as stated by the camp commanders, and the number of ejectments for each reason or group of reasons, are shown inTable 24.
TABLE 24.—REASONS FOR EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK
TABLE 24.—REASONS FOR EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK
Where the first cottages were built, September, 1906Camp No. 20, Hamilton Square
Where the first cottages were built, September, 1906
Camp No. 20, Hamilton Square
Table 25shows the total population of the official camps for each month from May, 1906, to June, 1908, inclusive.
TABLE 25.—POPULATION OF OFFICIAL CAMPS, EXCLUSIVE OF INGLESIDE MODEL CAMP, FROM MAY, 1906, TO JUNE, 1908, INCLUSIVE(The figure given for each month is the maximum daily total)
TABLE 25.—POPULATION OF OFFICIAL CAMPS, EXCLUSIVE OF INGLESIDE MODEL CAMP, FROM MAY, 1906, TO JUNE, 1908, INCLUSIVE(The figure given for each month is the maximum daily total)
Although the data available for determining the character of the camp population are incomplete, from the weekly reports of the camp commanders we can derive figures which probably represent a fair average of the conditions. It appears that from September to December, 1906, about 39 per cent of the persons sheltered were men, about 31 per cent women, and about 30 per cent children. Approximately 55 per cent of the members of the camp population were at work. The proportion of persons who were at work was about 89 per cent among the men, about 39 per cent among the women, and about 25 per cent among the children.
The large percentage of men who were working is worthy of notice. There were numerous complaints during the existence of the camps that these were harboring a large number of idle, shiftless men. Those who offered such criticisms failed to take into account that there is even in normal times a considerable percentage of unemployed men who spend much of their time in public places. A part of the apparently well and able-bodied were in reality incapable of much work, and others though apparently unemployed were night workers. When the haunts of the idle werecovered with ashes, it is hardly strange that they should have been found in numbers in the public parks and squares.
InChapter 1the story has been told of the need felt for making some permanent provision for the refugees before the oncoming of the rainy season. The Corporation, after making a careful study of the situation in the camps, decided to adopt a separate cottage plan for temporary as well as for permanent housing, except in one locality, South Park, whose limited area gave no space for separate cottages.
On August 1, 1906, the care of the camps passed from the army to the Department of Camps and Warehouses.[77]From then until June 30, 1908, when the last camp was closed, that department had entire charge of maintenance. The Department of Lands and Buildings was responsible for the construction of the cottages built to replace the tents. The first of August, 1906, the Corporation made public its plan to build cottages[78]and let the contracts for the erection of buildings. Building began September 10, and on the sixteenth 20 cottages in Hamilton Square were completed. At least two or three months, however, intervened before any considerable number of houses could be made ready for the refugees. Before completing its work the Department of Lands and Buildings had installed in the public squares for use in connection with the 5,610 cottages which it had built, 667 patent flush closets, 247 hoppers, over six miles of gas and water pipe and over five miles of sewer pipe; also the necessary fittings, which included 325 galvanized sinks, with faucets and traps, and 624 gas brackets.[79]
[77]SeePart I,p. 26.[78]SeePart IV,p. 217.[79]SeePart IV,p. 221.
[77]SeePart I,p. 26.
[78]SeePart IV,p. 217.
[79]SeePart IV,p. 221.
Thus for the period of approximately six months those who had no resources to build found house room as best they might. Many difficulties were met by those who controlled the funds. Building had had to be delayed because of the extraordinary amount of work involved in supplying food, clothing, water, sanitary protection, and temporary shelter. The pressure on the relief machinery seemed to tax its utmost capacity. When it was necessary to push rebuilding plans, additional machinery and more workers had to be provided.
In the official camps the refugees had in large measure beensupplied with tents free of charge. As the time came for the removal of tents and temporary shacks and the substitution of wooden buildings, the question was raised, who would be entitled to their use, and on what terms? Cottages were assigned by the camp commanders, first, to those in the official camps; second, to those in shacks and tents outside; third, to those still in the city who were living in cellars and similar places, including those who were receiving shelter from friends, and those who were citizens but were living outside the city. Some who had not been burned out, but needed to be better housed, received cottages and moved them for permanent use to lots which they owned or leased.
For seven months the people had been furnished with tents free of charge, but when the change was made to the wooden cottages, it was thought best to charge a nominal rental.[80]The argument was that to give everything and ask nothing in return, on the one hand killed the self-respect of the efficient class and on the other gave opportunity to the idle to shirk all civic and social responsibility; that the no-rent policy had brought about serious economic disturbances, and its continuance would prepare the way for yet more serious trouble.
[80]SeePart IV,p. 222, for explanation of miscarriage of plan.
[80]SeePart IV,p. 222, for explanation of miscarriage of plan.
Finally, it was foreseen that the abnormal real estate conditions which had made it possible for the homeless to secure shelter, would not be relieved until those living in camp cottages should seek and be able to secure quarters elsewhere. Accordingly, it was definitely decided that as fast as buildings were made available in the camps, they should be leased to refugees by camp commanders at nominal rates. A special form of lease was provided which, theoretically, each applicant was compelled to sign before occupying a cottage.
The San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds, a corporation, was the lessor; and the refugee, the lessee. The lease was in effect a contract of purchase, for it provided that the tenant should become the owner of the cottage if he paid his rent to August 1, 1907. In general the applicant agreed to pay a specified rent and gas rate per month, to comply with all rules and regulations of the camp department and the camp commanders. He agreed not to assign his lease to another nor sublet without written consent.He agreed furthermore to vacate the house at the expiration of his lease unless through full payment of all rents and charges he had acquired ownership. In that event he agreed to remove the house from the camp at his own expense before August, 1907. Failure to remove meant to forfeit ownership. When on account of ill-health or other disability a person was not able to pay rent, the camp commander notified the Rehabilitation Committee.
The shelter furnished by the army and the Finance Committee was with few exceptions on public land. When the Corporation was ready to build cottages it asked the park commission for permission to use certain parks and squares. The commission having no power to give the authority agreed, on August 17, 1906, to ignore the occupation of parks and squares, on the understanding that such use was for a period of not more than one year; the cottages were then to be removed as rapidly as possible.
The parks and squares were the most suitable places in which to give temporary shelter. The damage and loss to the city from their use were insignificant, and in the camps policing and sanitation were supplied. There would have been rivalry among owners of land to secure the camps, and consequent charges of favoritism, graft, etc. The parks and squares were well situated with reference to the centers of industry and the building operations. Throughout the work the park commissioners co-operated with the Relief Corporation and rendered valuable assistance. To have followed the suggestion of the committee on housing the homeless to establish but one encampment, would have been very unwise. In the summer following the disaster many persons were hindered from becoming self-supporting because of their remoteness in Golden Gate Park from centers of work.
The camp in South Park, already spoken of as unique in character, consisted of nineteen two-story tenement buildings and a one-story bath-house and laundry building. Some of the buildings were divided into 16 suites of two rooms each and the others into 12 tenements of two rooms each. The total number of rooms was 656. The maximum population was 648. They had adequate fire protection and the occupants were required to take part regularly in a fire drill. There was steady demand for the rooms, by reason of the nearness of the camp to the shipping and manufacturing districts. The tenements were full almost all the time.
Where two-story tenements were builtCamp No. 28, South Park
Where two-story tenements were built
Camp No. 28, South Park
The terms of the contract signed by applicants fixed, in large measure, the conditions under which cottages could be removed from the camps and become the permanent property of their owners.[81]Whenever a person proved to the Department that he had purchased or leased a lot in the city and county of San Francisco, he was permitted at his own expense to move his house.
[81]SeePart IV,pp. 222and232.
[81]SeePart IV,pp. 222and232.
In June, 1907, the park commissioners requested the Relief Corporation to clear the public squares of cottages by August 17. Clearing the squares and parks of these cottages proved to be a difficult task, for many occupants sought delay on the ground of being unable to secure other quarters. In a few cases the persons had either to be evicted or to have the houses pulled down over their heads. On account of the poverty of many occupants, and in order to secure better sanitary supervision while the fear of bubonic plague lasted, the camp at Lobos Square was retained after the others had been abandoned. It was used by the poorest of the refugees from other camps, as well as by its own unusual number of dependents. This camp was not entirely abandoned till June 30, 1908.[82]
[82]For population of the camp April, 1908, seePart I,p. 29.
[82]For population of the camp April, 1908, seePart I,p. 29.
Cottages to the number of 5,343 were removed from the camps, all but a few to be used as dwellings. Real estate firms which applied to purchase cottages to establish them in groups on their own lots were refused by the Department on the ground that any such arrangement would tend to perpetuate camp life; lacking superintendence and control, such camp life would be worse than that which then existed. Despite the action of the Department, however, large vacant lots were sub-divided and rented to individual owners of cottages.[83]Seventy-four of the cottages were given to philanthropic agencies and were installed by them in various parts of the city for use as club rooms or for similar purposes.
[83]See Two Cottage Settlements,Part IV,p. 234ff.
[83]See Two Cottage Settlements,Part IV,p. 234ff.
The work of the Associated Charities in moving and repairing cottages deserves special mention. The Corporation arrangedwith the Associated Charities to move from the camps the cottages belonging to widows with children and to families having incapacitated breadwinners. The moving of cottages, which began in July, 1907, was not ended until the latter part of June, 1908.[84]The amount of work accomplished at a cost comparatively small shows excellent business management. The greater part of the work of moving, installing, and repairing the cottages was done by unemployed carpenters, plumbers, and laborers. “Considering the number of cottages moved and made habitable, we have had very few complaints as to the workmanship,” is noted in a report of the Associated Charities,—a comment that could not be made in connection with many houses erected by the regular contractors.
[84]The total number of cottages moved or repaired by the Associated Charities was 703, at an expenditure of $55,963.50 or an average of $79.61 per cottage. The appropriation for this work allowed for a maximum expenditure of $150 per cottage.
[84]The total number of cottages moved or repaired by the Associated Charities was 703, at an expenditure of $55,963.50 or an average of $79.61 per cottage. The appropriation for this work allowed for a maximum expenditure of $150 per cottage.
The efforts being made by families permanently to own homes are shown by the following figures: The number of cottagers buying lots was 208; paying ground rent, 447; owning own property, 30; given one month’s rent to move from camp but present condition unknown, 18. Total, 703.
Under the supervision of the Associated Charities the 208 families buying lots bid fair, according to reports given in 1908, to own them in the immediate future. It is doubtless true that but for the direction of the society these families never would have seriously considered owning a house and lot.
From August 1, 1906, to June 30, 1908, there is accurate information from which to determine the cost of the camps. During this period 7,171,522 days’ shelter was furnished at a cost of $884,558.81 for construction of cottages and of $453,000.04 for maintenance, a total of $1,337,558.85, a daily per capita cost of 18.7 cents. The daily per capita cost of maintenance was 6 cents. No allowance is here made for the value of the tents in use from August 1 till they were replaced by the cottages, but their value is more than offset by that of the cottages when they were vacated.[85]
[85]For total expenditures of all departments for housing, seeTable 64,p. 220.
[85]For total expenditures of all departments for housing, seeTable 64,p. 220.
For the whole period of the relief work, the cost of the camps was as follows:
TABLE 26.—COST OF CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK
TABLE 26.—COST OF CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK
In addition to the shelter furnished at Ingleside and the Relief Home, an estimate of 11,000,000[86]days of shelter for the entire relief period may be given, a figure that is probably too small. From it we get an average daily per capita cost of 19.1 cents.
[86]Estimated number of days of shelter from April 18, 1906, to August 1, 1906, 3,828,478.
[86]Estimated number of days of shelter from April 18, 1906, to August 1, 1906, 3,828,478.
The apparently greater cost of shelter for the early period is due possibly to too low an estimate of the number of days’ shelter furnished outside of official camps. It must be kept in mind that the disbursements given above include all disbursements for sanitation and for medical care in the camps, and also that the residents of the camps included a large proportion of aged, infirm, and dependent persons. The actual cost would be reduced if it were possible to deduct the value of the tents and cottages at the time they ceased to be used.
What is astounding in this story of giving shelter to a great displaced city population of 250,000[87]souls is not the number of days that shelter had to be provided or the sum total of cost. The astounding fact is that when Camp Lobos, the last stamping ground of the residuum,[88]was closed to refugees on June 30, 1908, the number of persons that had to be cared for by the Associated Charities and the Relief Home was so small. In June, 1906, 40,000 persons were living at the expense of the relief funds in campsand shacks; two years later, leaving out of consideration those who had been given shelter at Ingleside, only 703 had to be aided by charitable agency to obtain permanent shelter.
[87]200,000 is the number given for persons burned out of house and home. The difference is accounted for by the number made homeless because of loss of income and because of the homes made temporarily uninhabitable by the earthquake.[88]SeePart VI,p. 357, andPart V,p. 305ff., for number that had to be taken care of permanently. The small number who left the almshouse to seek shelter in the camps is also noted inPart VI.
[87]200,000 is the number given for persons burned out of house and home. The difference is accounted for by the number made homeless because of loss of income and because of the homes made temporarily uninhabitable by the earthquake.
[88]SeePart VI,p. 357, andPart V,p. 305ff., for number that had to be taken care of permanently. The small number who left the almshouse to seek shelter in the camps is also noted inPart VI.
This section may well be closed by a brief and necessarily inadequate statement of the social work undertaken in connection with the camp life. Four important settlements were swept to ashes by the fire,—the South Park Settlement, a pioneer work in San Francisco, the Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association, the Nurses’ Settlement, and the Columbia Park Boys’ Club. The residents of each showed, as did the Associated Charities, their power of readjusting their work to meet the new demands for service. They transferred their activity to the camps where they, as well as groups of other volunteers, tried to improve social conditions.
Various organizations of women co-operated also to help carry on the work of the sewing center at the Hearst Grammar School, which was established the middle of May by the representative of the American National Red Cross, in connection with its employment bureau. Here volunteers met and distributed garments and taught women and girls to sew, giving materials to some in exchange for their work on garments, which were distributed to other refugees. The work grew so that sewing circles were opened in various camps and other suitable places, which furnished proper clothing and gave employment and instruction to women and girls. By July, 1907, over 75,000 garments had been made in the 75 centers that had been established in camps, churches, public schools, and settlements. The work itself had been brought under the Corporation as a part of its Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, and had been given the name of Industrial Bureau, with Lucile Eaves as director, Rev. D. O. Crowley as adviser, and six seamstresses on salary. Miss Eaves, formerly head worker of the South Park Settlement, had been in charge of the sewing circles before the incorporation of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds. There is no account of expenditures made for this work to August 1, 1906. After that date the Corporation expended $37,895.70. The two largest items of expenditure were $28,521.09 for dry goods and other supplies and $4,464 for service.
Temporary social halls were built at the expense of the Corporation to be used by residents of the camps as meeting places and by social workers for kindergartens, day nurseries, reading rooms, sewing classes, and improvement clubs, for religious meetings, for lectures, and for concerts.
The story of the quick recovery of the settlements themselves and of how, awaiting the building of new quarters, they by makeshifts got the people together, cannot be told here. To show in a measure what it meant to the social worker to find himself suddenly bereft of all the means to serve his end, the following paragraphs written by a probation officer are given:
“On the morning of April 20, practically every vestige of the three years’ work of the juvenile court had vanished.“Our office was cleaned out; little piles of delicate white ash represented our records, compiled with such care and toil. Where the detention home stood was a heap of tangled scrap iron. Three out of five of our officers were homeless. Our probationers were scattered to the four winds of heaven. Fortunately, none of the children in detention was injured; during the first day of the fire they were safely conveyed to a sand-dump camp at the western edge of the city.”
“On the morning of April 20, practically every vestige of the three years’ work of the juvenile court had vanished.
“Our office was cleaned out; little piles of delicate white ash represented our records, compiled with such care and toil. Where the detention home stood was a heap of tangled scrap iron. Three out of five of our officers were homeless. Our probationers were scattered to the four winds of heaven. Fortunately, none of the children in detention was injured; during the first day of the fire they were safely conveyed to a sand-dump camp at the western edge of the city.”
Sanitation was at once recognized to be a pressing problem. As has been told, latrines were quickly built in the camps and in other parts of the city, and a large force of plumbers was kept at work to repair leaks in sewers so as to prevent the seepage of sewage into the water supply. Citizens were ordered to boil all drinking water and the authorities took charge of all milk as soon as it was delivered to the city. Sanitary orders were cheerfully obeyed. “Obey the Sanitary Law or be shot” tacked on a partially wrecked house showed that some of the refugees held to a pioneer code. That they did so, and that the authorities were alert, the excellent health record of the months that followed bears testimony. The sanitary problem was to a small degree lessened by the fact that with the terror of the earthquake and fire in their eyes, the vicious and parasitic classes fled from the city; to a large degree by the fact that nature was kind in giving conditions that were peculiarly favorable to life in the open.
To put emphasis on sanitation was an essential. Colonel G. H. Torney,[89]of the army medical department, was placed in charge of all sanitary work, both of the camps and of the city. By April 28 a medical officer had been assigned to each of the six military districts.[90]This officer assigned inspectors to make daily inspections of the camps in his district, to keep a close watch for infectious diseases, and to see that there was a large force of scavengers. The expense of the work was borne by the army and was drawn from the Congressional appropriation.
[89]Later appointed Surgeon General of the United States Army.[90]SeePart I,p. 11.
[89]Later appointed Surgeon General of the United States Army.
[90]SeePart I,p. 11.
Because of the army’s efficiency during the first few weeks there was no serious outbreak of disease, though there was for a short time a fear that smallpox might become epidemic. As long, however, as the city authorities permitted groups of people to live in isolated camps proper sanitary supervision was impossible. The greatest danger was from the flies and from the use of water drawn in the early days from wells and other unusual sources of supply. As soon as possible sterilizers were installed in the camps and weekly tests made of the water used in each.
Early in May a physician named by the city authorities was stationed at each district headquarters to have charge of all health regulations and to be subject to the orders of Colonel Torney.
The services of the army officers were retained to make reports on conditions until the middle of May, when the division into sanitary districts was abandoned and Colonel Torney’s duties were changed so that he might become chief sanitary officer of permanent camps under General Greely, the division commander. An army medical officer was then assigned to each official camp. He was responsible for the sanitation of his camp, but not for territories beyond its boundaries. He could be called upon to advise the civil authorities who were responsible for the final removal of all camp garbage and refuse after it had been taken from the camps designated to places outside camp limits.
The board of health, acting under orders of the Executive Commission, appointed a health corps which was paid by the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds and subject to the direction of the camp commander. The personnel of the corps under the board of health in each camp consisted, varyingaccording to the camp population, of one to two surgeons, one to four nurses, a pharmacist, and from two to ten laborers. There were for service at large one surgeon, two dentists, two sanitary inspectors, one pharmacist, six laborers, and two chauffeurs. The total number in the corps was: surgeons, 24; nurses, 26; dentists, 2; laborers, 89; inspectors, 2; pharmacists, 15; chauffeurs, 2.
Taking into account the character of the camp population, a considerable part of which was of the class that does not understand the need of sanitary precautions, the freedom from epidemic during the first few months is remarkable. A report of the medical department of the army shows that 30 cases of typhoid fever occurred in April, 55 in May, and 10 up to June 23, 1906. As the average number of cases per month reported by the city to the state board of health for the two years previous to the fire was only 12, there is apparently an increase of this disease during April and May. The 30 cases which developed in April must have been due to infection previous to April 18, so that unless the statistics of either the army or the city board of health are incorrect, an increase of this disease must have threatened before the fire. Of the 95 cases which developed between April 18 and June 23 only five developed in official camps. Of smallpox there were 123 cases between April 18 and June 23. Five of these were reported by the board of health as camp cases, but none of them originated in official camps under army control.
In October and November, 1906, there was a decided increase in the number of cases of typhoid fever, the bureau of hospitals alone having charge at one time of 155 cases. The patients came from camps, official and unofficial, and from houses. The epidemic, if it can be called such, was found to be carried not by contaminated milk or water but by flies. The sanitation methods of the board of health had not been good enough to protect the refugees in the various camps. The board of health, therefore, not the Department of Camps and Warehouses, was responsible for the number of typhoid fever cases.
The care of the sick was a minor problem of the relief work. The number of persons seriously injured by the fire and earthquake was but 415. Most of the hospitals stood outside the burned section, and though some of them suffered heavy damage by theearthquake, no demand had to be made for hospital facilities that could not be met fairly adequately. Some of the sick were immediately cared for in neighboring communities, and by the army in its hospitals at the Presidio and at Fort Mason, and in a field hospital established in Golden Gate Park.[91]At one time during the summer following the disaster many of the city hospital beds were vacant, even though numerous chronic cases became hospital charges when relatives and friends were no longer financially able to provide for them.