View report page

151
magistrate decided that paper and miscellaneous matters, the
sweepings of a theatre, did not constitute "trade refuse" and
the District Board was required to remove the collection without
payment, presumably as "dirt or rubbish."
It has already been shown that, although there is no obligation
on the part of the tradesman to have his " refuse " removed
by the scavenger, the Vestry (as "scavenger") may be "required,"
by the owner or occupier, to remove the refuse—a somewhat onesided
arrangement. In the interests of public health it were to be
desired that the producer of trade refuse of an offensive sort should
be compelled to employ the services of the public scavenger
for its removal. But, at present, it is exactly the offensive
refuse that the Vestry are not called upon or expected to remove—
viz., that produced by butchers, fishmongers, fried-fish dealers,
poulterers, &c., who pay substantial sums for the removal of their
refuse, which is effected, not seldom, in a manner calculated to give
rise to nuisance. Greengrocers' refuse has been largely removed
by the dustmen with the "ashes." One main reason for the
difficulty experienced by the Inspectors in making arrangements
with tradesmen arose out of "difference of opinion" as to what
should be considered "refuse."
I felt it to be undesirable that the time of the Inspectors
should be diverted from their proper duties to work of this character,
but the difficulty was not of long continuance, for the resistance
to payment was so strong that, in practice, all attempts to enforce it
had to be abandoned—much to the satisfaction doubtless of refuse
producers and of the dustmen—and matters drifted back to the
position which is considered "unsatisfactory."
INFECTED CLOTHING, ETC.
The question of exposure of infected clothing came before
your Vestry towards the end of the year. As some misconception
appears to exist with reference to the subject, it may be as well
to explain how the matter stands and the action your Vestry have