COLUMBIA LIBRARIES OFFSITE 
 
 HEALTH SCIENCES STANDARD 
 
 I7<S 
 
 HX64076547 
 RA578.A6 B89 The health commissio 
 
 RECAP 
 
 
Columbia (BnitJt r^fitp 
 
 CoUege of ^fjpsiicians! anb ^urgcong 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive 
 
 in 2010 witii funding from 
 
 Open Knowledge Commons 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/healthcommissionOObure 
 
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 
 
 September 15, 1911 
 
 BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH 
 261 Broadway 
 
821 
 
 THE SLAUGHTER HOUSES 
 
 Slaughter houses on the east side are public 
 nuisances. When the -wind sets inland, they smell 
 to Heaven. Mayor Gaynor visited these places 
 after the owners of the abattoirs had been apprised 
 that the Bureau of Municipal Research was inspect- 
 ing their condition, and that his Honor would soon 
 make them a visit. On the day of his visit the bar- 
 ometer was low, and a northerly gale was blowing, 
 which bore the foul odors away from the Mayoral 
 olfactories. If the Mayor or Commissioner I/EDERLE 
 have any doubts about the customary perpetration of 
 nuisances in the east side slaughter houses, they 
 should visit them on a calm day, or when the breezes 
 are borne inward upon the land. 
 
 The Bureau of Municipal Research makes five 
 specific points against the slaughterers, supporting 
 each with evidence. Sour and tainted fats are ille- 
 gally rendered within the city's limits; bones and 
 offal are boiled; the rendering of offal in the centre 
 of this large city, whether specifically prohibited or 
 not, according to Sanitary Superintendent BensEL, 
 has never been done for any considerable time 
 "without a nuisance"; blood from the killing rooms 
 is illegally discharged into the sewers, and the Health 
 Department relies too much on the Federal authori- 
 ties to see that the city's meat supply is prepared 
 under sanitar}' conditions. 
 
 The business of slaughtering animals ought not to 
 be conducted within this city save under very rigidly 
 enforced regulations. The Bureau of Municipal 
 Research presents records showing that, during the 
 past year or more, the regulations have been leniently 
 enforced, that the slaughtering of tuberculous cattle 
 has been permitted, that the meat in the abattoirs 
 remains unscreened from swarms of flies, and that 
 whole neighborhoods have been kept awake by foul 
 odors arising from forbidden nuisances. The charges 
 and the evidence submitted constitute a grave 
 indictment. — A'^. V. Times, July g, igii 
 
 Efficient Citizenship No. 444 
 BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH 
 261 Broadway, New York 
 
COMMISSIONER LEDERLE'S REFUTATION 
 
 OF 
 
 COMMISSIONER LEDERLE'S ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 Health Violations in East Side Slaughter Houses 
 
 Letter from the Bureau of Municipal Research to Mayor Gaynor 
 September IS, 1911 
 
 September 15, 1911 
 Hon. William J. Gaynor 
 
 Mayor, City of New York 
 Sir: 
 
 When you said publicly that you were satisfied with Com- 
 missioner Lederle's reply to our Health Violations in East Side 
 Slaughter Houses you could not, we believe, have read his re- 
 ply carefully. 
 
 Our report was submitted to you and to the commissioner 
 June 5, as the basis for official review and was like scores 
 of reports subject to correction if wrong in any particular. We 
 did not publish it until after our motive had been impugned and 
 its accuracy challenged. 
 
 Instead of refuting the charges which we based upon an 
 analysis of official records, Commissioner Lederle admits every 
 significant charge but one. Even the sanitary improvements 
 and precautions which commended themselves to you and to 
 several editors are shown by Commissioner Lederle's answer 
 to be results rather than refutations of our report. 
 
 To call remediable deficiencies of administration to your 
 personal attention was one purpose of our report. Commis- 
 sioner Lederle has outdone us in advertising these deficiencies 
 by his report to you. 
 
 3 
 
1. In claiming that the Bureau charged "that the business of dis- 
 posing of the offal in the city is illegal" (page i, line lo), the 
 commissioner substitutes the words "in the city" for the words 
 "within the borough of Manhattan," which the Bureau used 
 in citing the sanitary code's absolute prohibition. 
 
 2. Upon two sections of the charter, known by himself and the 
 mayor to have been repealed five years ago, (1212, 1227), Com- 
 missioner Lederle bases his defense of boiling offal and render- 
 ing fertilizer in east side slaughter houses. 
 
 3. He misstates that the opinions of Corporation Counsel Rives 
 
 (1902) and Watson (1910) sustained the views the department 
 alwaj's held (page 5). Mr. Rives said the sanitary code 
 "specifically declares that no fat shall be rendered except 
 when fresh from the slaughtered animals and taken directly 
 from the place of slaughtering. This is a clear prohibition 
 of the rendering of shop fat." Not one word was said by 
 Corporation Counsel Watson of shop fat nor did Commis- 
 sioner Lederle raise the question with Mr. Watson as to the 
 legality of rendering shop fats. 
 
 4. It is not true, as stated by the commissioner (page 5), that 
 the "regulation of the process of rendering of fat has always 
 been provided by section 95 of the sanitary code," which 
 section instead of regulating, specifically prohibited the ren- 
 dering of shop fats until the amendment of March, 1911. 
 
 5. After proving to 3'ou by misstating corporation counsel 
 opinions that boiling shop fat brought in from the outside 
 has been considered legal since 1902 he tells you (page 9) 
 that up to Alarch, 1911 section 95 of the sanitary code "pro- 
 hibited absolutely the collection of shop fat throughout the 
 city and from places outside of the city to be taken to the 
 various rendering plants within the city limits for rendering 
 or melting." 
 
 6. After this explanation that up to March, 1911, collection of 
 
 shop fat was prohibited, he says (page 10) that in November, 
 1910, the absolutely prohibited business had been formally 
 permitted upon his recommendation. 
 
 7. The "careful inspection and report of outstanding permits" 
 which (page 10) the commissioner claims were made prior 
 to November 29, 1910, were not on record up to May, 191 1. 
 The records did show that under Acting-mayor Mitchel all 
 permits for the boiling of shop fat were revoked to take 
 effect November 30th and that so far as the record showed, 
 without your knowledge, without careful inspection and with- 
 out any report whatever to or by the commissioner, permits 
 were reissued, after Acting-mayor Alitchel gave way to you, 
 to take effect the day before the rescinding was to have taken 
 place. 
 
 8. In stating on page 2: "The disposal of shop fat within the 
 city is legal (July 18, 191 1) under permit by the department 
 of health," three facts were not presented to you: (a) that 
 until the sanitary code was amended in March, 1911, the 
 rendering of shop fat could not be legally permitted by him; 
 
(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, 
 191 1, 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. 
 
15- In flat contradiction of the commissioner's claim (page 3) 
 "that in every establishment in this city substantially all the 
 blood is now saved except that which is carried away by the 
 washing of floors," are six separate orders issued in March and 
 May of 191 1 against three east side establishments "to discon- 
 tinue the practice of discharging blood into the waters of the 
 East River." 
 
 16. If, as the commissioner says: "There can be no objection to 
 blood carried away by the washing of floors," the issuance of 
 the above and other similar orders was an unwarranted an- 
 noyance. 
 
 17. That "the incentive to collect blood because its commercial 
 value is about $50.00 a ton dry," mentioned on page 3, has 
 been insufficient is shown from the above mentioned orders 
 and from the commissioner's claim on page 6 that "for some 
 years this department has insisted upon the blood being 
 saved." 
 
 18. If the provision in section 85 of the sanitary code against 
 allowing blood from slaughtered animals to flow into the 
 river or sewer is obsolete and "merely a technical violation," 
 (page 3) it is notable that in the amendment of March, 1911, 
 this so-called technical provision of the sanitary code was 
 not repealed. As a matter of fact, in spite of the alleged 
 commercial value of dry blood, three of the houses on the 
 east side dealt with in our report had absolutely no means 
 for collecting blood except bucket and shovel. 
 
 19. To find slaughter houses on the east side on the whole, in 
 good sanitary condition, (page 4) in August, two months after 
 our report was submitted to you, is certainly no refutation 
 of our report but rather a testimony to its value. 
 
 20. The improvements in the rendering and fertilizing plants 
 
 which according to the commissioner (page 4), "were re- 
 quired during the last year," looked to improvements in two 
 businesses, one of which until March, 191 1, was specifically 
 prohibited in the sanitary code, i. e., the treatment of shop 
 fats, and the other of which, fertilizer rendering, is today 
 illegal in Manhattan. Had the commissioner stated the whole 
 case to you he would have reported that the more important 
 improvements were forced by national inspectors and that 
 as late as June, iqtt the local health department's records 
 mentioned only minor improvements. From the standpoint 
 of efficient health administration it is almost as serious for 
 the department to have required many improvements without 
 recording such requirements as to have neglected the re- 
 quirements. 
 
 21. The records show that orders looking "especially to the better 
 
 disposition of odors from rendering and fertilizer plants" 
 (page 4) were chiefly complied with by shifting of the wind 
 from east to west, cessation of complaints or Acting-mayor 
 Mitchel's retirement. 
 
 22. The issue of offensive odors is not met by the minute descrip- 
 
 tion of the equipment for decreasing odors and by the 
 statement (page 3). "Both of the plants . . . where fat 
 is rendered and slaughter house wastes converted into fer- 
 
tilizer .... for many years have been equipped with 
 appliances." These odor destroyers were there when you 
 wrote in 1910 "Complaints multiply." They were there when 
 in 1910 Sanitary Superintendent Bensel wrote to Acting- 
 mayor Mitchel: "It is a matter of knowledge to officers of 
 this department that no such plant has been operated without 
 a nuisance for any considerable length of time," and referred 
 to their powers to destroy as "theoretical." Destroyers that do 
 not destroy are no public protection. The very day when the 
 commissioner's letter and the mayor's "entirely satisfactory" 
 were published in the newspapers those destroyers so failed 
 to destroy that a nuisance was committed all the late after- 
 noon for blocks west of these same destroyers. It is odors 
 outside the plant, not equipment inside, that concern the 
 public. 
 
 23. The defense of the odor destroying equipment (for offal boil- 
 
 ing) breaks down with the commissioner's statement on page 
 7 "the appliances are not fool proof and constant vigilance 
 is necessary." Odors on the outside show that constant vigil- 
 ance has not been given. Superintendent Bensel says that 
 constant vigilance cannot be hoped for. As late as May 15, 
 1911, the inspector reported: "Odors escaping . . . Doors 
 
 allowed to be left open. Doors in fertilizer shed 
 
 open." 
 
 24. Misstatement is made by the commissioner even in so small 
 
 a matter as the number of complaints shown on the depart- 
 ment's records. He says (page 8) that from January i, 1910, 
 through June, 191 1, five citizens' complaints were received. 
 Yet we published in our report eleven complaints taken from 
 the official records of the department, not including any let- 
 ters that may have been received at the mayor's office and 
 not transmitted to the department. 
 
 25. In many respects the most serious effort to evade the depart- 
 ment's responsibility for unsanitary conditions in the east 
 side slaughter houses is evidenced in the ten-line paragraph 
 on page 11 devoted to screens, cuspidors, dirty boots, clothing 
 and medical inspection of employees. These ten lines are 
 meant to answer four pages of specific statements in our 
 report. Here the commissioner not only admits that screens 
 for keeping out "flies and other vermin" are lacking, but, 
 after pleading the difficulty of screening, actually declares 
 "nor is it necessary, although it is desirable, that all foods 
 and food productions should be screened from flies as far 
 as possible." 
 
 Again the absence of cuspidors is not only admitted but 
 justified. The flippant reference to cleanliness of boots, cloth- 
 ing, employees, etc., not only disregards specific charges in 
 our report and the greater part of the health officer's re- 
 sponsibility for sanitary protection in slaughter houses, but is 
 a distinct slur on the regulations of the United States depart- 
 ment of agriculture, quoted in our report, which require that 
 garments and persons shall be clean and "they shall be re- 
 quired to pay particular attention to the cleanliness of their 
 boots and shoes." 
 
 26. The existence of absorbent material in the dressing and 
 
 cooling rooms and the unsanitary condition of woodwork, 
 floors, etc., are entirely ignored by the commissioner. Our 
 
report cited violation after violation of section 85 of the sani- 
 tary code. That the commissioner has known of the im- 
 portance heretofore attributed to these provisions is shown 
 (a) by his letter to you transmitting an opinion of Corpora- 
 tion Counsel Watson that distinctly mentioned these pro- 
 visions, and (b) also by several violations against absorbent 
 floors, woodwork to be scraped and cleaned, walls, ceil- 
 ings and partitions to be whitewashed, etc. Yet at the time 
 of your visit with the commissioner, absorbent material 
 was found in the floor, pillars, etc. of a dressing room of one 
 of the two companies to which the commissioner's special 
 plea is chiefly devoted. 
 
 2"/. Ignoring all of our specific illustrations of lax administration 
 of the sanitary code excepting those which relate to offal 
 and shop fats is to ignore nine different sources of danger 
 and nuisance. 
 
 IN CONCLUSION 
 
 All denials by Commissioner Lederle are thus emphatically 
 refuted by Commissioner Lederle and the sanitary code except- 
 ing three, one of which points to a clear error on the part of the 
 Bureau's investigators, one to an excessive estimate and one 
 to a debatable question of fact which cannot now be settled : 
 
 I. The Error: Two of the eleven houses inspected 
 have equipments for destroying or condensing odors. 
 That these destroyers do not destroy does not excuse 
 the Bureau for having failed to discover their existence. 
 That they cannot "for any considerable length of time" 
 destroy, the sanitary superintendent maintained in his 
 letter of September 8, 1910. 
 
 II. The Excessive Estimate: The estimate that in 
 different houses from one-fourth to two-thirds of the 
 blood was permitted to escape into the East River was 
 probably an over-estimate even at the time the inquiry 
 was made, excepting for the three houses named, where 
 no provision was made for catching the blood except by 
 bucket and shovel. However, the exact proportion of 
 blood is beside the main issue. No blood the sanitary 
 code says. Too much blood the metropolitan sewerage 
 commission reported. 
 
III. The Debatable Issue of Fact : Whether the fans 
 on the day of our investigators' visits in April and May- 
 were intake or "oiittake" fans, bringing fresh air in to 
 help destroy odors or forcing the offensive odors into the 
 outside air, it is impossible at present to establish. The 
 fact that the fans seen by the mayor on June 20 w^ere 
 bringing fresh air into these rooms does not prove that 
 two months earlier those same fans reversed were not 
 forcing air outside the rooms. Without challenge by the 
 mayor, by the health commissioner or by the company 
 involved. Police Commissioner Baker on July 28, 1910, 
 reported to Mayor Gaynor that his Sergeant Mallan 
 found "two large revolving fans on the south side which 
 . . . send the odor out of the building and if there is 
 any wind blowing it is naturally carried in the immediate 
 vicinity." 
 
 Evils such as those admitted by Commissioner Lederle's 
 answer to you point to administrative laxness at health head- 
 quarters that, as you know, has been found in several other 
 directions to be jeopardizing the health and comfort of 
 New York's citizens. 
 
 The Bureau of Municipal Research did not cast about for 
 something to do and finally hit upon east side slaughter houses. 
 On the contrary, as the mayor personally knows, the Bureau at 
 the time this inquiry was begun in April, 191 1, and in the 
 preceding February when a study was made of the Brooklyn 
 slaughter houses, was busily engaged co-operating at great ex- 
 pense with several of the mayor's department heads as well as 
 with other city officials. 
 
 We were informed that with full knowledge of officers of the 
 department of health and for a price tuberculous cattle wiere 
 being slaughtered in Brooklyn contrary to public health and to 
 the sanitary code. We did not look for the price, but we did 
 look for tuberculous meat and found it. Our report upon dis- 
 gusting conditions and health violations in Brooklyn slaughter 
 
 9 
 
houses led to orders being issued b}" the department of health 
 for correcting these evils at least temporarily. 
 
 When complaint was made by a citizen against east side 
 slaughter houses the same investigator was used to collect in- 
 formation who had already submitted to the health department 
 information regarding Brooklyn violations which the health 
 department had found to be correct in detail. One error due 
 to the expulsion of our investigators from the two premises 
 where ofifal and shop fat were being rendered contrary to law 
 does not materially affect the issue. 
 
 In addition to the violations alread}^ reported to you two 
 other significant facts deserve to be called to the mayor's at- 
 tention and to the public's attention. One of the establishments 
 was found to be taking water, not through the meters estab- 
 lished by the department of water supply but from the city 
 hydrant where a measure of such water was inif^ossible. 
 Secondly, another establishment was found to be paying the 
 dock department for obstructing East 45th Street over which, 
 investigation shows, not the department of docks but tlie 
 borough of iManhattan has jurisdiction. These point to evils 
 no less insidious, and no less deserving of executive attention 
 and correction, because the origin was under another adminis- 
 tration than your own. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH. 
 
 10 
 
(Address side of postal card Efficient Citizenship No. 477 
 See back cover) 
 
 MUNICIPAL RESEARCH URGES 
 
 Fact not theory 
 Practise Not Purpose 
 Methods not men 
 
 Its support is derived from private subscriptions, 
 and its final appeal is to enlightened public opinion 
 
 Its scope is as wide as municipal activity ; 
 comprehending finance and accounts, public w^orks, 
 safety, health, charities, and education 
 
 Its method is investigation, report to responsible 
 officials, and constructive suggestion 
 
 'Philadelphia Bureau of Municipal l^esearch 
 
 Bureau of Municipal Research 
 261 Broadway, New York 
 
3) 
 
 m 
 
 0) 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 a> 
 m 
 
 JO 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 m 
 
 £ 
 
 -< 
 o 
 a 
 
 c « ° 5 c 
 
 
 5^ <-^ c; 
 
 si - tr 
 2.3 '^ 
 
 g. -^ 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 ■n 
 
 c 
 
 2 
 
 
 og 
 
 "d 3 
 1-1 ~ 
 O 
 
 '-'• rf- tl" r* 
 
 ^ 3^3 c* 
 
 o g 2.0 
 5- .^3 5" 
 
 en 
 
 fB fB ft 
 p r+ 
 
 P 
 
 p n 
 X 
 O 
 
 crq 3 W 
 
 t) 
 
 
 p • 3*3 
 
 s*o e s S.S c^: 
 
 S,B 
 
 3*C — Cr 
 
 p 2 2 
 
 M " -i fts 
 
 ™ rt a. 
 ? to cr, 
 
 r* i-f "^ 
 
 ST '^ 
 
 2. >> f* 
 
 fD >-i en 
 
 <- ^ - 5 
 c o 2. 
 
 _, re o Ci ^ 
 
 ^» o ;:5 
 
 3 -t a.p 
 
 tn 5" ji f :l 
 
 a.rc «> o Ej 
 
 3 -r, en 
 
 w, i-f en . 
 
 3 • p O" 
 
 3 ^' ft 
 
 o 55. 3**0 
 
 ■^f? O 3 
 £o^ tn 
 
 o m p - 
 Cu en — P 
 1-". tn _ 
 
 » en 
 
 a ^ 
 
 fL p ^ 
 
 - " a 
 
 en i-n^li '^ 
 
 1 fH 
 
 en 
 
 O ft 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 hi 
 t^ en 
 
 P 
 
 o a 
 
 p ft 3 w 
 
 a 5r3 
 
 o 2. 
 
 3 a" ^-n 
 ^< ft 2. -• 
 
 o 
 
 o tra- 
 
 o 5 
 
 03 W5 
 
 ." i-t ft IT} 
 
 p ft p 1^ 
 
 en 
 
 O ft 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 a^ ft 
 
 ft r^ a 
 
 tn li- o a 
 
 "^ 5" ^- a 
 00 - a 
 
 B p ■ ^ 
 
 B"^ !?''C 
 
 t. p ^ -I 
 
 as-- -■ 
 
 ■^3 
 
 [3.0 ; 
 ft a hH 
 
 "^ ~ '2 
 I ►-. - ft 
 o p 
 p en i^ 
 
 p 
 
 a-g ^S*cr 
 2.«, ^ ^ 
 
 F i-l rt; ft '^ 
 
 ft O a^ -. hrl 
 
 p 
 
 a'^ OB 
 
 «->■ C-'< 3 
 3''- a ^ 
 
 ft fi o _ 
 ft ft en "< 
 
 2 '-• a H P v; 
 
 ;i^^^5pS.^5-?a 
 
 en "< JQ 
 
 'A'^ C.-- 
 
 ft 3 SB'S a*rtp'f^ 
 
 . Crq ft ft ^Jft en C-S 
 
 '3 3- 
 
 »^S'S 2 
 
 S" ft 
 "•p 
 
 ri^ ~ '" 
 J^ftg- 
 
 tn O 5 ;= 
 
 ^. ^ tn ►-. 
 
 & dj r»- a 
 
 ft en O on? 
 
 ft O 
 
 3)0 HH 
 
 ft Oi 
 
 ; i-i a 
 
 • en 
 
 .^'^ 
 o g ft 
 
 •^03 
 
 O "> r^ 
 O ►-. 3* 
 
 (ca ft 
 
 ftp„en<!ri- 5^'^ 
 
 o a g S^ 2. a-^ g- ^ 
 §.^^acr2.gc^^ 
 
 3 « I =*.>^ p g.p 
 ^ 5-0 ^ ft ^^B-B 
 
 fQ OP2ft__"'';;r 
 
 m—rt^^ft^ft 
 
 ^ ?S?3"^3i1§2. 
 
 txift en J^- 
 
 O i-i 3. 
 
 ji ft cr a* 
 
 _^ O ft en 
 
 t ►-^ ft 
 
 hr-B ft 
 
 a^ 3 
 
 ft "^ c; 
 
 — /T^ ft a 
 
 o 3cIq p a ^ 
 
 2.sr?g^s3. 
 
 ;5 S ft p 3*3 
 
 {? w 3 V! g ^ 
 en p tn o ft 3" 
 
 — 3 5' "^ i" ft 
 
 • ri- a eo ^ ft 
 
 S-o'2 2.0 . 
 
 "; ^ ►I eo o S 
 
 ^a-B 2.P § 
 a' ft CL ;:r. a "^ 
 
 P ft N &i p 
 
 ^ 2 . £ . a 3 '^ 
 
 ;:*" ft " en -, 
 
 O en en p ft^O 
 
 en O v; ^^ ►-. 
 Q a- ►rt £. 
 
 12-g p o•5■ 
 E »- r g en ^ 
 
 en 3 f> p 
 
 -2.a B 
 a*^ "■ £ 
 !" 3 2 ^ 5" 
 
 CLi T ft ft P 
 
 ai2. !2 S o 
 ft o^2 iS a 
 o-a"^U 
 
 . ^ t:-. rr ft 
 
 ft 3 o 93 
 
 . eo to p 
 
 £a o o 
 ft -w ii 
 
 ft 
 
 B 
 
 B. 
 
 ■-I :i. eo' 
 
 13' £.0 
 
 3 a o ft 
 
 ft t' 
 
 ^g o'ft 
 
 p ft 
 
 C « "^ 2. 
 
 i-T. hI, ft 
 
 ft ^' ij 
 
 eo C" ~ 
 
 ft o"f=* 
 
 p ". ft 
 
 1-1 en 
 
 S-Bg 
 
 ^ S B 
 Sp2 
 S,^ a- 
 
 h:° - 
 
 033 
 
 a 3^3 
 B 2.ff. 
 
 en tn i-t- 1— • r* 
 
 ^ S B 
 
 b3 
 a 
 
 
 <^ B 
 
 ft ■-• 
 
 "7 a 
 
 a' ^ 
 
 rs en 
 
 I— ft 
 
 ::. B 
 
 p i-f o 
 
 S, » 3 
 
 •-^ . B* 
 
 P ^ 
 
 2 H ft 
 
 ft ft ;j 
 
 p 2 B 
 
 P r* ft 
 
 5' "■ 2. 
 
 B* 5 S, 3 
 
 ft ft 
 
 f5 
 
 ft SL 
 
 ;? g 
 
 p B 
 
 3 'H. 
 
 .rf r* O en en 
 
 B' a 
 
 - 2. P f^ 2 
 
 a- B 
 
 p 
 
 en p 
 
 B S 
 
 ft ft 
 
 a 3 
 
 a 2 
 
 a ^ 
 
 ft tr" Cu "-•■ 
 
 a* p ? p 
 o ^ 
 
 a 
 
 a- 13 
 3 ft 
 
 .I ft- B* 
 
 !rt B S - £^ B 
 
 ft p 
 
 Pj ft Ji" 
 
 S. B 
 
 B' S 
 
 a p ^ 
 o- 3 ^ 
 
 r^ Cr !-•:> 
 
 ■I D "^ ??* 
 
 S* B 
 
 ft Q. 
 
 ft >— 
 
 B* 2. B* 
 a p 
 B^ en 
 
 3 3- 
 
 ^•:S a 
 
 f^i - 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 3 '^ 
 
 2- a- 
 ft p 
 c- ■ 
 g^ft 
 
 s a- 
 
 {X. ft 
 
 a ^' ft 
 ■"CD. 
 
 P ^ r5 
 O 
 
 3 crq 
 3 
 
 Cu 3* 
 
 ft P 
 
 ft 
 
 &> 
 
 • a* 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ft 
 
 p 
 
 H 
 
 3. 
 
 
 
 S! a 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 S a P- ft 
 
 ., -. 1-1 '-t 
 
 0, en ►^. ft r* a 
 
 •^ rt- CO p o a 
 
 -s i 
 
 Cii Dj 
 
 T3 'tS p 
 (-• ft (^ 
 
 P 
 
 S S 5 
 
 £,^ B 
 
 e o 
 
 w a- ^ SI. 
 
 g ^ 
 
 5 B 
 ? B* 
 
 • «> Orq ►-< 
 
 to CT* ft ft 
 
 B a a ^. 
 
 Cr en ft a 
 
 ^ a- 3 i. 
 
 7 eo """S en 
 
 tn >< 
 
 P '^ 
 (0 to 
 
 5. B 
 
 B* 2 
 
 Cb 3- 2. 
 
 B* ft ft 
 
 CO p o M p to tn 
 -^ ■ -^ ft 
 
 H ft 
 
 ft "tS 
 
 o O 
 
 ?g 
 
 to ". 
 
 5- 2 
 
 ft t) 
 
 to p 
 
 B - 
 
 r- ft 5 Sft o 
 a- X B- 3 B- 
 
 W 
 
 Z 
 
 a 
 o 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 (Z) 
 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 C/5 
 
 H 
 C 
 D 
 Kl 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 PO 
 
 w 
 n 
 o 
 
 D 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 C2e (747j MlOO 
 
RA578.A6 
 
 B89 
 
 Bureau of municipal research. New 
 iork. 
 
 The health coiainissioner»s refuta- 
 tion of the health conmiissioner 'g 
 answer to the Bureau of municiapAl 
 research on health violoations in 
 east side slaughter houses. 
 
 24: 
 
 1343 
 
 ^. <J* A^l 
 
 ^i-^uuRY 
 
 RAS7i , A6 
 
 e^pj