City Council Rejects Health Inspectors
Legislators block board of health's attempt to hire sanitary inspectors for house-to-house inspections, while street railway companies lobby for franchise extensions.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Both houses of the council met last evening and transacted considerable business. The house of delegates rejected the proposal of the board of health to employ two sanitary inspectors to go from house to house to examine into sanitary conditions. A petition from a number of street railway companies for the extension of their franchises, urging that this would enable them more easily to float bonds and offering, as a consideration, to pay to the city a proportion of their earnings, was read and referred. A communication from the board of health had asked for two sanitary inspectors for thirty days at a salary of $3 per day. Delegates Lyon and Brace opposed the appointment, and the house adopted their report, with Coryell and Creighton voting no.
“The house voted against granting to the board of health two sanitary inspectors.”
Public health infrastructure and the power of private utility monopolies have been central to Seattle's governance for over 130 years. The council's struggle between maintaining oversight and granting long-term franchises to private transit companies mirrors contemporary debates over transit funding and urban development.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.