Page images



Headquarters: S. W. Corner Centre and Walker Streets, Borough of Manhattan
Telephone, 6280 Franklin.

Borough of The Bronx, 3731 Third Avenue.
Borough of Brooklyn, Flatbush Avenue and Willoughby Street.
Borough of Queens, 372-374 Fulton Street, Jamaica, L. I..
Borough of Richmond, 514-516 Bay Street, Stapleton, S. I..

Telephone, 1975 Tremont. Telephone, 4720 Main. Telephone, 1200 Jamaica. .Telephone, 440 Tompkinsville.

Office Hours-9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Saturdays, 9 a.m. to 12 m.

Manhattan-Willard Parker Hospital, foot of East 16th Street. Telephone, 1600 Stuyvesant.
The Bronx-Riverside Hospital, North Brother Island. Telephone, 4000 Melrose.
Brooklyn-Kingston Avenue Hospital, Kingston Avenue and Fenimore Street.


Telephone, 4400 Flatbush.

[blocks in formation]

Hours: 2-5 p. m. Saturdays, 9-12 m.

Manhattan-Gouverneur Slip. Telephone, 2916 Orchard.

Pleasant Avenue and 118th Street. Telephone, 972 Harlem.
164 Second Avenue. Telephone, 2081 Orchard.

449 East 121st Street. Telephone, 3230 Harlem.

P. S. 144 Hester and Allen Streets. Telephone, 5960 Orchard. Brooklyn-330 Throop Avenue. Telephone, 5379 Williamsburg. 124 Lawrence Street. Telephone, 5623 Main.

1249 Herkimer Street. Telephone, 2684 East New York.

The Bronx-580 East 169th Street. Telephone, 2558 Tremont.

Richmond-689 Bay Street. (Dental only). Telephone, 686 W. Tompkinsville.

Manhattan-Centre and Walker Streets. Week days, 9 to 10 a.m.
307 West 33d Street. Wednesdays, 8 to 9 p.m.


Manhattan-West Side Clinic, 307 West 33d Street. Telephone, 3471 Murray Hill.
East Side Clinic, 81 Second Street. Telephone, 5586 Orchard.

Harlem Italian Clinic, 420 East 116th Street. Telephone, 2375 Harlem.

Southern Italian Clinic, 22 Van Dam Street. Telephone, 412 Spring.

Day Camp, Ferryboat "Middletown," foot of East 91st Street. Telephone, 2957 Lenox. The Bronx-Northern Clinic, St. Pauls Place and Third Avenue. Telephone, 1975 Tremont. Southern Clinic, 493 East 139th Street. Telephone, 5702 Melrose.

Brooklyn-Main Clinic, Fleet and Willoughby Streets. Telephone, 4720 Main.

Germantown Clinic, 55 Sumner Avenue. Telephone, 3228 Williamsburg.

Brownsville Clinic, 64 Pennsylvania Avenue. Telephone, 2732 East New York,

Eastern District Clinic, 306 South 5th Street, Williamsburg. Telephone, 1293 Williamsburg.
Day Camp, Ferryboat "Rutherford," foot of Fulton St. Tel., 1530 Main.

Queens-Jamaica Clinic, 10 Union Avenue, Jamaica. Telephone, 1386 Jamaica.

Richmond-Richmond Clinic, Bay and Elizabeth Streets, Stapleton. Telephone, 1558 Tompkinsville. SANATORIUM FOR TUBERCULOSIS

Otisville, Orange County, N. Y. (via Erie Railroad from Jersey City). Telephone, 13 Otisville.


Maintained by the Department of Health, the Department of Public Charities, and Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, 426 First Avenue. Telephone, 8667 Madison Square. Hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.



522-K-13 (B) 2000

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]
[blocks in formation]

All communications relating to the publications of the Department of Health should be addressed to the Commissioner of Health, 149 Centre Street, New York

Entered as second class matter May 7, 1913, at the post office at New York, N. Y.,
under the Act of August 24, 1912.


NOVEMBER 8, 1913.

No. 45

MILK BOTTLE ORDINANCE SUSTAINED BY HIGHEST STATE COURT. The Court of Appeals on October 21, 1913, decided that the provision of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York, making it a misdemeanor for any person to "receive or have in his possession" any receptacle used in the transportation and delivery of milk or cream which has not been washed and cleansed immediately after emptying, is to be read "receive and have in his possession," and as thus construed violates no constitutional right and is within the police power of the State. The duty of cleansing the receptacle is cast first upon the person who empties it. If he fails to perform the duty, it then extends to any person into whose possession the uncleansed receptacle subsequently comes. The particular case, which has just been decided by the highest court of the State, originated from the prosecution of certain drivers of a milk company for leaving unwashed milk cans on the platform of a railway station. The case was first tried in the Court of Special Sessions, which found the defendant guilty. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Court of Special Sessions. Upon final appeal to the highest court of the State, the order and judgment of the Supreme Court has now been affirmed. The decision of the Court of Appeals was handed down by Mr. Justice A. Cuddeback, and reads in part as follows:

"The ordinance is challenged by the defendant in this action as being in violation of the constitution, for the reason that the concluding clause thereof prevents the owner of a receptacle, which has contained milk, from reclaiming his property, if the receptacle is unclean. I think that is an unreasonable interpretation to put upon the ordinance.

"The object of the enactment is in the highest degree commendable. When the receptacle containing milk is emptied, it quickly becomes foul and offensive, and will breed disease if used again as a milk container without being thoroughly cleansed. Therefore, it is provided that the receptacle must be cleaned immediately after it is emptied. That duty the ordinance first casts upon the person who has emptied the receptacle. If he fails to perform his duty he is subject to the prescribed penalty. Then, in order to make the ordinance effective,

it extends the duty of cleansing from the person emptying the receptacle to any person in whose possession it may come. The duty follows the change of possession.

"The word 'receive' in the final clause of the ordinance should not be construed so as to render the bare taking or acceptance of the receptacle unlawful. The words 'nor shall any person receive or have in his possession' should be read 'nor shall any person receive and have in his possession' any such unclean milk receptacle. The idea is to prevent a possession continued beyond the time necessary to do what the ordinance requires. * *

"The defendant in this case was employed by a corporation to deliver milk in bottles to its customers, and it was his duty, when on his rounds, to collect the bottles that had been emptied by customers. Empty bottles so collected, and some of them dirty, the defendant on the day in question carried to a railroad depot and left them there upon the freight platform. A short time afterward they were found loaded on a car. The inference is irresistible that the bottles were in the course of transportation to the farm or dairy where the defendant's employer obtained milk.

"The defendant's excuse is that the railway platform was the place where he and other milk drivers received milk for distribution, and the place where they returned the empty milk bottles, and that the master employed another servant who assorted the bottles on the railroad platform and sent those that were unclean to a sterilizing plant about three miles distant to be cleansed. If the defendant had taken the bottles directly to the sterilizing plant, probably he would not have been interfered with, but he says to take them there would have made too much trouble' for the drivers. The defendant was undoubtedly performing the master's work in the way the master directed, but he is none the less liable on that account. The delivery at the railroad platform evinced at the best an intention on the part of the master to clean the bottles at his convenience and not immediately as the law required. The act was the act of the defendant, and for that he was properly convicted."

Justices Gray, Chase and Hogan concurred with Justice Cuddeback, and Chief Justice Cullen concurred in result. Justice Willard Bartlett read a dissenting opinion, which follows, and in which Justice Miller concurred:

"It is unnecessary to commend the purpose of municipal legislation designed to insure the purity of milk furnished to the community. Of course the motives which induce such enactments are commendable. But the worthiest of motives does not legalize an unreasonable ordinance.

"This enactment forbids the purveyor of milk from resuming possession of the bottles in which the milk has been furnished to the customer unless such bottles have been cleaned before they are taken back. The vendor is not given a reasonable time within which to clean them; he is not given any time at all. If he has such receptacles in his possession which have not been washed after holding milk, he is liable to fine and imprisonment no matter how short may be the duration of his possession, and although he proceeds to cleanse the bottles with the utmost celerity, he may not receive them if they are unwashed. It seems to me too clear for argument that such an ordinance deprives the milk dealer of his property without any neglect or wrongdoing on his part. He cannot lawfully regain it unless the consumer, over whom he has no legal control, has previously cleansed the receptacle in which the milk was furnished.

"No doubt the ordinance could be reconstructed so as to be reasonable. This has been attempted in the prevailing opinion. It is the duty of the court, however, to pass upon the ordinance as it has been framed by those who enacted it. In my judgment, we are without power, however easy it might be, to make a good ordinance instead of a bad one."


Holding that the protection of the public health now requires that all milk used in New York City, except certified milk and similar special grades, should be either pasteurized or brought to the boiling point before it is consumed. the Board of Health at its last meeting adopted a resolution forbidding the sale of any raw milk for consumption on the premises, and amended the Sanitary Code and the rules and regulations for the sale of milk to remove from Grade B the class of raw milk which was formerly permitted to be sold under that designation. The effect of this amendment of the milk regulations, which takes effect February 1, 1914, is to limit the

sale of raw milk in New York City to milk which conforms to the requirements of Grade A. Only milk produced under exceptionally stringent requirements as to cleanliness can now be sold in the raw state.

The requirement relating to the sale of milk for consumption on the premises. which is to take effect immediately, is a matter which particularly concerns the patrons of restaurants, hotels and lunch counters as well as the proprietors of these places. Hereafter when a glass of milk is purchased at a restaurant, hotel, lunch counter, milk booth or any similar place the purchaser may know that the law requires that this milk should be pasteurized unless it is Grade A milk. This grade includes certified milk, guaranteed milk and inspected milk which has been pasteurized.

A study of the cases of typhoid fever which occurred east of Broadway and south of 40th st. during September indicated to the Department beyond any reasonable doubt that a certain supply of Grade B raw milk was the means of transmitting the infection in a large number of the cases, and raw milk has therefore been eliminated from Grade B. This action should be considered as the latest step in the execution of a carefully developed program under which the Department of Health for the last four years has endeavored gradually to bring about the pasteurization of the entire supply of general market milk of New York City. Commissioner Lederle has repeatedly expressed the opinion that under the present conditions of production and consumption of the milk supply of New York City, the only means of insuring safety from the transmission of infection while keeping down the price of milk was to adopt the requirement of pasteurization on a large scale. By the adoption of the grading system and by increasingly stringent regulations the Department in the last four years has been able to raise the proportion of pasteurized milk to the total supply of New York City from 7 per cent. to 75 per cent. At the present time, out of a total average daily supply of 2,000.000 quarts of liquid milk it is estimated by the Department that an average of 1,500,000 quarts is pasteurized. The adoption of the latest regulation requiring the paseurization of all except the highest special grades of milk (which constitute an almost negligible percentage of the total supply) will mean that practically all milk sold in the City after February 1, 1914, must be pasteurized.


There were 1.281 deaths and a rate of 12.44 per 1,000 of the population reported during the past week as against 1,302 deaths and a rate of 13.13 for the corresponding week of 1912, an absolute decrease of 21 deaths and a relative decrease of 71 deaths.

The figures showing the deaths from contagious and infectious diseases varied very little compared with those of last year. There were 47 deaths all told reported from measles, scarlet fever. diphtheria and croup, whooping cough and typhoid fever, as compared with 38 deaths during the corresponding week of 1912. The deathe from the acute respiratory diseases amounted to 152 against 174, a decrease of 22 deaths. There were 140 deaths reported from pulmonary tuberculosis as against 135. There were 295 deaths reported from organic heart and kidney diseases combined as against 294. There were 114 deaths reported from violence as against 94 deaths, an increase of 20 deaths.

Viewed from the point of age grouping, there were exactly the same number (231) of deaths of infants under one year of age in the two weeks under comparison. There were 324 children died under five years of age as against 332. There were 245 deaths reported of old people as against 253.

The death rate for the first forty-five weeks of 1913 was 13.84 per 1000 as against 14.15 for the corresponding period of 1912.

« PreviousContinue »