HOTEL DRINKING GLASSES.

Evening Star, Issue 16050, 29 February 1916, Page 1

HOTEL DRINKING GLASSES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your issue of to-day, under the above heading, a- correspondent signing himself *‘ Health” among other tilings says: ‘‘Already the Drainage Board seem active, as a small trader of soft drinks was fined for a breach in this connect.ion.” This evideartly refers to the case wherein I was charged with, not having lined a sink with lead or metal. Obviously ‘‘Health” does not know the facts concerning this prosecution, so with your permission I would like to relate theni, as set out at the hearing. When taking the premises we at present occupy, which is the ordinary lock-up shop, there was neither water’ nor drainage thereto. Recognising, that these two essentials were necessary lor the proper carrying on of this _ class of business, we arranged for the installation, of both, and, 'at. the same time wc imported a patent circulating hotwater apparatus, so as to ensure the perfect cleansing of glassware and for general cleaning purposes. On account of the frarl nature of the glassware used in our business, I stipulated for ■wooden sinks (not knowing they were contrary to our by-laws), so as to minimise the 'breakage of goods dunug washing operations. The complete system was installed before opening at a cost of over £IOO, and so proud were wo of our efforts that we publicly invit-ed. patrons and others to inspect our premises: including’ kitchen and seryexy ? at any time. Judge our surprise when, a fey,’ days later, the inspector called and said the sink should be lined with lead, zinc, or copper, and gave notice for it to be done. 1 applied to the Drainage Board for an exemption, on the above ground, bub it was refused. Being holiday time, we could not spare the use of the sink, nor could we arrange with our plumber to do the work at once. However, two days after the sink was lined’ in conformity with the notice, and the Drainage Board notified, of the fact, a summons was taken out fox a breach of the by-law. At the hearing a plea of guilty was recorded, and tho circumstances, as above explained. Fine, £lsolicitors fee, £1 Is— costs (I think), 7s. This is the way our sanitary by-laws are administered. It seems to me that as soon as citizens show enterprise and do something which ought to bo done, somebody in authority comes along to harass them, and no give-and-take methods are adopted. There is plenty of good work to be performed by the Drainage Board and Health authorities in Dunedin. I claim that ."or our particular line of business our premises are the best-equipped in the City from a. sanitary or hygienic point of view; if not, I will donate £5 to the patriotic fund. Fair play is bonny play. — l am, etc., G. Share. February 28. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,' —Your correspondent “Health” appears to think that my strictures regarding the primitive methods adopted by some hotels in cleansing their drinking glasses are exaggerated, and somewhat contrary to fact. Let mo assure your correspondent right here that I am' no illusionist or cold-water faddist, but just that ordinary, common, or.garden type of individual who enjoys an occasional glass of beer. Further, that everything I have stated in my previous letter is absolutely true, and based upon what has come under my own personal observation, with this addition, sir; that there have boon occasions when I have had to requisition the bar tender “to please clean im- glass properly. ” Let your correspondent “ Health ** make it his business to pay a visit of inspection to some of our City hotels during a rush time. Methinks then ho will chance his views, and. like myself, advocate drastic changes. The present system, to my way of thinking, permits a- travesty of even the. elementary laws of hygiene. lam pleased to notice that other correspondents are alive to the subject, and that being so I feel sure that the matter will not bo allowed to rest where it is.—l am, eto., Disgusted. February 29.