There is no doubt that the “dust and slopping” contractor is fast going out of fashion,[173] as it has been found that the work is far more carefully and systematically carried out without the intervention of a contractor; for if we turn to the articles of agreement or contract usually drawn up between a sanitary authority and a contractor for scavenging, we find that they must be very binding in their phraseology, and enter fully into the details of the work; they should state very clearly the number of times in every week that the contractor shall cause all the ashpits in the districts enumerated to be emptied and cleansed, the manner in which this work shall be performed, and how the materials thus removed shall be disposed of and the place of their ultimate destination. The conditions should further specify what amount of manual, team labour, and carts, are necessary for the work, and also what plant the contractor must keep in the way of ladders, baskets, shovels, and brooms, &c. The conditions should also contain a carefully prepared list of the streets to be swept, and the manner and number of times this work must be executed, and arrange for the disposal of the materials thus removed. In many such contracts it is found necessary to insert clauses binding the contractor, under all sorts of penalties, to be always at the disposal of and under the commands of the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer or officers as the sanitary authority may appoint. The contractor’s men also are forbidden to accept gratuities, and are directed on no account to remove either trade or garden refuse, and they are also enjoined to be “careful to consult the convenience of the householders in their visits, and to thoroughly clean up all dirt and litter that they may cause in the discharge of their duties. If they fail in any or either of these injunctions and commands, or for any other dereliction of duty, the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer as the sanitary authority shall appoint, may summarily dismiss them, without any reference being made on the subject to their employer the contractor, and in fact the conditions have necessarily to be made so stringent and binding as to be either totally inoperative or open to grave abuses, or, on the other hand, the work can be carelessly and improperly executed by the contractor. The consequence of such binding clauses is that the officers, if they do their strict duty, will probably be engaged in constant disputes and litigation with the contractor as to the due and proper observance of the terms of his contract, and thus their time is much occupied instead of in other more important matters, which is naturally detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers.