147 



contract in mosquito control. Let us next consider the types 

 of contract most commonly used. These can be divided into 

 A. contracts by quantity, and B. contracts by area. Under the 

 first class are those contracts which called for the cutting of 

 so many thousand feet of ditching according to certain specific 

 terms; under the second come those contracts which provided for 

 the elimination of all breeding within a certain unit area; the 

 so-called ''mosquito-proof" contracts. When the Commissions 

 or Associations were in the first stage of their development, a 

 contract to keep a certain area entirely free from breeding was 

 very appealing and we find such contracts in quite common use, 

 but as the mosquito fighting units grew in strength they generally 

 abandoned contracting of this type for that of the unit quantity, 

 and when we make an analysis of the situation we see why this 

 is so. In the first place, when a contractor enters into an agree- 

 ment of this kind he is guaranteeing to meet not only normal 

 but also abnormal conditions, and he is depending on his experi- 

 ence and training to aid him. He is capitalizing his ability as an 

 ^ expert and the Commission or Association employing him are 

 paying him not only for the actual work done, but also for his 

 expert advice. On this basis cost per foot of ditching is neces- 

 sarily higher, and we find contracts averaging 3.2 cents a foot as 

 against 1.5 to 2.3 cents where work was done under similar con- 

 ditions but on the specific quantity scheme. Also as the Associa- 

 tions or Commissions grew they developed men who' were com- 

 petent to advise them as to the exact needs in the territory under 

 their jurisdiction, and to pay an outsider for such advice would 

 be inconsistent. So the argument of increased cost was advanced 

 against the area system of contract. One other feature which 

 militated severely against entering into an agreement of this 

 kind is the difficulty of enforcing it. There is not enough 

 mutuality of interest between the Association and the contractor 

 to make the contract operate with automatic smoothness. The 

 viewpoint of the contracting parties is sufficiently different to 

 cause trouble in the interpretation of the terms of the contract 

 and this is especially so in regard to maintenance. All those who 

 are familiar with the workings of mosquito control know that 



