Municipal sanitation in the United States / by Charles V. Chapin.

  • Charles V. Chapin
Date:
1901
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Municipal sanitation in the United States / by Charles V. Chapin. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    37/992 (page 25)
    more the commissioner of health is appointed by the mayor but acts under the department of public safety. In Cleveland and Toledo tin- department of police has charge of all matters relating to the public health. The department of police is in charge of a director appointed by the mayor in whom are vested all the duties and powers of the former board of health. In certain cases, particularly among the larger cities another form of sanitary organization has been developed. In these cities the health department is a single-headed department. The tendency of city government at the present time is towards single-headed depart- ments, hut this plan has been extended to the health department perhaps less than to any other. It is probably because in this department are usually lodged great legislative as well as executive powers and it is not in accord with American notions to give much legislative power to one man: and. indeed, it usually happens that when a health commissioner is appointed, his power in this direction is limited or denied entirely, being reserved to the proper legislative branch of the city government. Among the eities with a single-headed department are Baltimore, Chi- cago, Colorado Springs, Denver, the District of Columbia, Milwaukee. Minneapolis, New York and Pennsylvania cities of the sec 1 class, and also a number of the smaller Wisconsin and Connecticut cities. In Brooklyn formerly the health commissioner was appointed ly the mayor for a term of two years, lie was not only the executive head of the health department, appointing all subordinates ami enforcing the laws and ordinances, bul he had also •• power to act in a legislative capacity in regard to all matters pertaining to the public health. He possessed this legislative power however, only eo-ordinatel} with the council by whom all ordinances prepared l>\ him were to he approved before they become a law; and the law read •• No ordinance so prepared and approved shall he repealed 01' amended without the approval oi the health commissioner. In Milwaukee, the health commissi \x is to ■• provide rules and regulations to be approved l>\ the common council, hut it does not appear thai he has the quasi veto power which the Brooklyn commissioner possessed. In Chicago, Baltimore, District oi Columbia and Denver the commissioner is simpl) the executive office] in charge of sanitary affairs. He has little or no legislative powers these being vested in other branches of the city goveri ml or in the case of the District of Columbia in Congress, hi Denver and Colorado Springs the possible disadvantages oi •• one man power arc met, oi attempted to be, b} the unique arrangemenl of an advisor) hoard oi health. This board is extra-legal and is appointed l>) the health mission,m. In Denver il is frequentl} ■■ailed togethei b) ! advice is considered of erreal value. Ii was the intention in thai