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.

    59/992 (page 47)
    In Connecticut if there is no newspaper in the town the rules nrav be posted on sign posts and entered in the town records. The board or officer legislating must, of course, have the authority to impose penalties, otherwise the rules and regulations would be useless. Sometimes, as in Rhode Island, the penalty is fixed by the statute author. izing the legislation. In many cases it is fixed by other general statutes regulating the legislative functions of local government. When local boards fix the penalties the maximum and sometimes the minimum is fixed by the statute. The smallest maximum that the writer has noticed is $10 in New Hampshire. Usually the maximum penalty allowed for violations of local sanitary regulations i- $100, hut sometimes it i- •^■.,' and more rarely $25; in Albany, until 1900 it was $1,000. Jn some cities the lines go into the general treasury, hut in others they go to the health department. The alternative of imprisonment for periods up to one year is often allowed. Ill Judicial Functions. The power and duty of sanitary officials to investigate and abate nuisances is an important part of their functions and implies the exer- cise of quasi judicial powers. If a nuisance is to lie abated through the action of a board of health, it must first of all he determined to 1.,' ;i nuisance, and this question of fact must he decided by the hoard. Sometimes the question is very easily settled, hut often it is not, and occasionally a set 1 lenient can only he arrived at after a Long and patient investigation. In most of the statutes establishing hoards of health this power is only granted by implication in the general granl of powers or in the special provisions for the abatement of nuisances. Sometimes, however, il is specifically recognized and its exercise provided for. The laws 0!' Connecticutl and New Vork2 furnish examples of this. The New Fork law provides in regard to the hoard of health that '• It may issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses, administer oaths to witnesses ami compel them to testify, and for such purposes it shall have the same powers as a justice of the peace of the state in a civil action of which he has jurisdiction. It may designate bj resolution one of iis members to sign anil issue such subpoenas. No subpoenas shall be served outside the jurisdii tion -■( tin Issuing it. and no witness shall be interrogated or compelled t testify ii] ii in-1 related to the public health. The powers conferred upon aboard of health h\ statute 01 ordi- nance cannot usually be delegated h\ it. Thc\ cannot unless the 1 Connecticut, Chapter 248 of 1898, S< -, 3. ' \.u fork, General Laws (1896), p. 2422, Sec. 1.