OF THE National Conference of State Boards of Health AT THE THIRD ANNUAL MEETING, HELD AT TORONTO, CANADA, OCTOBER 4, 1886. INDIANAPOLIS: WM. B. BURFORD, PRINTER AND BINDER. The third annual meeting of the Conference of State Boards of Health was held in the parlors of the Queen's Hotel, Toronto, Ont., October 4, 1886. The meeting was called to order by Dr. G. P. Conn, Secretary. The President, Dr. J. N. McCormack, not being present, Dr. H. B. Baker, of Michigan, was chosen President pro tem. The minutes of the last meeting were read and accepted. Dr. William Oldright, chairman of the local sub-committee, was introduced and in a very happy manner welcomed the members to the city. He hoped if anything that would be conducive to their enjoyment while in the city had been left undone that they might be reminded of it. Dr. H. P. Walcott, President State Board of Health of Massachusetts, suggested the roll-call of States, which was as follows: Alabama. Arkansas. California, Dr. H. S. Orme. Colorado. Connecticut, Dr. C. A. Lindsley, Dr. R. S. Goodwin. Delaware. Florida. Georgia. Illinois, Dr. John H. Rauch. Indiana, Dr. Charles N. Metcalf, Dr. James F. Hibberd. Iowa, Dr. J. F. Kennedy. Kentucky, Dr. J. N. McCormack. Louisiana, Dr. Joseph Holt, Dr. L. F. Salomon. Maryland, Dr. John Morris. Massachusetts, Dr. H. P Walcott, Dr. S. W. Abbott, Dr. E. U.. Jones. Michigan, Dr. J. H. Kellogg, Dr. H. B. Baker. Minnesota, Dr. Charles N. Hewitt Mississippi. Missouri. New Hampshire, Dr. G. P. Conn, Dr. Irving A. Watson. New Jersey, Dr. Ezra M. Hunt. New York, Dr. Alfred Mercer. North Carolina. Ohio, Dr. D. H. Beckwith, Dr. C. O. Probst, Dr. W. H. Cretcher. Pennsylvania, Dr. E. W. Germer, Dr. Benj. Lee, Dr. David Engleman. Rhode Island, Dr. Charles H. Fisher. South Carolina, Dr. J. R. Bratton. Tennessee, Dr. J. Berrien Lindsley, Dr. G. B. Thornton, Col. D. P. Hadden, Dr. J. D. Plunkett. Texas. Virginia. Vermont. West Virginia. Wisconsin, Dr. J. T. Reeve. District of Columbia. Dominion of Canada, Dr. F. Montizambert, Dr. Wm. S. Harding. Province of Ontario, Dr. C. W. Covernton, Dr. William Oldright, Dr. P. H. Bryce, Dr. J. J. Cassidy. Province of Quebec, F. N. Boxer, C. E. Manitoba, Dr. Wm. R. D. Sutherland. It was moved and adopted that papers be limited to twenty minutes and discussions to ten minutes. Mr. E. C. Jordan, C. E., member State Board of Health of Maine, read the following paper by Dr. A. G. Young. He stated that the proper title of the paper was "A Comparative View of Sanitary Laws: " A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF SANITARY LAWS, AND WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED IN THOSE OF MAINE. An examination of the public health laws of the various English speaking peoples shows unmistakably in many directions the moulding influence of the few earlier models of this kind of legislation. It shows also, among the laws, many points of difference and various degrees of excellence. A law has been defined by some of our jurists as the expression of a want. These wants, which have found utterance in the language of our statute books, it is quite conceivable, have not been found to be the same over the whole length and breadth of the many degrees of longitude and latitude. As the want has differed, so shall we find the expression of the want to be dissimilar. But more frequently, undoubtedly, the dissimilarity in our sanitary enactments has been due to other causes; to the slighter or more careful study which the makers of legislative bills have given to the needs of the State; to the differences in composition of Legislatures as far as intelligence regarding sanitary matters is concerned; to the more or less advanced state of preparedness of the general public for improved sanitary laws, and often, undoubtedly, to the correct or incorrect appreciation of the state of the public mind by makers of bills or legislative enactors of them. In a few of our States there has lately been an attempt to codify and improve the scattered enactments and to make the laws more in conformity with the clearly-felt needs of modern sanitation, and some of these it is a pleasure to read. But in most of our States the existing legislation is well characterized by the expression, "tumbled up;" it has been done piecemeal, and in almost all directions there is a reverential clinging to antiquated forms, which in this age, for effectiveness and utility, are as much out of place as is the wooden plow of our Aztec neighbor. In my own State, which was originally a part of Massachusetts, the public health laws were copied almost without change from those of the mother State. For instance, almost everything which we have relative to the important matter of the management of the contagious diseases we got from an act approved March 10, 1821, entitled, "An Act to Prevent the Spreading of the Small-pox and other Contagious Diseases." This was copied without change from the Massachusetts law of that time, and this Massachusetts law was passed by the General Court of the Commonwealth June 22, 1797. Furthermore, a large part of this Massachusetts law was a transcript of the old Colonial law. In an act passed one hundred and eighty-five years ago, in the reign of William IV, we read: "SEC. 3. That, if need so require, any two justices of the peace may make out a warrant, directed to the sheriff of the county or his deputy, or constables of the town or place where any such sick person or persons shall be, requiring them or any of them, in His Majesty's name, with the advice and direction of the selectmen of the same, to impress and take up convenient housing, lodging, nurses, tendance and other necessaries for the accommodation, safety and relief of the sick." |