CONNECTICUT. Butter, Chapters 114 of 1893 and 32 of 1895. Milk and butter, General Statutes (1888), Secs. 14-63. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Butter, Act of 25 January, 1879. FLORIDA. Butter, Chapter 328 of 1881. GEORGIA. Butter and cheese, Act of 16 December, 1896. Milk, Act of 16 December, 1895. IDAHO. Butter, Act of 6 March, 1899. ILLINOIS. Butter and cheese, Annotated Statutes (1896), Chapter 38, Secs. 19-35; Act of 14 June, 1897. Milk, Annotated Statutes (1896), Chapter 38, Secs. 37-42; Rules of State Board of Health, 30 September, 1895; Act of 7 June, 1897. INDIANA. Milk, Statutes (1897), Secs. 2191–2. Butter, Statutes (1897), Secs. 2171a. IOWA. Dairy products, Code (1897), Secs. 2515-28. Milk, Code (1897), Secs. 4989-91. KANSAS. Milk, General Statutes (1897), Secs. 322-3. Milk, Statutes (1894), Sec. 1274. LOUISIANA. Butter, Act of 8 July, 1886. MAINE. Butter and cheese, Revised Statutes (1883), Chapter 128, Secs. 3-6. Milk, Revised Statutes (1883), Chapter 38, Secs. 44-7. Chapters 20 of 1887, 255 of 1893 and 292 of 1897. Testing Milk, Chapter 169 of 1895. MARYLAND. Butter and cheese, Public General Laws (1888), Art. 27, Secs. 88-91; Chapter 604 of 1890. Milk, Chapter 306 of 1898. MASSACHUSETTS. Butter and cheese, Public Statutes (1882), Chapter 56, Sec. 17 et seq. Chapters 310 of 1884, 317 of 1886, 356 of 1885, 58 of 1891 and 340 of 1890. Dairy bureau, Chapters 412 of 1891 and 280 of 1894. Milk, Public Statutes (1882), Chapter 57; Chapters 310 of 1884, 352 of 1885, 318 of 1886, 425 of 1894, 264 of 1896; condensed milk, 169 and 223 of 1899. MICHIGAN. Butter and cheese, Compiled Laws (1897), Secs. 5013-17; Chapters 147 and 254 of 1899. Milk, Compiled Laws (1897), Secs. 11,412-25; Chapter 106 of 1899. MINNESOTA. Dairy products, Chapters 94, 257, 295 of 1899. Milk, Statutes (1894), Secs. 6992-7005. Milk, powers of cities, Chapter 203 of 1895. MISSISSIPPI. Butter, Code (1892), Sec. 1242. MISSOURI. Butter and cheese, Revised Statutes (1899), Secs. 2270-6. Milk, powers of cities, Revised Statutes (1899), Sec. 6165. MONTANA. Butter and cheese, Penal Code (1895), Secs. 684-6, Political Code, Sec. 4064. Milch cows, Penal Code (1895), Sec. 1095. NEBRASKA. Butter and cheese, Compiled Statutes (1899), Secs. 3211-3211g. Milk, Compiled Statutes (1899), Secs. 6898, 6940. Food Commission (1899), Secs. 3207 and 3211g. NEVADA. Butter, Compiled Laws (1900), Secs. 4906-8. Milk, Compiled Laws (1900), Secs. 4897-4901. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Dairy products, Public Statutes (1891), Chapter 127; Chapters 37 of 1893, 115 of 1895 and 58 of 1899. NEW JERSEY. Butter and cheese, General Statutes (1895), p. 1167, Secs. 4-22, p. 1167. Milk, General Statutes (1895), p. 1169, Secs. 3, 33-43, 51-54, 65-66; Chapters 152 of 1897 and 182 of 1898. Dairy Commissioner, General Statutes (1895), p. 1169, Sec. 31-2, p. 1177, Sec. 91. NEW YORK. Butter and cheese, Revised Statutes (1895), p. 38 (Agricultural Law, Secs. 20 et seq.); Chapter 149 of 1899. Milk, Revised Statutes (1895), p. 38, (Agricultural Law, Sec. 20 et seq.); Chapter 153 of 1898. Commissioner of Agriculture, Revised Statutes (1895), p. 38, (Agricultural Law, Secs. 1-12. NORTH CAROLINA. Butter, Chapter 106 of 1895. NORTH DAKOTA. Dairy products, Chapter 49 of 1895, and 72 of 1899. Dairy products, Act of 25 February, 1893. PENNSYLVANIA. Butter and cheese, Brightly's Purdon's Digest (1894), p. 1621, Chapter 234 of 1895. Milk, Brightly's Purdon's Digest (1894), p. 1332, Chapter 118 of 1897. Cheese, Chapter 164 of 1897. Renovated Butter, Chapter 121 of 1899. Dairy Commission, Brightly's Purdon's Digest (1894), p. 1621. RHODE ISLAND. Butter, General Laws (1896), Chapter 146. Milk, General Laws (1896), Chapter 147, and Act of 13 May, 1896. SOUTH CAROLINA. Dairy products, Act of 9 March, 1896. SOUTH DAKOTA. Butter, Chapter 65 of 1897. TENNESSEE. Butter, Chapter 101 of 1895. СТАН. Butter and cheese, Revised Statutes (1898), Secs. 734-46. VIRGINIA. Butter and cheese, Code (1887), Secs. 1900-1, Chapters 526 of 1891-2, and 146 of 1897-8. Milk, Code (1887), Sec. 1899, Chapter 526 of 1891-2, Sec. 3. WASHINGTON. Butter and cheese, Code (1899), Secs. 2844–7, Chapter 43 of 1899. Milk, Code (1899), Secs. 2842-3, 2851-4. Dairy Commission, Code (1899), Sec. 2848 et seq. WEST VIRGINIA. Butter and cheese, Code (1899), Chapter 150, Sec. 20a. Food Commission, Statutes (1899), Secs. 1410–10d. CHAPTER IX. COMMUNICABLE DISEASES. IN LEGISLATION. one sense the prevention of the importation of communicable diseases, or quarantine service, is the most important work of the health officer. That prevention is better than cure is as true of the outbreak of disease in a community as it is of its attack on the individual; but after all, it is only in comparatively few instances that quarantine can be successfully invoked. It is only at seaports that maritime quarantine can be enforced, and inland quarantine is of use in only the rarer diseases, so that very few health officers really have any quarantine duties to perform and most of them only give a part, and often a small part of their time to them; but there are few boards of health which do not have some of the commoner forms of communicable diseases constantly present, so that the problem of how to deal with communicable diseases actually existent occupies a large part of the attention of sanitary authorities and is the important problem with which they have to deal. The attempt to check the spread of communicable diseases by proper management is no new thing and was made in early colonial times. During the smallpox outbreak in Massachusetts Bay in 1678, the town officers of Boston1 and Salem 2 adopted measures of isolation and disinfection not unlike what would be employed at the present time. From that time to the present our town and state governments have continued to practice and to improve methods of control, not only of smallpox, but of an increasing number of other communicable diseases. The local management of communicable diseases is usually left in the hands of the local authorities, county or municipal, but sometimes. it is assumed by the state government and more rarely by the federal government. In Florida, where the local boards of health have been abolished, the control of communicable diseases must be in the hands 1 Boston, Record Commissioners' Reports, Vol. 7, p. 119. 2 Act of Salem Selectmen, 18 October, 1678. of the state officers. In other states the state authorities are to take charge of outbreaks under certain circumstances. Thus in Mississippi: 1 "When yellow fever or other epidemic or contagious disease shall make its appearance, the state board of health shall take charge of the infected district or locality and enforce such rules and take such measures as it may deem necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or to suppress it." And in Massachusetts: 2 "If smallpox or any other contagious or infectious disease dangerous to the public health exists, or is likely to exist in any place within the state, the state board shall investigate the same, and the means of preventing the spread thereof, and shall consult thereon with the local authorities, and shall have co-ordinate powers as a board of health, in every place, with the board of health or health officer thereof, or with the mayor and aldermen or the selectmen, if no such board or officer exists in such place." 3 In a few other states, as Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio, it is provided that in emergencies the state board of health shall assume control of outbreaks of communicable diseases, and as was shown on page 5, the state board of health in several states is authorized to exercise executive functions in those communities where the local authorities fail. Furthermore in many states the state board of health is established as an advisory board, and in almost all states local health officers are accustomed to call on the state board of health for advice and assistance in outbreaks of communicable diseases and not infrequently the state board is invited to take entire charge. Even in such a state as Massachusetts, which probably contains more efficient local boards than any other state, the advice of the state board is frequently called for even in such cities as Lowell, Newburyport, and Springfield. The board, owing to the increase in this work, has recently detailed a medical man as special inspector. It is his duty to visit all towns which apply for advice in regard to communicable diseases and 1 Mississippi, Annotated Code (1892), Sec. 2279. 2 Masssachusetts, Public Statutes (1882), Chapter 80, Sec. 2. 3 Ohio, Annotated Statutes (1900), Sec. 2143: "The state board of health, or the board of health of any city, village or township, in time of epidemic, or threatened epidemic, may establish a quarantine on vessels, railroads, stages, or any other public or private vehicles conveying persons, baggage or freight, or used for such purpose, and may make such rules and regulations as may be deemed wise and necessary for the protection of the health of the people of the community or state. Such quarantine and rules and regulations, when established by a local board of health, after careful investigation by the proper officer of the state board of health, may be altered, relaxed, or abolished by the order of said state board of health, and thereafter no change shall be made except by order of the state board of health, or to meet some new and sudden emergency. (O. L., vol. 90, March 14, 1893.)" in some cases when the board learns that the local officers do not seem able to cope with the outbreaks the state board takes the initiative. It is, however, more in accord with American principles of government that the control of communicable disease should be entirely in the hands of local officers, and in the vast majority of cases it is so. The local sanitary authority is established chiefly for this purpose, and in very many states the law expressly confers the necessary executive and legislative authority, and requires strict performance of duty on the part of the local officers. Local sanitary officers are authorized to maintain isolation, to remove to a hospital, to disinfect, and often to carry out the rules and directions of the state board of health. An example of a rather full narration of such powers and duties is found in Maine.1 Sometimes the authority is granted in less specific terms, as in New Jersey.2 The powers above given are very broad, but they are broader still for certain cities. The extraordinary powers given to the board of health in the City of New York will be noted in connection with the consideration of epidemics, and in addition that board is authorized in such emergencies to spend $80,000 in excess of its appropriation.3 Similar provisions are found in Buffalo and Pennsylvania cities of the second class, and certain cities which have been given very broad san 1 Maine, Chapter 123 of 1887, as amended by Chapter 139 of 1895: "SEC. 7. III. To guard against the introduction of contagious and infectious diseases, by the exercise of proper and vigilant medical inspection and control of all persons and things coming within the limits of its jurisdiction from infected places, or which for any cause, are liable to communicate contagion; to give public notice of infected places, by displaying red flags or by posting placards on the entrances of the premises; to require the isolation of all persons and things that are infected with, or have been exposed to, contagious or infectious diseases, and to provide suitable places for the reception of the same; and to furnish medical treatment and care for persons sick with such diseases who cannot otherwise be provided for; to prohibit and prevent all intercourse and communication with, or use of, infected premises, places and things, and to require, and, if necessary, to provide the means for the thorough cleansing and disinfection of the same before general intercourse therewith, or use thereof, shall be allowed. And it shall be its duty to report to the state board of health promptly, facts which relate to infectious and epidemic diseases, and every case of smallpox, varioloid, diphtheria, and scarlet fever, occurring within the limits of its jurisdiction." 2 New Jersey, General Statutes (1895), p. 1644, Sec. 49, III: "To prevent the spreading of dangerous epidemics or contagious diseases, and to declare that the same has become epidemic, and to maintain and enfore proper and sufficient quarantine whenever deemed necessary." 3 New York, Chapter 378 of 1897, Sec. 1177. + New York, Chapter 105 of 1891, Sec. 236. 5 Pennsylvania, Act of 26 June, 1895, Sec. 28. |