Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-03-07
rhe HenIth Orhinnnne.


Is Justice" in his zeal to prevent the pass
age of the Health Ordinance now before the
City Council, has, as it seems to me, fallen
into great recklessness of statement as to
the action of the Board of Health in regard
to that ordinance, which, on examination,
will be found to be little more than a con-
venient compilation of existing ordinances
and regulations bearing more or less re-
motely upon matters affecting the sanitary
condition of the city.
1t is true that the ordinance in question
embraces sundry notifications of and addi-
lions ID the former ordinances upon the
same matters, but these notifications and
additions were such only as were suggested
by the special committee of the C%ouncil,
appointed to consider the subject; and were
introduced for the purpose of making the
ordinance, as a whole, more certain and
efficient in its application.
The statement of "Justice," "that an
ordinance was pending in the Council con-
ierring upon the Board more extensive
powers than those now possessed by them
under the existing ordinance, strikingly
illustrates his facility for "modeliag" facts
when his purpose requires. There is lot a
single provision in the Health Ordinance
now pending, by which the powers of the
Board of Health are enlarged, other than
that contained in the second section, pro-
viding for the appointment of the Health
officer.
The facility of " Justice " in modelling
facts is further shown by his saying that
the Board of Health " recommended the ac-
ceptance of a proposal tic remove the swill
$500" As to this matter, it is only neces-
sary to say, that no such proposal has ever
been endorsed or recommended by that
Board; nor has any proposition of the sort
ever been before them.
BY the Health Ordinance it was intended
to secure the highest sanitary condition OF
the city with the least possible incenven-
ience TO the citizen, and to do this by a law
at once consistent and harmonious in all its
parts and provisions. Those who have
hoped for its speedy passage, do not think
it best TO wait until we have Gigantic
nuisances' in our city before it shall be-
come by ordinance the province of the
Board of Health to interfere; because they
do not think such delay would be consistent
with the adoption of every precaution
which common sense and experience die
tate as most conducive to health"
TIE LIBBET ABORTION CAsE-CoLLATER-
ALs.-A full report Of the disposal of the
case of the State Us. Hosea W. Libbey, con
victed of msnslaughter, in causing the
death of Mrs. Sepha J. Houghton, may be
found on the third page of this paper. We
take this occasion to make an unsolicited
explanation. Judge Bolton, in reviewing,
yesterday, the testimony taken in the case,
in the way of showing his reasons for not
granting the defendant a new trial, recon-
ciled statements and parts 0 f~evidence made
by DR.. NJ. Y. Turrill, which were not
credited at the time, and the making OF
which produced a very unfavorable i'm
preston. The review by the Court was so
searching and clear, that we cannot resist
the conviction that DR.. 7. aimed to tell the
truth while on the witness stand, and that
his story, rightly interpreted, is credible.
There would seem to be no doubt that he
went to DR.. Libbey's Office on that Satur-
day in question, but as he went about two
o'clock in the afternoon, and staid but
ten or fifteen minutes. he did not see Mrs.
Houghton at all, but some other woman.
For it is in evidence that Mrs. Mason and
Mrs Houghton did not reach DR.. LIS Of
fee until three o'clock. The condition Of
the party whom he saw and in reference to
the proper treatment Of whose case he
was called to advise, did not answer, as he
testified, to that, described by other wit
nesses, as characterizing Mrs. Houghton.
Another point is this DR.. Thrill has a
very poor memory of names. He had for
gotten, on the witness stand, the name Of
the woman he saw at DR.. LIS office, but
thought he would know it lift were an
nouneed; and when it was asked, "was
it Mrs Houghton2" he thought it was.
The manner in which this opinion
was delivered made on all present at the
time, the impression that he was swearing
Libbey clean through, and contributed much
to the formation of the conviction that the
witness was perjuring himself. But there
vas nothing remarkable in this and the
construction put upon it by the Court was
the natural and obvious one, which tended
rather to show the sincerity of tie witness
than any corruption of purpose or state
ment.
It seems clear that DR.. T. went to LibbeY':
Office that day; saw a woman, but not Mrs
Houghton gave advice in the treatment
of her case; e away before Mrs. H. and
Mrs. Mason arrived that DR.. L. himself
did not know they were coming that day
and that DR.. T., in fine, told the truth in the
matter, and is in no way implicated OF
thrown under suspicion by the verdict found
against DR.. L;bbey.