New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-07-15
THE BO1RD OF HEALTH CASES.

Board sues to recover penalty given by the
statute for violation of its special order that
| the defendant should not carry on slaughter
house at No 9J FOurth-st. in the city of New
York. The Board, before making the order,
| had given Hester an opportunity to disprove
the charge that slaughtering cattle at his
| place was dangerous to health, and upon his
declining to defend, had investigated the facts
| upon other testimony, and thereupOn had rem
| dered their decision that it was dangerous, and
| had ordered it stopped.
The second case differs from the first in that
the penalty sued for is for violating general
ordinance instead of special order made
by the Board forbidding the slaughtering
of cattle anywhere in the City of New
York south of Fortieth-st. The ordinance
was passed by the Board on proof that
sufficient facilities for slaughtering animals ex-
listed above Fortieth ST. and on the testimony
of physicians that the slaughtering business,
when carried on in the densely- settled portions
of the city, is dangerous to health, that 1t Hills
| the sewers in the heart of the city with vast
| bulk of decaying animal matter, which creates
disease and invites pestilence. Under this
ordinance the Board claim to recover sepa-
rate penalty for every day the ordinance is
violated
The third case is a suit by Hester against
the Board to restrain the Board from enforc-
ing an ordinance lpassed by them forbidding
the driving of cattle below Forteth-st. The
ordinance is based on the fact that such dry-
| ing is attended with peril to human life.
The fourth case, Hester against the Board,
is suit to restrain the Board from enforcing
| - hot chn
on the slaughtering business at his place in
| Fourti t.
The first point on which it was sought to set
aside the act creating the Metropolitan Board
of Health as unconstitutional had already been
| fully argued and overruled in the case of the
Metropolitan Board of Police, viz: that the
| Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. TO- provides that all
county, city, town, and village officers, whose
| offices existed at the adoption of the Constitu-
ton, shall be elected by the people of their
respective counties, cities, &c.
| The Court of Appeals holds in this, as in the
! Police case, that the Legislature has power to
create a district for special purposes comprising
several counties and cities, and that the ofil-
GERS of such district are not city or county otil-
! GERS. and need not therefore be elected by the
people, but NAV be appointed by the Governor.
| Under this power they created the four Coun-
ties of Newly ork, Kings, Westminster, and
| Richmond into the Metropolitan Health Dis
! trct, making the officers thereof to be APP
pointed by the Governor and Senate. In this
respect, therefore, the act does not conflict with
| the Constitution. The next point raised was
! that prior TO this act, on the question OF NUS
ance or no nuisance, the party complained OF had
Il and thnt Nla r.
| tution declared that "the trial by jury in all
cases IN which il has heretofore existed snail
remain inviolable forever The Court of
| Appeals declare, however. that Court OF
| Equity in which no jury exists, would always
have given final Judgment, and that the queS-
| ton did not require jury except when rellei
was sought at common law. Moreover, beside
| the question of nuisance, the maintenance OF
! slaughter houses in crowded cities involves the
higher question of danger to the public health.
! The Court decide that an ordinance or order
| forbddng the Strengthening or driving cattle
below Fortieth-st does not deprive any
owner of the cattle OF OF slaughter
house of his property. 1t only regulates the
mode in which he shall use IT. in manner
which applies to all the other property IN the
city. Every city and village charter III the
| State contains the same power TO regulate
slaughter-houses and other kinds of business
which may be dangerous TO public health. In
questions relating to the public health, Jurles
have never been the mode of trial resOrted to
by our laws. The Court decide that the de-
PENDANT. by refusing 10 contest before the
Board of Health the question whether his
business was dangerous to the public health,
lost the right TO dispute the correctness OF their
decision. Finally, the Court overrules the obJec-
ton that the act vests in the Board judicial
powers and that all judicial officers are re-
quired to be elected. They are no more judi
cial than the COmmissonersi0f Highways or OF
Excise, who may inquire into the propuety OF
any action which may be sought ut their hands,
and take testimony for and against the same,
whether it be granting OF revOking license,
or laying ont a highway, without thereby be-
coming in any manner judicial officers whose
functions are to administer the laws, not TO
carry out the functions of government. The
decision, therefore, sustains the constitutional
ity of the act creating the Board atlirms ITS
power to issue both general ordinances and
special orders for promoting the health OF the
city, for removing all sources of danger,
and for disseminating within any prescribed
limits such kinds of business as they may find
to be injurious to the public health therein
These are, doubtless, powers of an exalted
and highly responsible nature, which in any
statement that may be given of their scope
seem to be almost despotic and unlimited.
The ability of any officers of the Board OF
Health to remain in Office depends, however,
upon their exercising these powers with sound
discretion, and from a due and wise regard
| fnr ihn nnhlic Mclfnre- nnh Tint ONLY.