Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1886-04-17

hiOtbht ~ NY dut1 w oCCh al Atiool-
view with the Judge. The State Board
Of Health hadl again, and again called
upon me to explain why no county
board had reported from Montgomery
county; I knew that legally elected Jail
physician was an indispensable prelimi-
nary to the existence OF county board,
made enquiry as TO who was Jail ply
stefan and could find no one who knew,
and called on the Judge for a solution
ofthe difficulty He promptly and plain
ly andswered me that there aoas no jail
physician; that the Jail commissioners
had decided that it was better not to
employ one but to call in one as occa-
sion might require.
This, of course stopped my mouth; If
there was no Jail physician there could
be no county board OF health as pro
vided by the law OF 1885. But 1 looked
more carefully into the law and found
it obligatory on the county court to
elect Jail physician. l first wrote
paper in the Tobacco Leaf hoping to
commend the matter to the magistrates
who would constitute the county court
shortly to convene, and then asked a sec
ond interview with the Judge, at which
| enquired in plain terms whether he
intended to hold an election according
to the law To my surprise he answer
ed that the law of 1885 was null and
void in Montgomery because it was in
conflict with the unrepeaIed lar passed
in 1888 the law quoted above.
This again staggered me, but exam
iped both the laws and found that the
act OF 1883 was SO far from being an
unrepealed law that the act OF 1885 con-
tanned clause (S7.)
"Be it further enacted, All laws or
parts of law in conflict with this act are
hereby repealed"
Thought that Judge Tyler was by
this time tired of interviews and, if he
was not | was, so | asked the county
court clerk whether the judge intended
to hold the required election and was
answered that he did not. So as a last
resort | wrote him a note calling
his attention to this repeating
clause and asking him finally what was
his purpose. | received note from
him which | give in full.
DIR. D. f. WRIGHT, DEAR SIR-By
the constitution of the State, article 2,
Sec. II, "All acts which repeal former
laws shall recite in their caption or
otherwise the title or substance of the
law repealed" AS the act of 1885 fails
to recite the title or substance of the
act of 1883 or allude to it in any way, l
think it does not repeal it. My own
opinion is that the act OF 1883 is still in
force, though, of course the county may
hold differently. The act OF 1885 makes
the person acting as Jail physician the
health officer OF the county, and | can
see no reason for the election of another
Jail physician when one is already act
ing elected by the Jail commissioners.
Yours Truly,
CHARLES TYLHR.
This is where the matter stood up tC
the time, when on Monday the 9th inst
the quarterly meeting of the County
court was held, and on the day follow
+ ing the quarterly meeting of the STATE
Board of Health There was no jai
physician, for that have Judge Tyler
: own words at the last interview | helC
r with him; there was no Jail physician
and could be no legally established
Board OF Health. Judge Tyler has al
ready stated in your columns the actor
, Of the County court in refusing t.
e change its course. My own action il
the Board of Health was simply to re
! port what had taken place and that O
> the Board to refer the matter to its Elk
a ecutive Committee. must here cor
/ rect one expression attributed to ne b,
the reporter of the Nashville Union.
: am made to say "that would raise tn
: question whether the County court c
Montgomery could not be reached b
~ mandamus. - What did say was tina
y l presumed that the Board would con
suit counsel and then determine whethe
= it would be expedient to prosecute tn
y matter any further by mandamus o
!, otherwise, or if the law is really a
- Judge Tyler lays it down, to take meas
ures for procuring amendatory legislt
. ton from the'next General Assembly
q / distinctly dlsclaimed any intention o
'' proceeding any further in the matter {
~ an individual.
=, The law OF the question then, is no
. in other hands and / shall not discuss
u further except to call attention to tn
~ fact that in his paper OF last week Judg
Tvlor donS NOT snnno tn rnlv l1poD In