Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1886-04-24
LUCE rYLER,
Replies to Or. Wright Concerning the
County Board Of Heath.
TO the Chronicle.

- -~SSbhi@S NiO Jnil pnyblcldn Vi IllS
county as chairman OF the county board
oil health. The Doctor says there isno
such issue in existence" II that is so
there is really no trouble at all between
the county and State boards OF health.
We certainly admit that 1t is our duty.
under the act of 1885, TO organize a
county board OF health. We have such
a board organized-the county clerk.
the county judge and the Jail physician,
and II the State board is willing to rec
ognlze this county board and to act
with it, there is no reason, that | know
Of, why the two should've work togeth-
or in perfect unison.
The Doctor has, however. a private
grievance upon which he calls me to
account. "All the Judge has to do' he
says, lis with correspondence with
me and two interviews which I had the
honor OF holding with him on the sub
ject." He then proceeds to state the
facts connected with these interviews
and correspondence according to his
own recollection. In his first interview
ne could learn nothing except that we
we had no Jail physician at all, which
he says, "of course stopped my mouth,
II there was no Jail physician there
could be no county board of health as
provided by the act of 1886" AS there
seemed to be no chance of getting me
to do anything the Doctor next set him.
self to work Ito commend the matter
to the magistrates of the county court
then shortly to convene" and for this
purpose he wrote an article which was
published in the Tobacco Leaf. After
this he says, II then asked a second inter
view with the Judge at which enouir-
ed in plain terms whether he inten ded
to hold an election according to law. To
my surprise he answered that the law
OF 1885 was null and VOID in Montgom-
cry because it was in conflict with the
unrepealed law passed in 1885," The
inconsistency between my position
IN the first interview and my position
IN the second staggered" him: he
became tired of interviews" with sue
aperson as myself and concluded to re-
sort to correspondence. So he wrote
me letter and received the answer
which was published in last weeks
CHRONICLE, This briefly, is his person
al grievance with me.
Now when Doctor Wright attended
the meeting OF the State board of health
on April 5tn, he made a statement to
the board OF what had taken place be-
tween him and myself This statement
was taken down by a reporter of the
Nashville Union at the time and pub
lished in the Union Of the 9TH. give it
in full
~ STUBBORN MONTGOMERY.
On D. F. Wright made a st ,tement
in reference to the failure Of his county
Montgomery, to organize a board OF
health. He had had two conversations
with County Judge G. w. Tyler. Judge
Tyler IN both these conversations had
claimed that the old law was in force,
not having been specifically mentioned
in the act of 1885. After this the speakes
had written a letter on this line to the
Tobacco Leaf, for which the president
OF the board had taken him to task.
Judge Lurton was then consulted, and
he, after examining the statutes, had
expressed the decided opinion that the
act OF 1885 was the law, being more
recent than the special act re fcrred to
by Judge Tyler. He had then adj
dressed the following letter to Judge
Tyler :"
(Then followed his letter to me and
my answer.)
Now the above plainly shows that in
both my interviews with DR.. Wright
/ stated to him the same thing, viz
that we were acting under the law of
1888, which / thought was unrepealed,
and which made it the duty of the Jail
commissioners to,appoint the Jail physi-
clan. 1t shows that both these interviews
were held before he either prepared or
published his paper in the Tobacco Leaf
and that so far in either OF them from
differing from me and enquiring Gin
plum terms whether" L intended to hold
an election according to law" he ac-
cepted my position as the law and wrote
his communication to the Tobacco Leaf
con this 1t further shows that after
both our interviews had been held and
his communication to the Tobacco
Leaf had been published the president
of his board stepped in and took him
to task" Judge Lurton advised him
that | wls wrong, then for The first time
arose any diff renee bet veen him and
my SELF be accepted Jud. Lurton's
view as correct; ecause "tired of in
terveNs' and I'd sscd m formal
letter from his row stand point and
finally when he saw lhat in my answer