Mexico weekly ledger., 1891-07-02
THE cry COUNCIL.
The City Council Considers Some
Small Pox Claims.

4
in adjourned session and attended
to some matters winch were left
over from the last meeting.
Mrs. Rodmsn presented a letter
asking for damages to her proper
ty, growing out of the fact that the
city, in disinfecting her house, had
removed the paper from the walls
of her house, etc. The matter was
laid over.
Mrs. Barton presented a bill for
$751; 10, claiming that amount OF
household goods had been destroy
ed.
The city does not consider that
they owe Mrs. Barton anything,
but ordered the Mayor to donate
her $50 to pay her expenses home,
and to get her some new clothes.
The City Council rented Joel
Guthrie desk room in the east room
on the first floor in the City Hall.
The Council ordered sidewalks
along Whitney street in the Second
Ward.
There are several small pox
bills yet to be considered by the
Council.
City Attorney Buckley rendered
the following opinion in regard to
the city's liability in this matter ::
To the Honorable City Council of the
City of Me1ico, Missouri:
MEXICO, Mo-, June 30.-GENTLE-
MEN: In the matter of "small
pox" claims against the city, filed
by Mrs. Barton, Phil Rebman, J.
W. Deckerd and Miss Ida Fred
die, and as to the liability of the
city for same, I will state that Sec
ton 8, of Article 5, of the City
Charter, among other things, pro-
vides that the Mayor "shall have
such justification as may be vested
in him by ordinance, over all
places within five miles of the cor
porate limits of the city, for the
enforcement of any health or quar-
antine ordinance, or regulations
thereof"
Section 13, Article 6, of the
Charter, provides that the City
Council may 'make regulations to
prevent the introduction of con-
tageous diseases into the city, and
enforce the same within five miles
of the CITY,"
The regulations specified in this
section must be by ordinance.
There were many things done dur
ing the recent 'small pox scare"
that were not authorized by law.
The city undoubtedly has the
right "by ordinance or any regula-
ton thereof" to require tnat prop
erty which has been SO exposed as
to render it likely to spread the
disease of small pox, to be thor
oughly disinfected, and that, per-
haps, at the expense of the owner
of such property. But I doubt if
the city, even under provisions of
an ordinance, would have the right
to destroy such property without
incurring liability thereof.
Neither the health ordinance or
any other that I am aware of, pro-
vides for destroying or dislnfecting
such property.
The city Is liable legally for the
acts of its officers only when such
officers are acting in conformity to
ordinance.
When officers or servants of the
city are acting outside of the pro-
visions of any ordinance, they be-
come personally liable to parties
injured by such acts.
think there is enough in the
ordinances to render the city legal
ly liable for reasonable compensa.
ton to any and all persons employ
ed by the Mayor or City Physician
to assist in taking care of small pox
patients and maintaining quaran-
tine regulations.
I believe the city may recover
against any small pox patient for
money expended in hiring nurses
or supplies furnished such patient.
In such cases the city Is under no
| more obligation than in ordinary
| sickness.
As a matter of equity, I believe
the city should settle with the par
ties presenting claims for property
destroyed in this instance, provid-
ed it can be done on reasonable
terms and set off against such