Evening star., 1897-04-28
CON TAGlOUS HOSPITAL S
Important Opinion Rendered by the Attor-
ney for the District.
~
Congress by n Recent Act Evidan,
Intended to End the DfafcuItx
So Long Existing.

Having some doubt as to the nternreta-
tioh OF That clause in the appropriation
Dill providing two Isolation hospitals for
'he Dstrict, the. Commissioners recently
submitted the question to- Mr.. IS IT
1homas, the attorney for the Distrfct for
opinion. His opinion was received TODAY.
Mr.. Thomas finds that the item in the
District appropriation bill approved March
8, 1897. viz, For two isolating buildings ia
be cor EstrGcted, IN the discretion of the Com
mlssleners of the District, on the grounds
or two hospitals, to be operated as a part Of
SAID hospitals. SO,000,'' is inconsistent with
the provision in the District appropriation
bill approved March Q, ls95 fos Stat 20,
which provides: ''o''
mat hereafter no other building for
use use as public or private hospital for con-
6is 1asious diseases shall be erected in the
District of Columbia within 200 feet of
any building owned by a private indi
Vidual or any other party than the one
erecting the building" 0
Mr. THOMAS. continuing, says: whether
the 800 feet provision in the act of 1s.,s an
plies to the act of 1897 depends unon tba
question whether that provision was re-
Peaied by the later act The act of 1897
ooes not expressly repeal this provision.
and the question Is whether it does so h,,
implication, because of repusnancv he.
tween the provisions of the two statutes
The Rule of Construction.
1T Is rule in the construction of STAT
utes that a later statute, the evident in
tent of which is to furnish exclusive rn,.
governing. certain acts. repeals nv imnr-
cation an earlier law on the Same subject
And II the co-eXstence of two sets of af
IImauVe provisions would be destructive
OF the OBJECT for which the later set was
passed or II the same right would be made
dependent on conflicting conditions. the
earlier set would be impiiedly repeale5 hy
484.) N -1e' Hi'eS' Law
ne thinks IT is plain that the provision
IN the act of 1897 is inconsistent with and
contradictory of, the provision in act of
1919, that hospital for contagious dis
eases snail not be built within 300 feet of
private building VI
IF, for example Co,press hy ~ 49,.
OF 1897, had authorized the Commissioners
10 pulid hospital for contagious dis
es ses on the grounds, of Garfield Hospital
or froVldence Hospital, then there would
pe no question that the act of 1897 would
pe inconsistent with the act of 1895, and
Wouid operate to repeal it. 1t seems to
me there is no difference between such
picvision and the one in question. author
iZiEs the commissioners to erect two iso-
iating buildings on the grounds of two
hospltals IN the District of Columbia.
The 800 Feet Provision Repealed.
There can be no difference between sne-
cifo ally naming the location for a hospital
Tor contagious diseases. and describing
such location without specifically naming
1t. for 1t is legal maxim that that is GER
tain which can be maAe eertain
1T Is my opinion t1atrdhe provision in
the act of 1897. authorizing the erection
OF two isolating buildings on the grounds
OF OF two hospitals for the: treatment of con-
Vision in the aet of gepsas the 800 feet pro-
The history of the long and unsuccessful
attempt to locate hospital for conta-
glous diseases sheds some light upon the
subject. Congress evldshtly intended by
the act of 1897 to put s&n end to the diff
Guilty encountered by the Commissioners
IN locating such a hospftfl. authorizing
them to erect two isolatfhE buildings on the
grounds of two hospitaas for the treatment
OF contagious diseases, leaving to the judg-
ment OF the Commissioners the selection of
the sites. subject only nufthe qualification
that they should be upon the grounds of
two hospitals