The age-herald., 1897-08-08
HE LEGAL STATUS.
Some Opinions in Regard to the Seigle lr- ss unction Case.

Age-Herald reporters yesterday sought expressions from several prominent members of the local bar concerning the injunction9 which has been issued on the prayer of MT. Seigle, restraining the authorities from removing his daughter. who has the smallpox, to the camp. Those seen declined to express their views. F st
 The utterances of Attorney F. S. White expressed gensral sentiment of the bar. namely. few of them have examined the law. and could only give an extempore opinion. while on the other hand, also, Seigles case might be surrounded with peculiar conditions of fact.
 An erroneous report gained currency that Judge Head had granted an in- junction on the ground that the city has no authority to remove smallpox pa- tieRts to the pest house. The report was not true What principally infiu- enced the judge's decision was elhe prima facie statements alleged in the petition, that It would endanger the life of the child to remove 1t at this time.
 Later on the case may be heard on all of it's merits. before Judge Sharpe or Judge Wilkinson, both of whom are out of the city at present.
 The committee of heafuh hays request ed an opinion from the law firm of Hew- it. Walker & Porter covering the law in all it's bearings on the lawful authority of the board of health. W. A. Walker will f1rti . his opinion Monday. Speaking of the city's position. City Attorney Lowe last night said:
 So far as we are concerned we can't A.. now because both judges of the city cour ts of Birmingham in which the case is pending, are absent from the city. And furthermore if the motion to dissolve was now made the decision could not be con- elusive inasmuch as the complainant would have the right of appeal and the injunction would be continued pending the appeal to the supreme court. The city would prefer to make the test case whenever another application Is made for an injunction upon the hearing and before the Issuance of the injunction. In such event the city would file its answer and the hearing could be had upon the bill and answer and the decision might be regarded as test. believe if an- other application is made for an injunc- ton that opportunity for an answer would be afforded the city before the is- suanee of an injunction. The judge might properly issue a temporary re- straining order and rule on the city to show cause why the writ of injunction should not issue. This will present the whole question on preliminary hearing. The law bearing on the case is as follows:
 Upon affidavit of any health officer that any person is afflicted with a contagious disease, and that the public safety re- quires the removal of such person, the mayor of tine city shall issue his warrant ordering the removal and directing the place to which such person shall be re- moved. thereupon the proper officers are required to execute the writ.
 It is we'll to bear in mind that the law permits such removal only in those cases where the public health and safety re- quires it, and it is not doubted that the power of removal carries with it the correlation duty upon the municipality to provide a safe and comfortable place where the safety of the patient and his comfort shall be conserved. It is not to the interest nor is it the policy of the municipality to incur the expense of re- moval unless the public health and safety clearly requires it. As to the Saigle case no affidavit of necessity nor order of re- moval had been made as above ex- plained."