The times., 1897-04-29
CONTAGIOUS HOSPITAL Law
Opinion Rendered by Attorney
Thomas to the Commissioners.
The Act of 1897 Repeats the Three
Hundred-Feet Provision In
the Act of 1895.

The question OF securing a proper loca-
tion for hospital for minor contagious
diseases has been prominent one in Dis
trict official circles for several years, and
it has been closely followed by interested
citizens, especially since the effort of the
Commissioners to settle it by providing
site in Pleasant Plains.
The Board OF Commissioners had 1t be-
fore them almost constantly, and the lat
est phase of it arose in the consideration
or that clause OF the appropriation bill
which provides for two isolation hospitals
for the District 1t needed Interpretation.
There was bill passed not long ago
forbiddine the construction or such a hos
pital within three hundred feet OF dwell
ing, except it be with the consent OF the
owner, and that involved the question as
to whether or not an addition could be built
to an existing hospital, to be used for iso-
lation OF conta2iou diseases. The Com
nissioners were in doubt about the mat
ter, and submitted the question to the at
torney for the District, with request for
his opinion. Mr., Thomas has returned his
views, which are in substance, as follows:
The item in the bill providing for two
isolation buildings to be constructed in
the discretion of the Comnission oners on the
grounds OF two existing hospitals, and to
be operated as part OF such hospitals,
Mr. Thomas regards as inconsistent
with the provision in the District appro
priation bill of March . 1893 That bill
is the one which prohibits the construction
OF such u hospital within 8 90 feet Of a
building owned by private individual
'or any other party than the one erect
ing the building
Alr. Thomas says that whether the 3 00
feet provision in the act of 1895 applies
to the act of 1887 depends upon the ques-
ton whether that provision was repealed
by the later act The act OF 1S97 ne says,
does not expressly repeal this provision. aud
the question is whether it does so by i'm
plication.
1T is a rule in the construction OF stat
utes that a later statute, the evident in
tent of which is to furnish exclusive rule
governing certain acts, repeals 10y iupli-
cation an earlier law on the same subject
A I'D If the co-eyistence of two sets OF az
firinative provisions would be destructive
OF the object for which the later set was
passed, or-if the same right would be made
dependent on conflicting conditions, the
carrier set would be implicitly repealed by
the later"
He thinks il is plain that the provision
in the act OF 1897 is inconsistent with, and
contradictory OF. the provision in the act OF
1896, that hospital for contagious GiS-
eases shall not be built within 800 feet Of
a private building
"If, for example, Congress by the act
OF 1897 had authorized the Commissioners
to build q hospital for contagious dis
eases on the grounds of Garfield Hospital
OF Providence Hospital, then there would
be no question t the act Of 1897 would
be Inconsistent with the act of 1895. rnd
would operate 70 repeal it. 1t seems TO
me there is TO difference between such
provision and the one in question auth n
idng the Commissioners 10 erect two iso-
iatlng buildings on the grounds OF two
hospitals III the District OF Columbia.
There can be no difference bet ween spe-
officially naming the location for hospital
for contagious diseases, anddeycribing such
location without specifically naming II, for
it is legal maxim that that is certain
which can be made certain.
at is my opinion that the provision IN
the act OF S97, authorizing the erection
of two iso!ating buildings on the grounds
of two hospitals for the treatment of con-
tagious diseases, repeals the 800 feet pro-
vision In the act OF 1898.
'The history OF the long and unsuccessful
attempt TO locate a hospital for contagious
diseases sheds some light upon the subject
Congress evidently intended by the act OF
1897 to put an end to the difficulty en-
countered by the Commissioners In Iocat
ing such a hospital, or authorizing them to
erect two isolating buildings on the grounds
of two hospitals for the treatment of con-
tagioUs diseas ses, leaving to the Judgment
CT the Commissioners the selection OF the
sites, subject only TO the qualification that
thev vhouId beaupon the grounds OF two
hospitals"
Commissioner Ross was asked yesterday,
in view of tie opinion of the attorney.
and now that they were sure they could
build an addition to an existing hospital
whether or not the board had selected an
nstitution for the added construction, or
whether one is in view. He replled that
nothing had been yet done. The board
will take time to consider, which they
can well do, as the money is not avail
able until July 1.