The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-27
HAD NO BURIAL PERMITS
Singular Condition of Affairs
Brought to Light.
FIFTY PEOPLE BURIED
The Bodies Have Been Inferred Since the
First Of January and the Law
on the Subject Has
Been Ignored.

The arrest of number of the physi-
clans the other day at the instance of
the health officer, for failure to comply
with the city ordinance requiring doc
tors to return death certificates of
death of persons dying while under
their care, has been the means of bring
ing to light rather singular condition
of affairs to say the least, which might
bear a little investigation. A remark
let drop by one of the physicians who
thought he had been unnecessarily ar
rested was what started an inquiry
which has developed the fact that
something like so deaths have occurred
since the 1st of January. in which the
bodies We're buried without any burial
permit being issued, and as a conse-
quence there is no official record of any
of them.
The law governing this subject is
found in sections 10 and II Of ordinance
459. The pertinent portions of these
sections read:
The health officer shall keep record
of all births, still births and conta gious
diseases, also of all burial permits with
the date of issuance and to whom is
sued, with all the information con-
tanned in the certificate upon which the
burial permits were issued, the records
to be upon separate books furnished
for the purpose. To enable the health
officer to keep the record mentioned, il
shall be the duty of the physician VINO
was last in attendance upon the de-
ceased person, or if no physician was IN
attendance, then it ehall be the duty of
the person at whose house or in whose
presence the person died, to report the
death to the health officer or sanitary
inspector within - hours after death
occurs, upon one of the blanks furnish
ed by the board of health for that pur-
pose, filling the blank spaces so as to
give all information required by the
blank so furnished"
Section II provides mo burial shall
be lawful, nor shall any dead body be
removed from the city until a permit
for such burial or removal shall have
first been obtained from the board of
health, the health officer or sanitary in
spector; the permit shall be issued only
on receipt of certificate of death. such
as required by section TO- and signed
by the attending phys ician, if any, and
if not. then by the person in charge of
the house where the death occurred. or
in case of death not occurring in any
mouse, by any person cognizant of the
facts and circumstances of the DEATH.
Notwithstanding the mandatory pro-
visions of this ordinance it is claimed
the number of burials that have takens
place without permits is not far from so
thus far this year. One undertaken
has stated that he has buried 23 people
without burial permits since January !.
Statements could not be procured from
the other undertakers, but if one has
buried % it would appear fair to as
sumo that the others have done their
share. 1t is not regarded as the fault
of the undertakers since the ordinance
does not require them to get a death
certificate but merely a burial permit.
AS the permit can not be issued with
out a death certificate, if the under
taker can not get the certificate he can
not get the permit, and as the underta-
kers can not hold bodies for days and
weeks it has come to be the custom to
let the bodies be buried and trust to
the future to get the permit and turn it
in.
Whom the fault lies with, it would be
difficult to say 1t might be charged to
the sections of the cemeteries. who are
specially forbidden to allow a body to
be buried without a permit having first
been shown, were it not clear that the
sections in permitting the regulation to
be violated do so to accommodate the
undertaken, because something must lie
would seem to resolve itself down to a
laxity in enforcing the ordinance with
reference to the issuance of death GER
tificates With regard to this. tine
question of who is responsible is much
confused. A few days ago the health
office instituted prosecutions against
certain physicians for the purpose of
endeavoring to enforce the ordinance.
The doctors confess toa certain amount
of negligence on their part, but in tine
trial of the cases cited, which were all
dismissed, they demonstrated that the
fault is not entirely with the DOCTORS
so it is hard to tell just where the re-
sponsibility rests. Some appear to think
it is the fault of the system in vogue.
In any event it would seem a subject
worthy a thorough investigation by the
proper authorities, as it is an acknowl-
edged fact that in the failure to strictly
enforce the regulations requiring burial
permits, crimes might easily and eff