The times., 1899-10-24
THE CoMPRoLLER's OPINION.
The Health officer Cannot Employ a
DiSinfecttnG Engineer.

The Health officer Cannot Employ n
DiSinfectinG Engineer.
An opinion of interest to local health
authorities has been sent to the Commits
stoners by the Comptroller of the Treasury
Department regarding the employment of
an engineer in the disinfecting service of
the District of Columbia. In sending the
papers to the Treasury Department Health
officer Woodward explained that it was
desired to use an engineer in this connec-
tion. Section of the act Of Congress
regulating the disinfecting service provides
that it shall be the duty Of the health
officer, in conjunction with the attending
physician, to properly disinfect all places
infected by diphtheria or scarlet fever.
1t is believed by the health officer that an
engineer can be paid out of the appropria-
tiCu for the enforcement OF the PROVISIONS of
the disinfacticn act. On the contrary, Comp
troller Tracewell states that such an Off
cial cannot be employed. The opinion is
as follows. THE act referred to is that
Of December 20, 1890, to prevent the spread
of scarlet fever and diphtheria in the Dis
trict Of Columbia (26 Stat, 691J, and sec
tion Of that act provides that all the
expenses necessarily incurred in the ex-
ecution Of the provisions of this act shall
be borne from the general appropriation
for the maintenance Of the health depart
ment of the District of Columbia
The current appropriation for the Health
Department contains the following provis-
ions For the enforcement of the provis-
ions of the act to prevent the spread Of
scarlet fever and diphtheria in the District
OF Columbia, approved December 20, 1890
and the act to prevent the spread of con-
tagious diseases in the District of Colum-
bia. approved March 3, 1897. under the di-
rection Of the Health Officer of the Dis
trict $4,000 For maintaining the
disinfecting service, $1,000 Provided
That no part Of this sum shall be expended
for additional employees
The act of March 8, 1897, also required
the disinfection of premises, clothing, etc.
in certain cases to be made at the cost Of
the District.
The suggestion IS made by the Health
Officer that since the act of December 90
1890, requires him to cause infected prem
ises to be dsnfected, the appropriation of
So 600 made for the enforcement of the pro-
visions OF the act is available for the en-
ployment of an engineer in the scarlet fever
and diphtheria service (and, by implication
in the contagious diseases service), al
though Congress has made specific ap-
preparation for maintaining the disinfecting
service, and although his services will be
practically identical with those paid for
from the specific appropriation for disin-
fecting service 1t appears that he would
draw a distinction between the general
words 'disinfecting service and the disin-
feCting of premises under the provisions of
section Of the act of December 20, 1890,
and by a parity of reasoning, dsinfecting
under the contagious diseases act of March
3, 1897.
mo such distinction has hitherto been
drawn. So far as these appropriations are
/ concerned, all expenses Of disnfection ser
vice under both acts have been considered
proper charges against the specific appro-
priation for maintaining the disinfecting
service
This is in accordance with the well -es-
tabhshed rule Of construction of the ac-
counting officers that where an apprOpria-
! tion has been made for a specific object
! that appropriation is exclusive although
there may be another appropriation which
in the absence Of the specific appropriation
might be available Il Comp. Dec, 126).
That this is the proper construction of the
law is borne out by an examination of the
various appropriations made TO carry out
( the provisions OF the acts OF December 20,
$780, and March g. 1897. These acts are in
/ pari materia, and should be construed to-
gether.
For several years after the passage of
/ the former act Congress made annual ap-
propriations Of 81 900 or $4,000 for the en-
! forcement Of the provisions Of that act.
| The act of March @ 1895 Us Stat, 1881,
contained the following provision: For the
/ enforcement of the provisions of the act
| to prevent the spread of scarlet fever and
/ diphtheria in the District of Columbia,
| approved December 20, 1890, under the di-
| rectiou of the Health officer of the District
! and the Supervising Surgeon General Of the
1 Marine Hospital Service, and for the estab-
/ lishment and maintenance Of disinfectiHg
| service, SO, 06e.
Thereafter for two years Congress ap-
! propriated s. 1000 annually for the enforce
! ment Of the provisions of the act of De-
! cember 20, 1890, and when the contagious
/ diseases act was passed that act was also
/ named in the appropriation and the sum
| was increased to 81, 900. This brings us tC
! the act OF March 8 1S99-the current ap-
/ preparation act-which is quoted above
! Throughout these acts there is nothing Il
warrant any finely drawn distinctions iL
regard to the disinfecting service.
The organic act provided that in certain
cases disinfection should be made, and that
the expenses thereof should be borne
! from the general appropriation for tht
! maintenance oil the Health department.
Congress has each year provided the fund:
under that head OF appropriation, some
times in general terms for the purpose o.
carrying out the provisions of the act,
and sometimes by a specific appropriation
| for the disinfectiEg service When th'
appropriation was in broad terms tn,
amount to be expended for the particular
purpose was limited only by the amour
appropriated, but where the appropriation
is specific the amount available is strictly
limited to the fund provided. The cast
appears to stand just thus: Congress pro
vided for the establishment of disin
fecting service. Each year thereafter, il
general terms, it provided for its main
tenance, until by the act OF March 3, 1888
supra, it made specific appropriation o
50 coo for that purpose with the provision
that no part of the amount shall be pai
for the services of additional employees. Th
intention of the act seems clearly to b
to limit the cost Of the disinfecting seryic
to $1,000. and TO prevent the employmen
of any additional service. To employ MI
Gray in the manner suggested in you
communication would be to defeat the evi
dent object Of the law. I must therefor
hold that the employment is not author
lied"