The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1900-02-26
a LETTER FROM L. A. t.
He Outlines tho Policy of tho SAM
tary Committee for the Bentfit
of tho Board OF Health,


Health.
Sir: We have the honor to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your communica
ton dated February 23d in reply to
ours of the 22d inst.
We regret that in your letter and the
public discussion of the same by the
members of the Board of Health you
and they should have deemed it fit
occasion for sarcasm or considered the
letter an impertinent one.
This committee is too much in earn
est, and its members individually and
the people of Honolulu as whole,
nave too great interests at stake, both
financial and personal, to warrant a re-
ply in the same vein or to befog the
principle at issue by discussing side
issues.
In all matters involving medical or
scientific knowledge relating to plague
this committee accepts absolutely the
diagnosis and the decision of the med
ical members and assistants of the
Board of Health.
In all matters in which the Board
has material private information, this
committee will await and abide by the
decision Of the Board
But in matters involving neither pro-
fessional nor private knowledge we do
not admit that we are barred from ex-
pressing our judgment co-equally with
the Board; nor that there is improprie-
ty in communicating our views to the
Board, urging action or criticizing in
action.
The Hotel stables had passed the
professional knowledge stage. The
ND 1,1
employees, both of whom had been pres
ent In the building, one sleeping there,
had died of plague.
The Board had no secret knowledge.
Every fact bearing on the subject
known to the Board was known to this
committee and to the public.
We beg to state that it was unneces-
sary for you to cite to us reasons justi-
flying the burning of the buildings men
toned in your letter. This committee
heartily approves such burnings.
The sole object of the committee in
referring to these buildings was to
point out that the Board had heretofore
pursued policy of burning buildings
in which there had been no plague,
simply because by reason of proximity
or other circumstantial or inferential
fected by rats or other unknown
source.
That is to say, the Board has not re-
quired proof of infection before burn
ing, but has adopted the safe policy Of
when in doubt burn the house."
In the case in question there was no
doubt; no inference; no circumstantial
evidence. The direct facts, positive
and admitted, were that two plague
cases had come out of the building,
which was incapable of disinfection.
In no other case had such a house
under like circumstances been pre-
served.
You say that the Board have not de-
cided not to burn this building
We submit that the whole tenor of
the public discussion of the subject by
the Board and its action and inaction
warranted the committee in drawing
the conclusion that such was the de-
termination of the Board.
The committee believed that it had
reasonable ground to think that the
Board did not intend to burn. It had
earnest convictions that public inter-
ests required a continuance of the pol
icy Of burning heretofore acted upon
by the Board.
Under such circumstances it was the
right and duty of the committee to
present its views to the Board, which
it did in good faith, in words strong
but courteous.
1t had the right TO expect an answer
in like spirit.
This committee will continue indi-
vidually and collectively to assist the
Board by every means in it's power to
subdue the plague.
1t will also, whenever it deems it
proper, present its views to the Board
and urge their adoption; and will also,
if, unhappily, it become necessary, eX-
ercise the right of criticizing any ac-
ton or failure to act on the part of the
Board which it may deem against pub
lie interest.
In conclusion, this committee urges
with all earnestness that if the Board
has not already adopted such policy
it will now adopt as it's policy the fol-
lowing, viz:
q) Burn every house, incapable of
in which case of plague
or in which 1t has remained
long enough to create reasonable
doubt as to infection.
(2) Burn every house which, by
reason of proximity or other reason
may reasonably be believed to be in
fected
90 Let the decision follow as close
ly as practicable after discovery of
each case; and action follow promptly
each decision.
Believing that If these suggestions
are theoretically and consistently car
ried out, they will, in conjunction with