Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1900-02-26
MR.. IHURSlON'S REPLY
Honolulu, II. l.. Feb. "a, 1900.

Strive have the honor to acknow-
ledge the receipt Of your communic,
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 the sarcasm or considered
the letter an impairment one.
This committee is too much in earn.
est, and its members individually and
the people Of Honolulu as whole,
have too great interests at stake, both
financial and personal, to warrant 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 tie
diagnosis and the decision of the medi-
cal 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. rhe
Board had declared that two OF its
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 1t was unneces-
sary for you to cite to us reasons justi-
flying the burning of the buildings
mentioned in your letter. This COM
mittee heartily approves such burn
ings.
The sole object of the committee in
referring to these buildings was TO
point out that the Board had hereto
fore pursued policy of burning build
ings in which there had been no
plaque, simpiy Decduse ny Teason VI
proximity or other circumstantial or
inferential ev.aence they might have
become injected by rats or other I'M
known source.
That is to say, the Board has not
required 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. Inc 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 mad such house
under ike circumstances been pre-
served
you say that the board nave not de-
cided 10 Durn tnis puiiding.
| we submit that the whole tenor or
.ne pubic discussion OF the SUBJECT by
the Board and It's action and inaction
warranted the committee IN drawing
the conclusion that such was the de-
termination OF the Board.
Inc committee beiieVed that II had
reasonable ground to think that the
boaru dia not ihtend TO Durn. IL mad
earnest CONVICTIONS that pubic inter-
ests required continuance OF the pol
ICY Oh burning heretofore acted upon
by the Board
cnder such circumstances It was the
right ana duty OF the committee to
present its views 10 the Board, which
II did In good faith, in words strong
put courteous
IL hau the right to expect an answer
IN IKE spirit.
This committee Will continue indi-
viduaiiy an collectively to assist the
I'Oaru by every means IN its power to
suDdue the plague:
II VIII also, whenever 1t deems 1t
proper, present lts views to the Board