The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-02
The WOOLFORD-BRUMBY CASE

by the nfndaVttS on file that the duties Of
health officer had been In fact performed
by defendant, Brumhy ior the mast six
months in a skillfu and satisfactory man
ner and for the best interests of the city
OF Houston; that the only injury claimed
by plaintiff was that the effect of such
action on the part Of the city council In
having defendant perform the duties OF
health officer, was 10 deprive the mayor u
the right of nomination only He said
that the right Of the mayor to nominate
and the right Of the council to elect were
,cso,eNtensiye and Of equal dignity, and
that II the court issued an Injunction in
this case. II would be IN effect an en-
deavor TO force the council Ia elect the
person nominated by the mayor. instead
they might please. The defendant con
tended that the council would have as
much right TO apply for writ of injunc
ton which in effect, would compel the
mayor TO nominate some one the council
would wish to elect. us the mayor has 10
use the process Of the court to compel
mates
B. The plaintiff claimed that the inter-
estS of the city Of Houston. and the pso-
pie thereof. would he irreparablv damaged
II no health officer was appointed. and #
there was no one to legally perform he
duties Of health officer, and that as con-
tended by plaintiff. the defendant. Brumby,
could not legally perform the duties of
health officer and therefore should be
enioined. To this the defendant replied
that II was uuquestonably true that 1t
was of paramount importance 30 the PEG.
PIE and the city Of Houston that the du-
ties Of health officer should be performed
by some enc pending the controversy as
TO who should be elected health officer ana
thnt 1t was n conceded fact that the &C.
fendant, Brumhv, had for four months dur
Ing Dr. MaSsie's life slime, viz, from April
= to August %, 1901 discharged the du-
rles Of health officer al the request
Of Dr. Massc and had been recognized as
acting health officer, and all of his acts
as acting health officer had been recog-
nlzcd by the department of the city gov
ernment Of the city of Houston including
the paintn,. Woolford. himself
As the defendant Brumby. had con
Ilhued 70 discharge the duties Of health
officer from the Odd Of August down 10
ne present time. being recognized during
all that time as having the power aud
authority as health inspector to discharge
such duties of health officer, that il would
pc now 40 irreparahle injgy and damage
10 the people Of Houston for the court to
defendant, Brumby. from exercising the
sald duties as he had been authorized and
instructed by the city council as there
would be no one 10 perform said duties, II
suq Brumhy did not perform them aud
could not perform them Ii was further
contended that even IL the court was in
uohbt as TO whaC was the proper con
Struction of the powers and duties given
by the city council and to the health in
spector under the charter and ordinances
OF the city of Houston that that doubt
should be resolved in favor of permitting
me defendant, Brumby. To continue 10
dlschhrge the duties of health officer,
because 1t was to the Interest of the pub
nc that such duties should be performed
ny some one ana that the real tribunal tn
which an appeal should be taken by the
mayor and the aldermen was the people
~ the next election who would determine
the matter between them while in thp
nle4 ltlme the duties Of the office could be
pTJrIo ORR TO me satisfaction of the neo.
PIE and To their benefit
MI Bryan quoted many authorities aud
Eau IRON me cry charter and ordinances
70 sustain his position and argued MS
sue OF the question at considerable length.
The court did not open Its afternoon ses.
r'----aa until o'clock, when Mr.. L. B. Moody
made tT1----aS-ng argument for the de-
fendant in speer-----aasuning an hour
and a half, of which only Sr brief
synopsis can he attempted He stated r-~--
the application for an Injunction in this
case was the most anomalous thar had ever
come under his observation either in prac-
ice or IN reported cases, in that it appears
from the allegations in the petition that
the only grievance set forth by the pIain-
| TN Is that the city council have declined
TO elect MS nominees for city health officer
ana that the defendant Is fulhling ana
dlscnarging the duties of that Office Tho
painuu does not alege that the defendant
| Is dlscharging tne duties In an uuskIllful
or an unlawful manner, but asserts that 1t
| Is an Infringement of his rights for the
duties OF city health officer to be discharged
at ali until the council shall nave seen
NJ 10 eject MS nominee, and he asks this
court 10 prevent the discharge of the du-
ties Of city health officer. and 10 leave the
| inhabitants of this city without any sani-
tary protection whatever. That the re-
/ specttYe rights of tAe plaintiff and de.
PENDANT pale into insignidcance when the
appalling consequences which wonld result
TO the inhabitants of this city from the
granting of an injunction herein are con
sidered
II is provided by the ordinances Of this
city rhat no dead body can be Inferred
or removed from the city unless permit
SO TO do is signed by the city health Of
| tcer. 1t is shown by the affdavits in evil
| dence and the admissions la plaintiffs petit
| tion that ever since the death OF Or. Mas,
| sic these permits have been signed by the
defendant as acting city health officer. and
| the dead have been buried: but should this
Injunction be granted no dead body could
thereafter he lawfully buried in this city
! or removal from the city for burial until
! the mayor and the city council should have
| adjusted their differences and agreed 10
! yield, the one TO the other. In the mean
/ time, unless the law Is violated the bodies
! OF the dead must lie in this city In the
! homes of their families unbured because.
| forsooth, there is n suit pending In this
| court brought by the complainant for the
| protection of his sacred right Of nomnat-
| Ing the person who shall sign the permit
! for the burial Of such dead bodies Further
! 1t Is the duty of the city health officer,
/ aud Of no one else TO furnish medical ~
1 tention and care 10 the inmates Of the pest.
/ house, which Is at this moment occupied
! by persons suffering from smallpox, which
! duty is now being discharged properly aud
| skilfuly by the defendant, yet the com
plainant asks this court to prevent the de-
PENDANT from furnishing this medical at
tentton to these poor uutortnnates and 10
/ leave them to their fate.
! II is further the duty Of the city health
officer to vaccnate free Of charge all per
sons who may be unable or unwilling 10
pay physician for the service. which duty
is now being performed by the defendant.
Yet the plaintiff the mayor of this city,
asks this court to prevent the discharge
of this duty by the defendant even though
as consequence thereof smallpox may
ravage and deSolate che homes Of this
city, because forsooth this suit is pending
In this court II is further the duty OF
the city health officer To furnish free medi-
cal attention to all paupers and INDECENT
persons which duty the defendant is now
discharglns properly and skilifully. Yet
the plaintiff, the mayor of this city, con.
tends that this should he stopped and
these unfortunates left without medical at
tcntion because Of the differences existing
between himself and the city council.
There Is not a single allegation IN the
plaintiffs petition which tends In the re-
hottest degree 10 show that an Injunction
should be issued in this case. 1t Is not
alleged nor shown that any injury whatever
Is resulting 20 the plaintiff or his rights
by the acts OF the defendant IN minister
TING To rhp Indecent sick and persons ar