The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-08

DR.. G. w. Young, the osteopath who
| was arrested on a charge of violating
the quarantine law in connection with
his attendance upon the family of Mr..
| Thomas Poucher, of 971 Linwood place,
| while members of the family were suf-
fering from diphtheria and under quar-
| antine, was held to be guilty of the
| charge in a decision handed down by
Judge Hine of the municipal court yes
| terday. The case is one which attract
ed much attention from the osteopaths
! throughout the state.
| DR.. Young's attorneys held that the
| board of health had no authority to
prosecute the case, for the reason that
| the board was not constituted accord
| ing to law. Judge Hine says:
! This is proceeding brought under
section 1868 of the general statutes to
subject the defendant to a fine for Wis
| 1t1ng the premises, 81 LinWood place,
| While the members of the family there
! in residing were suffering from diph-
| liberia and while the premises were
under quarantine, the defendant not
| being the medical attendant or spirit
| ual adviser of the sufferers.
| THE defendant urges that the Sec
ton of the statutes in question pro-
vides only for county local boards of
| health, and that there is no such board
| of health in this county. That the
| health department established by the
| city charter is not such a board and If
| it were, still by the charter it consists
| of the chief of police, city attorney
| health commissioners and other en-
| ployes, and such board has never held
a meeting, has adopted no rules, and
! has never prescribed what shall con-
| stitute quarantine, and lastly If these
! objections are not sufficient, the de-
| PENDANT was the medical attendant of
sufferers and within the exception of
| the statute.
Facts in the Case.
1.-THE facts disclosed that occur to
me as material appear to be that in
the early part of December, 1902, one
| of the children in the premises was
! taken i'll and DR.. Metcalf was called
in. From culture given by him to
! the bacteriologist of the health &C.
partment it developed that the child
| had the diphtheria and subsequently
| DR.. Metcalf withdrew from the case.
| Other children in the family fell sick,
and in the latter part Of December the
father of the children sent for the de-
| PENDANT, who went to the house and
manipulated the child, or children, and
directed the substitution of cold COM
| presses in place of hot. The defend
| ant reported the disease to the health
| department by postal card obtained
! from that department as it. broke out
| in the other children. The usual card
was pos ted by the health officer on the
entrance of the premises and the de-
PENDANT continued thereafter to visit
the premises as before. The Defend
ant had no license to practice medicine.
Health Department to Board.
ut appears to me that within the
purview of the section under which
this prosecution is brought, the health
department of the city of st. Paul is,
at least so far as the limits of the city
are concerned, certainly de factO To-
cal board of health. 1t must be con-
ceded that the premises in question are
within the city limits covered by the
charter, and within the jurisdiction of
the health department of the city, sub
ject to its supervision and control. If
the premises In question were outside
of the city limits and within the coun-
ty, a different proposition might arise
for consideration; but I am constrain-
| ed to hold that within the city limits
| the health department comes within
the statute. The charter provides that
| 1t shall be the duty of the commits
| S1oner of health to cause a notice.
| printed or written in large letters, to
| be placed upon or near any house in
| which any person may be affected or
| sick with any infectious disease, upon
which shall be written or printed the
name Of such disease" etc. 1t seems
to me immaterial that the city attor-
ney, chief of police and health commits
sioner had never met and by formal
action designated the size of the let
tering. 1 think, as a matter of fact,
the notice as posted is sufficient within
the statutory provisions and consti-
tuted good quarantine. There remains
but one other matter for consideration
! was the defendant the medical at
| tendant within the exception of the
| statute? To my mind the term medical
| attendant means what Il says. The de-
PENDANT may be considered the attend
ant, but not the attendant as qualified
! by the term medical" There are GER
tain forms of disease in an animal for
| which it would be entirely proper to
allow a blacksmith to treat the ami
NAL, but, although he might effect a
cure, he could not be considered the
veterinary attendant. There are GER
! tain theological questions which an
| unofficial member of a religious order
might be able to expound with greater
| ability, and by such explanation carry
greater conviction than the ordained
officer. Such person might be consid-
| cred the adviser, but not the spiritual
| adviser of the inquirer. To my mind
| the term medical attendant means