The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-11
FIGHT ON HEALTH BILL.
Measure Providing More Drastic
Quarantine Law Passed by House.

Quarantine Law Passed by House.
The fight on House bill No. 7-Boulden-
providing for the restriction of dangerous
and communicable diseases, was the fea-
ture OF yesterday afternoons session of the
House. The debate on the measure was
prolonged over an hour and half and in
the end it was passed by the very close
vote of So to SO. when the indications were
that 1t would be defeated, or at least that il
would fail to pass.
The bill provides a more drastic law for
the establishment and enforcement of quar-
antines in cases of dangerous and con-
tagious diseases and fixes the punishment
for the violation of the law at a fine of
from $40 to $50, to which may be added i'm
prisonment in the county Jail for a period
not to exceed six months. AS to what shall
be held to be dangerous and communicable
diseases the bill lists smallpox. diphtheria,
membraneous Group, scarlet fever, measles
or any other communicable disease named
in the rules OF the State Board of Health"
1t was due to the fact that diphtheria.
measles and Group were specifically men,
toned I'm the bill that the opposition was
manifested from several members Mr.
Bell, of Randolph, spoke first against the
Dill, saying that while he thought it was
good bill in many respects he was con-
WINGED that it should be amended so as TO
cut out at least the provisions concerning
measles and Group.
Mr.. Baird, of Delaware, who is a physi-
clan and the chairman of the committee on
health, supported the bill. He argued that
the existing quarantine laws in Indiana are
ineffective, and said that the very recent
trouble over the spread OF the smallpox
epidemic in several parts of the State was
ample evidence that new BILL such as the
one under consideration, should be enacted
into law.
BOYD FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
Mr.. Boyd, of Putnam, who is a great
stickler for individual rights, opposed the
bill, because, he asserted, it gave too much
power to the health officer and did not
respect personal privileges. He thought the
present health laws were sufficient to en-
able the authorities to control any epi-
demic. eff we were in the midst of a great
crisis he said, 'if we were threatened
with an invasion of the bubonic plague, or
leprosy, then there would be some excuse
for such bill becoming a law, but there
is no necessity for 1T at present and am
opposed to the needless interference with
the rights of the individual"
Mr.. Van Fleet, of Elkhart, also opposed
the bill, and he spoke with some heat He
cited one section of the bill which he said
would empower the health officer to remove
any child suffering from dphtheria, the
Group or the measles to the pesthouse
Such law would be outrage on the
people of Indiana" he declared, land this
bill should never be passed without amend
ments. I'm here TO say right now that if
this bill becomes a law and child of mine
is taken with diphtheria and the health
| officers come to my house to remove that
child to the pesthouse, I'll meet them at the
| door with shotgun, and If necessary I'll
| use Ii, tool"
DIR. Kirkman, of Wayne, expressed his
| surprise at the objections raised by the
| gentlemen from Elkhart and Putnam.
| There was nothing i'm the bill. he said, that
would permit of such construction as they
| feared. He said that the bill did not con-
| template the removal of children suffering
| with diphtheria, Group or the measles to
| the pesthouse. In his opinion the bill was
| a very necessary measure which recent sx-
perience in several cities in attempts to en-
| force guarantees had justified.
With apologies to the gentleman from
| Miami-Stutesman-for presuming to OPP
pose the bill without knowing which way
| he stood on the question, Mr.. Slack spoke
| for the opposition. He said that he was
| against the bill for two reasons; first, be-
| cause IL was too broad In its scope and
| gave the health officers too much arbitrary
authority and power, and, second, because
it provided that the county or city should
| bear all the expenses of attendance and
| support of persons in quarantine whether
| or not such persons might be able to pay
| such expenses
| AMENDMENT is TABLED.
| Mr.. Bamberger, of Marion. spoke briefly
| i'm support of the bill and then offered a
| motion to recommit with instructions to
| report an amendment cutting out the word
| measles wherever ii occurred in the bill His
| motion was promptly tabled, even those op-
| posed to the bill voting against it, 1t was
| their evident intention to kill the whole bill
or make no change in it.
| Mr. Boulder. of Clinton, the author of the
| bill, spoke at length in its defense. He
| argued that the present quarantine laws
| are wholly Inadequate and he cited in
/ stances of the violations of such laws i'm this
| and other cities. A case to which he re-
ferred was one in which woman who had
i nursed smallpox patients and was thor
/ oughly informed of every aspect OF the dis
| ease. was on a crowded street car one day
| and detected the unmistakable odor that
| accompanies smallpox. She Immediately
| declared that someone In the car had The
aiseaseA and investigation proved that shs
| was right. Ii the bill i'm hanc became a
| law. Mr. Boulder asserted, there would be
! no more smallpox patients running at large
| over our cities, spreading the dread dig.
| ease oA all sides.
| At then conclusion OF Mr.. Boulden's s;peeck
the roll was called on the passage OF the
blu. Al the conclusion II the nr't cal