Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-07-24

operation OF "a tuberculaEIs camp upon
iand AUDITING resdeuce property
The courts Of Virginia held that the
city council Of Richmond mad No
bower 10 enact an ordinance requir-
INK hhnatofin 10 secure q License from
the board of health
In california a county ofdm nc"
prohibiting the operation 81 sanat0ria
has been held 60 BE- void. upJu ne
grounds that the supervisor had 20
authority 30 enact a. The important
law point IN this cas- was that the
rveciIicaiions 81 the plaintiffs showed
the saDatorinm In question c0nstitut-
"a only "A private nuisance and not a
public one.
+ The most recent and pertinent deci-
sion was rendered IN Texas last ,car
Aspeeial building was erected for "a
Tuberculosis dlspensary Property
owners protested against the site and
the case WAS taken into court. q deei-
sion being rendered sustaining the in
stitution Part Of the decision which
h OF local significance is as follows
The question involved Is whether
the establishment OF q clinic for the
treatment OF persons afflicted with
either incipient or clearly developed
tuberculosis Will in ali probability be
- harmful 10 property owners and
residents in the section Of the city ad-
jaeent to the site Of the proposed
clinic. as % give them the right Of
injunctive relief The case IS one in
which the preferences and Interests Of
the few must yield 10 the welfare Of
the many In every part Of the Unit
ed States warfare Is being systemau-
cally and scientifically waged against
tuberculosis. both for the prevention
and cure. The results achieved in
New York show a reduction In the
number ~ cases Of something like 30
per cent. and the Increase OF the
dreadful disease makes IL necessary
for the protection OF society that all
reasons bile means be- fesOrted 20 in
order to accomplish its determination
or at least such mitigation II is raw
aees as can be brought about by ad-
Vanced methods Of treatment
The evidence. the FAR greater part
Of which was not only heard but tax
en- down in writing with my own hand
c0nvinres me that clinic. such as Is
proposed, when conducted along the
lines marked out. viii not imperil The
health Of the neighhofhoOd. OF result
In any depreciation of the value Of
the property, aud because the pre-
Of the evidence Is against
the contention that il viii. permanent
Injunction IL refused, and the tempo
rfy injunction will be. and is, di- (
solved"
The supreme court ~ Washington. I
IN 1910. issued a permanent injunction /
the operation 81 private I
tuberculosis sanaterinm IN the resi- I
icntial section Of Seattle. This seems I
- he the only clenr-cut decision II I
he kind upon record. and the eompil- I
.rs Of the National Assoc iatlun for the I
study and Prevention Of Tuberculosis 4
point out that the decision apparent
y applies only Ia hospitals IN residen-
ial sections Furthermore. the court
ieid that such an institution Is not
Nuisance within the definition Of the
Common law The sanntorium In
question was located directly across
N alieyway from the property of the
Plaintiff. and one can easily reach
ne conclusion from the words Of the
Iocision that, had il been located q
reasonable distance from residential
property the ruling OF the court
night have been different.