122 
A. W. CLEMENT. 
establishment of no less than three sanitary boards, to wit: 
the State Board of Health, of which Dr. C. W. Chancellor is 
the Secretary and executive officer; the Baltimore City 
Health Department, of which Dr. James A. Steuart is the 
head ; and the State Live Stock Sanitary Board, consisting of 
three Commissioners, “who are practically engaged in the 
breeding of live stock,” with Dr. William H. Wray as Chief 
Veterinary Inspector, it is apparent from an examination of 
the various Acts of Assembly and ordinances of the Mayor 
and City Council, from which these boards derive their pow¬ 
ers, that our laws are at present wholly inadequate to protect 
us from the dangers so vividly pointed out by Dr. Clement. 
And this, although the powers conferred and the discretion 
given to their officers are, in some matters, so broad as to be 
almost arbitrary. 
The City Health Commissioner may “fence in and guard 
by sentinels” any infected house or district in the city of Bal¬ 
timore ; he may quarantine individuals, houses or localities; 
he may destroy household effects, or cause them to be disin¬ 
fected ; and he may abate nuisances—with very wide discre¬ 
tion as to what constitutes a nuisance—and for this purpose 
may invoke the aid of the courts. He may cause the water 
of any suspected pump or spring to be analyzed and, if found 
impure, prohibit its use. 
Kindred powers and like obligations are conferred upon 
the State Board of Health, to be exercised and performed all 
over the State. 
The Live Stock Sanitary Board is charged with the duty 
of protecting the health of domestic animals from “exotic, 
contagious or infectious diseases,” and to this end may quar¬ 
antine or cause infected animals to be destroyed. 
It will be seen from this brief statement of the law, that 
the efforts of the Legislature have been directed mainly, so 
far as the functions of these boards are concerned, to the pre¬ 
vention of the spread of disease by contact or communication 
with diseased subjects. 
It would seem that our law-givers never had in contem¬ 
plation the possibility or the danger of the communication of 
