Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

it becomes necessary for the State to determine the qualifications of would-be practitioners of veterinary medicine. Among injuries of this kind may be mentioned cases in which an award in money might afford adequate compensation, but the evidence necessary to warrant such an award can not ordinarily be obtained, and the extent of the damage, proximate and remote, is liable to be far beyond the ability of any ordinary veterinary surgeon to pay. Another class of cases is that which involves the loss of human life. Such loss, of course, no money can make good.

Erroneous diagnoses, due to incompetence on the part of veterinary surgeons, may precipitate upon the community outbreaks of communicable diseases-such, for instance, foot-and-mouth disease, glanders, rabies, etc. In such cases it is now impossible to maintain a suit against an incompetent veterinary surgeon even though possessed of sufficient evidence of his incompetence. Cases, however, involving failure to diagnose glanders or rabies, both of which diseases are communicable to man, may result in the death of human beings. The same is true, of course, with reference to failure to diagnose various other diseases which are liable to affect cattle, sheep, and hogs, as through the sale of milk from diseased cattle and of meat from any of the animals mentioned, if in a diseased condition, sickness and death among human beings may occur.

There is another reason for restricting the right to practice veterinary medicine to those who are known to be qualified so to do differing somewhat from those already mentioned. In so far as the diagnoses and treatment of any injury or disease from which an animal is suffering is erroneous just so far is the suffering of that animal likely to be prolonged and its recovery or improvement possibly prevented. The exclusion, therefore, of incompetent practitioners of veterinary medicines from any jurisdiction is an essential step toward the prevention of unnecessary suffering on the part of domestic animals living therein. The enactment of suitable legislation for the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine is not only justifiable, but is imperatively required. The provisions of this bill are more or less similar to those regulating the practice of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy in this District.

In fact, the recent law regulating the practice of pharmacy recognizes a veterinary surgeon as a qualified person to prescribe a drughabit drug, and yet the laws of the District of Columbia do not recog nize veterinary surgeons or define their qualifications to practice their art, and at present the various tyro with a smattering of Latin can prescribe for whisky, cocaine, morphine, chloral, and other drug-habit drugs, subscribing himself John Doe, V. S., which means the greatly misused title "horse doctor," or veterinary surgeon.

This bill authorizes the Commissioners of the District to appoint a board of veterinary surgeons to pass upon the qualifications of wouldbe practitioners of veterinary medicine and to license such as may be found qualified. The rights of those already engaged in such practice are duly protected and provision is made for the recognition of licenses issued by State and Territorial boards of examiners in veterinary medicine. Suitable penalties are provided for the violation of the law, and, generally speaking, the bill may be said to be satisfactory.

The amendments recommended by your committee to section 8 are for the purpose of permitting any person to perform any operation

for the treatment, relief, or cure of any sick, diseased, or injured animal, and to apply any medicine or remedy; but such person not to claim to be a veterinary surgeon or to ask or to receive compensation for such service.

The proposed bill is in the interest of the public and is not designed to further in any way the interests of veterinary surgeons as a class. It acts in conjunction with the general pharmacy law, the new Federal meat-inspection laws, and the laws regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in our border States of Maryland and Virginia and 34 other States.

The following briefly explains the provisions of the various sections: Section 1 describes how the board is appointed, term of office, and penalty for neglect of duty.

Section 2 describes the election of the officers of the board, administration of oaths, the making of rules and regulations to carry into effect the provisions of this act, the keeping of official records and official register of all licenses, the time of meeting and the bonding of its officers.

Section 3 describes the qualifications necessary for an applicant to apply for license, the fee, the creation of a fund for expenses and its distribution; the method of examination.

Section 4 provides interstate reciprocity in veterinary licensure. Section 5 protects graduates already in practice and provides for their license without examination. It also provides that a nongraduate in practice five years previous to the passage of this act shall be examined without fee, and upon proof of satisfactory knowledge of veterinary medicine shall be registered and licensed as a practitioner of veterinary medicine.

Section 6 provides for an appeal from the decision of the said board. Section 7 provides for the conspicuous display of a license to practice in said District and its examination by the board of examiners at any time.

Section 8 describes who shall be regarded as practicing veterinary medicine, and provides for the treatment of an animal by its owner. Section 9 exempts veterinary surgeons in the Army or in the employ of the Agricultural Department who are graduates of veterinary colleges and regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation from other States.

Section 10 provides for the revocation of license in case of fraud or deception in passing examinations, chronic inebriety, or the conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, the method of complaint, and an appeal from the decision to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia.

Section 11 defines the limits of the fine or imprisonment for violation of the provisions of this act.

Section 12 appoints the corporation counsel or one of his assistants to prosecute all the violations of the provisions of this act.

This measure was drafted by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and introduced at their request, as will be seen by the following communication on this subject:

OFFICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, April 14, 1906.

DEAR SIR: The Commissioners have the honor to submit herewith a draft of "A bill to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in the District of Columbia" and to request its early enactment.

This bill has the indorsement of the Veterinary Association of the District of Columbia, and has been revised by the corporation counsel with respect to its form. At present the public and owners of dumb animals suffering from injury or disease in the District of Columbia have no protection from the imposition or errors of veterinary practitioners who are lacking in professional qualifications or personal reputation. The States of Maryland and Virginia have very elaborate and stringent laws on the subject, which should be supplemented by corresponding statutory regulation in this jurisdiction, as contemplated by the measure under consideration, both in the interest of the owners and for the protection of the public from contagion and out of consideration for the suffering animals which should have the most skillful treatment available.

Very respectfully,

Hon. J. H. GALLINGER,

HENRY B. F. MACARLAND,

President Board of Commissioners District of Columbia.

Chairman of Committee on District of Columbia, United States Senate.

[ocr errors]

TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT FROM WAR DEPARTMENT TO COMMISSIONERS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

JANUARY 25, 1907.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Ohio, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 7042.]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7042) to transfer jurisdiction of the Washington Aqueduct, the filtration plant, and appurtenances to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

Your committee adopts the report made in the Senate on this measure, as follows:

The bill provides that from and after July 1, 1907, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall be placed in entire control of the Washington Aqueduct, filtration plant, Conduit road, all water mains, and the water-distribution system of the District of Columbia, and that all appropriations available for the Washington Aqueduct and its appurtenances, including the filtration plant, shall be expended under the direction and control of said Commissioners, and that the employees paid from said appropriations shall be transferred to their jurisdiction for assignment to such duties as may be deemed necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act. At present there is a division of authority over the water system. The dam at Great Falls, the aqueduct and reservoir along the route, the filtration plant, and a portion of the trunk mains being under the control of the War Department, while the high-service reservoirs, the pumping stations, the greater part of the trunk mains, and all the distributing system are under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners.

The Commissioners state that considerable economy would result from their administration of the aqueduct and the filtration plant, as a number of employees now necessarily duplicated on account of the division of the work could be dropped. Your committee are strongly of opinion that the proposed transfer of jurisdiction will bring about more economical and satisfactory results than now obtain.

The bill was prepared by and introduced at the request of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, whose reasons for requesting its enactment are set forth in detail in the following letter:

OFFICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, December 6, 1906. SENATOR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to forward herewith a bill to provide for the transfer of jurisdiction over the Washington Aqueduct, the filtration plant, and appurtenances from the Chief of Engineers

of the United States Army to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and to recommend its enactment.

The transfer has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army for several years past, the time for such transfer being generally set at the date of the completion of the filtration plant. This plant is now in operation and the Chief of Engineers in his report for this year states as follows:

"In the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1896, page 436, the following statements and recommendations were made:

"Under existing laws the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, has the immediate superintendence of the Washington Aqueduct and of everything connected with the same belonging to the United States. (Sec. 1800, Rev. Stats.) His authority is required to tap all water pipes laid by the United States. (Sec. 1803, Rev. Stats.) He is in no way responsible to the authorities of the District of Columbia, though the estimates relating to the maintenance and operation of the aqueduct are required by law to be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Commissioners of the District. The responsibility for the care, storage, and distribution of the water supply of the District lies severally upon the Chief of Engineers and the District Commissioners. It would seem proper that all the responsibility of operating the complete system of water supply should rest with the officials of the District alone, and that when the work of constructing additional parts of the system is assigned to the Chief of Engineers, under the War Department, the additional structure, when completed, should be turned over to the District authorities to operate.

"The modifications of sections 1800, 1803, and 1810 of the Revised Statutes, in accordance with the above views, and the extension of the authority of the Commissioners of the District over all completed structures pertaining to the water supply, whether within or without the limits of the District, are recommended.'

"The conditions which then seemed to make it advisable to terminate the dual responsibility for the water supply of the District exist to-day, and the recommendation is renewed. The completion of the filtration plant will give an added reason for the transfer, as its maintenance and operation are even more inmately connected with the distribution system than is the aqueduct itself."

At present the dam at Great Falls, the aqueduct and reservoir along the route, the filtration plant, and a portion of the trunk mains are under the control of the War Department, and the high-service reservoirs, the pumping station, the greater part of the trunk mains, and all the distributing system are under the Commissioners.

Some of the trunk mains in the city of Washington were originally laid by the United States, under the control of the War Department, to supply the Government buildings, and others were laid by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia for the service of consumers in the city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Recently all supply mains have been laid by the District of Columbia and increased pressure has been given by pumping, so that practically no water is supplied to Government buildings which does not pass through mains controlled by the District, and usually back and forth from these mains through mains under the jurisdiction of the War Department. For example, the water supply to Capitol Hill goes through a United States Government main 600 feet and then through the pumping station of the District of Columbia, thence passing through 14,000 feet of water main of the District of Columbia, and afterwards through 3,500 feet of main under the jurisdiction of the War Department and 5,000 feet of main of the District of Columbia.

In some cases mains under different control lie side by side or cross each other, and the danger of accidents and the difficulties of location of injury and of repair are much increased and the responsibility as to proper condition is divided. The expense of repair is also increased, as both the United States Government and the District of Columbia have to keep on hand material, wagons, and men for the purpose.

This part of the situation was so unsatisfactory that, two or three years ago, at the request of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, the Commissioners assumed temporary charge of these mains, awaiting the authority asked for in this legislation. This can be but temporary, because without such authority the Commissioners have no right to assume permanent control of the mains.

Considerable economy would result in the administration of the aqueduct and filtration plant, as a number of employees now necessarily duplicated on account of the division of the work could be dropped, as can be seen by an inspection of the pay rolls.

The Conduit road, running from Great Falls to the city, is now placed by law under the control of the War Department, and by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioners over this road they are unable to light it, to lay sidewalks, service mains, and service sewers without special authorization from Congress. They are at present only authorized to carry on such improvement on highways under

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »