« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
the retent was held to guarantee repairs and maintenance. Previous to the passage of the act a retent of 10 per cent of the amount of each contract was held generally on all construction contracts as a guarantee fund to keep the work in repair.
The Commissioners, believing that this period was excessive in the case of contracts for bridges, sewers, buildings, etc., recommended a change in the law by which the retent on contracts for pavements should be held for five years, and on bridges and sewers for one year from the date of the completion of the contract, and on contracts for buildings and other contracts for construction work only until the completion of the work.
The intention of the Commissioners, as stated in their letter recommending the bill, was to save the extra cost of work which was involved in withholding a portion of the contract price for this long period of years when there was no necessity for the same, and it was their intention that the law should operate only from the date of the passage of the act. The bill as drafted by them, however, was amended by Congress so as to provide that the act should cover and comprehend all contracts for the construction of bridges and sewers which were completed by contractors according to their contracts and accepted by the Board of Commissioners at the date of the passage of the act.
The law, however, failed to provide for contracts which were pending at the date of the passage
the act and not completed, and as a consequence the bill worked inequitably against certain contractors who had not finished their work at the date of the passage of the act, but who were carrying on work at that date.
The present bill is to amend the law so as to allow such contractors who have since completed their contracts to share in the provisions of the act, and the purpose of the bill seems to the Commissioners to be equitable and just. The Cominissioners therefore recommend the passage of the bill. Very respectfully,
HENRY B. F. MACFARLAND,
President Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia Hon. J. W. BaBCOCK,
Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia.
REGISTRATION OF NURSES, ETC., IN THE DISTRICT OF
JANUARY 25, 1907.-Referred to the Hones Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Ohio, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,
submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 12690.]
The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 12690) to define the term of “registered nurse” and to provide for the registration of nurses in the District of Columbia, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass, when amended as follows:
Page 4, line 3, insert after the word "aet" the following: or shall have graduated from any training school in the District of Columbia within the five years immediately preceding the passage of this act.
The development of the art of nursing and the greatly increased number of training schools for nurses in the past ten or tifteen years have made necessary some definite amount of education which all such schools shall furnish to their pupils, in order to properly equip them for the important and responsible situations in which they tind themselves. An analogous state of affairs existed before the passage of acts in various States licensing physicians and surgeons, some medical schools requiring only one year of preparation for the diploma enabling a man to practice medicine, other schools requiring as many as three.
The passage of an act in April, 1903, in the State of New York. providing for the registration of nurses, and incidentally of training schools (New York being the second State to pass such an act), has already bad a definite and decided effect by requiring training schools to furnish a prescribed minimum amount of practical and theoretical training in order to obtain registration in that State. This is clearly shown by the annual reports of the nurses' examining board and of the board of regents.
The existence of various correspondence schools of nursing giving diplomas as valuable to the uninitiated public as any from the best training schools of the country, constitute a menace to the public interests, which the fixing of a definite standard by the State will go far to obviate.
The passage of similar bills in 12 States in the past three years makes it necessary to protect the District of Columbia from becoming the refuge of all those who are debarred from obtaining the stamp of the State's approval, and who will naturally drift to the places where no such standard exists.
The following briefly explains the provisions of the various sections: Section 1 protects the title “Registered nurse.
Section 2 provides for the appointment of a nurses' examining board by the Commissioners, and removal for just cause.
Section 3 provides for organization of said board, for keeping record of meetings and a register of nurses duly registered under the act, and for furnishing certiticates to said nurses, also for notice in public print of examinations thirty days in advance.
Section 4 fixes the registration fee and qualifications necessary to secure registration and provides also for the registration of training schools according to standards to be determined by the nurses' examining board.
Section 5 provides for registration without examination under certain specified conditions.
Section 6 provides for the revocation and cancellation of a certificate, if such be found to have been fraudulently obtained, or any holder of a certificate be found to be guilty of any immoral or criminal act, after thirty days' notice of charges, and a full and fair hearing before the whole nurses' examining board.
Section 7 provides for expenditure of fees and payment of nurses' board.
Section 8 fixes a punishment for violation of any of the provisions of this act.
Section 9 provides for reciprocity with other States and Territories maintaining equally high standards.
Section 10 provides that nothing in this act shall prevent any person from nursing either gratuitously or for hire, nor shall this act permit anyone to violate any provision of the act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery, to license physicians and surgeons, and to punish persons violating the provisions thereof," approved June 3, 1896.
Section 11 makes the act to include both men and women who may engage in nursing.
The proposed legislation does not prohibit the practice as a nurse by anyone for compensation in the District, whether they may have had preparation along these lines by attendance at a school of training or not, but prohilsits such persons from claiming to be “registered nurses,” and protects the public from imposition, as only those who have complied with the provisions of the bill will be permitted to designate themselves as registered nurses."
Your committee believes that this legislation, which is in the interest of the public as well as those nurses who have prepared themselves for their duties by a course of training, should be enacted into law.
59TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPORT 2d Session.
RECOPYING OLD RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF DEEDS.
JANUARY 25, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Ohio, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,
submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 22350.]
The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 22350) to authorize the recorder of deeds of the District of Columbia to recopy old records in his office, and for other purposes, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass when amended as follows:
Strike out all of section 2. The bill as introduced involved two propositions relating to the office of the recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia; the first, to authorize the recorder to recopy certain old records, and the second, to authorize the appointment of an additional clerk in his office.
Your committee has provided for the additional clerk in another bill, since by its terms it becomes an amendment to an existing section to the Code of Law for the District of Columbia.
Your committee believes, in view of the reasons advanced by the recorder of deeds in his following report on this bill, that there is urgent necessity for the recopying of certain of the records, some of which have been in constant use for more than one hundred years. Many of these volumes have been rebound and repaired time and again, but the pages upon which the records are spread have become worn and damaged, so that it is almost impossible to handle them.
The office of the recorder of deeds is self sustaining, paying every item of its expense and turning into the District treasury the excess of fees over expenses, which amounted last year to something over $8,000, and which excess the recorder believes during the present year will total over $10,000.
The purpose of the legislation herewith reported is to authorize the recorder to have recopied certain of these worn records, the expense of which is not to exceed $1,000 in any one year, and the recopying is to be subject to the approval of the supreme court of the District of Columbia. This will not involve any expense either to the District or to the United States Government, as it will be paid for out of the fees of the office.
The recorder's letter is as follows:
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS,
Washington, D. C., December 18, 1906. DEAR SIR : Replying to your request for a report on House bill 22350, to authorize the recorder of deeds of the District of Columbia to recopy old records in his office, and for other purposes, I have the honor to report as follows:
First. Section 1 of the proposed bill authorizes and directs the recorder to recopy such of the old records in his office as may, in his judgment and that of the supreme court of the District of Columbia or one of its justices appointed for that purpose, need recopying in order to preserve the originals from destruction. The records of this office extend back to 1792, the title to every parcel of real estate in this District, possessed by private citizens or by the Government of the United States or the District of Columbia, depending upon the preservation of these records. Having been in practically constant use for 114 years, handled through examination almost daily during that time, these record books have necessarily been so worn and otherwise damaged that time and time again it has been necessary for the office to hare them re-covered, rebound, and otherwise repaired. But so oiten have they been so repaired that it is, as to many of them, seriously doubted whether they can be successfully again repaired. Therefore I earnestly recommend and urge such legislative author ity as will permit the office from time to time to have these old records recopied, so that the originals may be retired, as it were, from active service, and examiners restricted as far as possible to the examination of the copies. Of course it may happen that later or even current records may some time need recopying in order to preserve them, and I therefore respectfully recommend that the bill in question be amended by your honorable committee so as to provide the recorder with authority to recopy any of the records of his oflice as may, in his judgment and that of the District supreme court, need recopying.
That your honorable committee may, from personal observation, see the pressing necessity of taking the course recommended for the preservation of the old records, I would be pleased to send some of them to the committee for their inspection.
Second. The second section of the bill under discussion proposes to authorize the recorder of deeds to appoint a cashier for his office, the salary of this desired employee being omitted, though I would respectfully suggest that an annual salary of $1,600 would not be extravagant. That matter, however, I feel should be left to the judgment of your honorable committee. Five years ago, during the year ended December 31, 1901, there were filed for record in the office 15,279 papers, exclusive of incorporations, while during the present calendar year my deputy estimates the number will reach, if not exceed, 21,350-an increase in five years of more than 6,000 papers. This increase, I am glad to be able to report, has been a steady, healthy one, evidencing a like steady, bealthy growth in the real estate business of the District. This growth, there is every reason to believe, will continue, and it will mean, as it has developed, á like increase in the business of the recorder's office. Indeed, this increase has, during the past year or two, so increased the work of the office that it has been necessary to employ additional help every month to assist the comparer of the office. Unlike the register of wills, however, the recorder of deeds is not author. ized to fix the number of his employees, and so can not increase his clerical force as the business of his office increases.
This office is, as you doubtlessly well know, a self-supporting one, paying out of its fees and emoluments every item of expense, including salaries, and depositing in the United States Treasury at the end of each fiscal year its unexpended balance. This balance is placed to the credit of the District of Columbia, forming one of its sources of revenue. With the increase of business during the past five years there has been a corresponding increase in the balances turned into the Treasury. For instance, at the close of the fiscal year of 1901 the balance turned into the Treasury was $191.98; 1902, $774.91; 1903, $1,053.81; 1904, $3,037.64; 1905, $6,184.90, and 1906, $8,615.03, while that for the current fiscal year will, if the present rate of increase is maintained, be about $10,000. The balance turned into the Treasury last July was the largest in the history of the office, and I most respectfully submit that an office which has in five years increased its unexpended balance not two-fold, or three-fold, but made it more than forty-five times larger, is justly entitled to the additional employee the bill under discussion proproses to provide.