THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1882. THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2465, 1 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1882. THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

"We have now before us Dr. Doyle's reasons for desiring an alteration in the system of the sanitary government of the city by revoking the powers granted fey the Board of Health to the City Council. The statement of Dr. Doyle is lengthy, bat it contains little or nothing which is entitled to consideration as reason for altering the present system. He admits that the City Council are perfectly willing and capable to carry out sanitary measures in the city. No complaint is made of misgovernment on which to ground the motion; on the contrary, Dr. Doyle himself deprecates any statement to that effect. What reason then does Dr. Doyle allege for wishing to upset an arrangement come to after a deal of consideration and very many conferences between the two bodies interested ? We confess we fail, after carefully reading his statement, to find one tangible point in it on which Dr. Doyle can hope to induce the Board to agree with his motion. The idea that because certain members on the Board of Health are elected by different portions of the city they should consider their powers and exertions limited to the special area they represent is rather absurd. Yet this is the key-note of Dr. Doyle's complaints. He asserts that they being city members, and having no control over sanitary matters in the city, must therefore sit at the Board in the capacity of dummies. We are certainly astonished to find Dr. Doyle advocating such a narrow-minded policy as this. If such a state of things were to obtain, we should have the Board of Health split up into sections, each profoundly indifferent as to sanitary matters in any part of the district except the small portion an individual member might happen to represent. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile this extreme of divided authority and action with Dr. Doyle's aspirations for unity of purpose. No one can for a moment think that in matters of health a boundary line is to have any weight. The members are retained by districts merely for convenience, but not as mere nominees of any particular section. They represent the whole district, and the health and sanitary government of it as a whole is under their control. Therefore it is that no weight whatever can be attached to the argument on which Dr. Doyle has laid such stress. Then we are met by the fact that there is nothing whatever left of Dr. Doyle's arguments. Take away the fallacious one of the narrowing down of the powers given to members to mere delegation, and the whole fabric falls. Besides Dr. Doyle knew, or should have known, before he came forward exactly the position of affairs. The transference of the powers to the City Council formed the subject of public comment for some considerable time, and the whole bearing of the question on both sides was amply discussed. Why then, holding the opinions he now says he does on the subject, did not Dr. Doyle refuse to be placed in the anomalous position in which he now finds himself ? Surely that would have been the wisest course under the circumstances, rather than seeking to alter a system established after much discussion, without the show of a reason for so doing. We are sorry Dr. Doyle has taken the line la has done, more particularly with regard to his personal efforts as a member of the Board. Ho states in his speech that he " came forward to aid by his knowledge in health matters, but he found that the representatives of the city had no power." This statement seems to us to have been made under a total misapprehension of the circumstances, and it is a matter for regret that a gentleman of such experience as Dr. Doyle, who could be of the utmost use to the citizens should cripple his power for good by holding such extremely antiquated and narrow views. We supported Dr. Doyle's canci. dature, an the very ground that his presence on the Board would be of infinite service in dealing with sanitary matters. Drainage, he himself confesses, is not his forte, but iu suggesting measures for the preservation of the public health his advice and assistance would be invaluable. ~W&

hope that, after calm consideration, Dr. Doyle will give up his Quixotic crusade against the City Council and settle down to work. There is not the remotest •hance of his succeeding in revoking the powers granted to the City Council, and, even supposing he did, we very much question whether the health of the public •would he as well conserved as it is now. If Dr. Doyle will abandon this notion, together with that moat absurd idea that he merely represents the comparatively small section of the city which returned him, he will be able to do the public, as a whole, good service. If not, and he persists in his motion, he is sure to be defeated. Having had his say, the most graceful thing to do would be to drop the motion altogether.