|
EmilyProject 9 - 14 Jan 2010 - Main.EmilyByrne
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Progress update: Still very much under construction, but taking shape. | | | Outline
I'm looking at quarantine laws between roughly 1870 and 1920, to see how the States and federal government worked together.
There's a few reasons I chose this era: it spans a few epidemics (principally yellow fever), and the unsuccessful creation of a federal body (the National Board of Health) to regulate quarantine uniformly in cases where States failed. But in the end (around 1883, an unconfirmed source reports: link) the Board failed. I'm curious why it failed. | |
<
< | My time frame ends with the creation of the first successful federal quarantine laws. Also, the Australian constitution was drafted in that time (coming into effect in 1901). While the Australian drafters copied whole slabs of the US Constitution (sometimes without thinking it through very carefully) one of the specific heads of power they gave to the Australian federal government that is not present in the US Constitution was the power to regulate quarantine. I was curious to see if there was any connection to what had happened in the US and what the Australian drafters did. | >
> | My time frame ends with the creation of the first successful federal quarantine laws. | | | | |
<
< | So I went and consulted Quick and Garran, which is a commentary on the Australian Constitution written in 1901 containing background of the convention debates section by section. I found and scanned the relevant pages in the Butler library, and then realized it was on Google books. So I've attached both
links. (the second is in the table below)
 | | | | |
<
< | The answer in brief to my first question appears to be no, the Australian drafters looked more to the example of Canada rather than the US when considering quarantine powers. But they did look at some US caselaw, which I'll be looking at next. | | | | |
<
< | Parallel to this research, I've made a trip out to the very helpful Columbia medical campus research library, to get a contextual look at what people thought about appropriate quarantine measures at the time. The friendly research librarians showed me a book on the Early History of Quarantine by the Assistant Surgeon General John Macauley Eager. (Again, after looking at the hardcopy, it's on Google books so I've attached that link.)
The book as a whole is very interesting, but sadly not quite what I was looking for (I was hoping for some kind of primary source hook). In fact, the author states on page 26 'Without touching on the history of quarantine in America, which is another and interesting story, it is profitable to take another view of the further history of quarantine in Europe.' So I'm still looking for some secondary source segues into the extensive (and electronic) primary source records in Butler, but won't delay too much longer looking for one. | >
> | Background: Disease and Quarantine in the Late 19th Century
The 19th Century overall brought with it groundbreaking advances in medical science. Pasteur's initially radical germ theory appeared to be largely accepted in the medical and public health literature by the timeframe in this project. | | | | |
<
< | _Louisiana v Texas_ 176 US 1 (1900) held that there was no interstate federal jurisdiction merely because the quarantine actions of one state (Texas) hurt those of another (Louisiana). The facts of the case concerned the Texan embargo on interstate trade during the yellow fever outbreak in 1899. The Supreme Court point-blank refused to get involved. | >
> | Quarantine measures, a very old disease prevention technology, were being updated to reflect new understandings of the mechanics of infection. | | | | |
>
> | Until the work done by Walter Reed to confirm the transmission of yellow fever by mosquitoes in 1900, the disease was assumed to be transferred either from direct contact with infected people, or to be airborne. This pamphlet in 1879 favors the latter theory, recommending quarantine measures for ships based on the new science of thermodynamics.Yellow Fever, A Nautical Disease, Its Origin and Prevention (1879) | | | | |
<
< | Important Acts: | | | | |
>
> | Some of my sources indicate a welcoming attitude to State regulation. An example is Henry I. Bowdich, Public Hygiene in America: Being the Centennial Discourse Delivered Before the International Medical Congress, Philadelphia, September 1876 p 2. His address opined:
Only the State with its great resources, with a large corps of able and earnest agents occupied in the observation of the rise and progress of disease, and in the analysis of such observations for many generations, can hope to unravel even a few of the many mysterious causes of the diseases of any nation, especially of one covering so large a proportion of the earth’s surface as the United States.
The rise and fall of the National Board of Health
Both Links in table below. | | | 1) "An act to prevent the introduction of infectious or contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a national board of health" 45th Congress, Session III, 1879 20 Stat 484. | |
>
> | | | | 2) "An act granting additional quarantine powers and imposing additional duties upon the Marine Hospital Service" 27 Stat 449 Ch 114, 52nd Congress, approved February 15 1893. Section 9 of this Act repeals the 1879 act above.
-- EmilyByrne - 13 Nov 2009 | | | -- EmilyByrne - 13 Nov 2009 | |
>
> | Court Response | | | | |
>
> | Louisiana v Texas 176 US 1 (1900) held that there was no interstate federal jurisdiction merely because the quarantine actions of one state (Texas) hurt those of another (Louisiana). The facts of the case concerned the Texan embargo on interstate trade during the yellow fever outbreak in 1899. The Supreme Court point-blank refused to get involved. | | | | |
<
< | Help Request: does anyone know a good way to find early acts of Congress? I have them in hardcopy, and am trying to find them in a public source electronic form. | | | | |
<
< | Update: Acts uploaded from hardcopy, thanks to the Law Library's shiny new scanner. | >
> | The enaction of federal quarantine laws
Conclusions
Odds and (dead) ends
Assistant Surgeon General John Macauley Eager. (Again, after looking at the hardcopy, it's on Google books so I've attached that link.)
The book as a whole is very interesting, but sadly not quite what I was looking for (I was hoping for some kind of primary source hook). In fact, the author states on page 26 'Without touching on the history of quarantine in America, which is another and interesting story, it is profitable to take another view of the further history of quarantine in Europe.'
The Australian constitution was drafted in the era under examination in this project (coming into effect in 1901).While the Australian drafters copied whole slabs of the US Constitution (sometimes without thinking it through very carefully) one of the specific heads of power they gave to the Australian federal government that is not present in the US Constitution was the power to regulate quarantine (s 51(ix)). link to pdf. I had speculated that there might have been some connection. However, Quick and Garran, which is a commentary on the Australian Constitution written in 1901 containing background of the convention debates section by section, does not give more emphasis to the U.S. examples than those in Candada or Great Britain. links. (A link with the specific page references appears in the table below)
Help Request: does anyone know a good way to find early acts of Congress? I have them in hardcopy, and am trying to find them in a public source electronic form. | | | | |
<
< | Progress note: I have a big paper due on Jan 11th, so will be only around sporadically before then, but will be working intensively thereafter. | | | -- EmilyByrne - 4 Jan 2010 |
|
|
EmilyProject 8 - 04 Jan 2010 - Main.EmilyByrne
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Outline | | | Help Request: does anyone know a good way to find early acts of Congress? I have them in hardcopy, and am trying to find them in a public source electronic form. | |
<
< | -- EmilyByrne - 13 Nov 2009 | >
> | Update: Acts uploaded from hardcopy, thanks to the Law Library's shiny new scanner.
Progress note: I have a big paper due on Jan 11th, so will be only around sporadically before then, but will be working intensively thereafter.
-- EmilyByrne - 4 Jan 2010 | | | Hi Emily! I tried to add a comment in the 'comment' box but it didn't show up anywhere on the page afterwards, so I've resorted to just editing your page directly - I hope that's okay. Anyway, I'm not sure whether this is the type of thing you're looking for with regard to early acts of Congress, but it might be useful as a primary source database in any case: | | |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Quick_and_Garran.pdf" attr="" comment="Quick, John & Garran, Robert (1901) The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth Sydney: Angus & Robertson." date="1257459533" name="Quick_and_Garran.pdf" path="Quick and Garran.pdf" size="597079" stream="Quick and Garran.pdf" user="Main.EmilyByrne" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf" attr="" comment="" date="1257460186" name="The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf" path="The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf" size="1055745" stream="The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf" user="Main.EmilyByrne" version="1" |
|---|
| |
>
> |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Forty_fifth_congress_Ch_202_1879_Establishing_National_Board_of_Health.pdf" attr="" comment="The principal 1879 Act" date="1262566994" name="Forty_fifth_congress_Ch_202_1879_Establishing_National_Board_of_Health.pdf" path="Forty fifth congress Ch 202 1879 Establishing National Board of Health.pdf" size="506682" stream="Forty fifth congress Ch 202 1879 Establishing National Board of Health.pdf" user="Main.EmilyByrne" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Fifty_second_congress_Chap_114_1893_An_Act_granting_additional_quarantine_powers.pdf" attr="" comment="Principal 1893 Act" date="1262567070" name="Fifty_second_congress_Chap_114_1893_An_Act_granting_additional_quarantine_powers.pdf" path="Fifty second congress Chap 114 1893 An Act granting additional quarantine powers.pdf" size="1928337" stream="Fifty second congress Chap 114 1893 An Act granting additional quarantine powers.pdf" user="Main.EmilyByrne" version="1" |
|---|
|
|
|
EmilyProject 7 - 15 Dec 2009 - Main.EmilyByrne
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Outline
I'm looking at quarantine laws between roughly 1870 and 1920, to see how the States and federal government worked together. | |
<
< | There's a few reasons I chose this era: it spans a few epidemics (principally yellow fever), and the unsuccessful creation of a federal body (the National Board of Health) to regulate quarantine uniformly in cases where States failed. But in the end (around 1883, an unconfirmed source reports: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html) the Board failed. I'm curious why it failed. | >
> | There's a few reasons I chose this era: it spans a few epidemics (principally yellow fever), and the unsuccessful creation of a federal body (the National Board of Health) to regulate quarantine uniformly in cases where States failed. But in the end (around 1883, an unconfirmed source reports: link) the Board failed. I'm curious why it failed. | | | My time frame ends with the creation of the first successful federal quarantine laws. Also, the Australian constitution was drafted in that time (coming into effect in 1901). While the Australian drafters copied whole slabs of the US Constitution (sometimes without thinking it through very carefully) one of the specific heads of power they gave to the Australian federal government that is not present in the US Constitution was the power to regulate quarantine. I was curious to see if there was any connection to what had happened in the US and what the Australian drafters did. | |
<
< | So I went and consulted Quick and Garran, which is a commentary on the Australian Constitution written in 1901 containing background of the convention debates section by section. I found and scanned the relevant pages in the Butler library, and then realized it was on Google books. So I've attached both links.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VR-CAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=quick+and+garran#v=onepage&q=&f=false | >
> | So I went and consulted Quick and Garran, which is a commentary on the Australian Constitution written in 1901 containing background of the convention debates section by section. I found and scanned the relevant pages in the Butler library, and then realized it was on Google books. So I've attached both
links. (the second is in the table below) | | |
The answer in brief to my first question appears to be no, the Australian drafters looked more to the example of Canada rather than the US when considering quarantine powers. But they did look at some US caselaw, which I'll be looking at next. | | | Parallel to this research, I've made a trip out to the very helpful Columbia medical campus research library, to get a contextual look at what people thought about appropriate quarantine measures at the time. The friendly research librarians showed me a book on the Early History of Quarantine by the Assistant Surgeon General John Macauley Eager. (Again, after looking at the hardcopy, it's on Google books so I've attached that link.)
The book as a whole is very interesting, but sadly not quite what I was looking for (I was hoping for some kind of primary source hook). In fact, the author states on page 26 'Without touching on the history of quarantine in America, which is another and interesting story, it is profitable to take another view of the further history of quarantine in Europe.' So I'm still looking for some secondary source segues into the extensive (and electronic) primary source records in Butler, but won't delay too much longer looking for one. | |
<
< | Louisiana v Texas 176 US 1 (1900) held that there was no interstate federal jurisdiction merely because the quarantine actions of one state (Texas) hurt those of another (Louisiana). The facts of the case concerned the Texan embargo on interstate trade during the yellow fever outbreak in 1899. The Supreme Court point-blank refused to get involved: http://supreme.justia.com/us/176/1/case.html | >
> | _Louisiana v Texas_ 176 US 1 (1900) held that there was no interstate federal jurisdiction merely because the quarantine actions of one state (Texas) hurt those of another (Louisiana). The facts of the case concerned the Texan embargo on interstate trade during the yellow fever outbreak in 1899. The Supreme Court point-blank refused to get involved. | | |
Important Acts: |
|
|
EmilyProject 6 - 14 Dec 2009 - Main.EmilyByrne
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Outline | | |
-- AndrewKerr - 05 Dec 2009 | |
>
> |
Thanks Angela! That's very close to what I was looking for, only just for a slightly later date range to cover the 1890s. But I think your link will be very helpful regardless.
And thanks Andrew! I hadn't even begun to think about the role race and immigration concerns would play into this, except at a really general level. And the article is really interesting.
Emily
-- EmilyByrne - 14 Dec 2009 | | |
- Quick_and_Garran.pdf: Quick, John & Garran, Robert (1901) The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth Sydney: Angus & Robertson.
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|