This is superb work, Emily, achieving all that can be hoped, except brevity. This article conveys what can be known, attached to the references necessary to form an opinion, along with some interpretive opinions judiciously formed. Thank you for the intelligence and commitment with which you pursued both your own research and the task of making it useful to others.

As discussed above, the Act creating the Board expired on June 2, 1883. There was clearly some movement to continue the Board with expanded powers, given its positive early activities (reference link). In 1883 there was a Bill drafted to expand the Board's powers and repeal the sunset clause, but it was never passed (the full text of the Bill can be found in the Board's annual report for 1884, at p 16). Instead of passing this Bill, Congress chose to pass diminishing appropriations, with the result that the 1884 and 1885 Board annual reports devote a large amount of time lamenting the activities the Board had been forced to curtail due to lack of funding. Eventually no more Congressional funding was forthcoming, and the Board ceased all activities. Its final meeting was in November 1884, and final annual report was for 1885.

• Annual_report_1883_appendicies_not_included_2.pdf: Annual report for 1883 (full version)

Board de-funding, and decline

Table of quarantine Acts

Background: disease and quarantine in the late 19th century

Early moves to create a National Board of Health

Perhaps better evidence of entrenched interests is demonstrated by the careful crafting of the Board's initial functions, which, as I have argued above, reveals a keen attention to the State/Federal balance. Additionally, the report recommending the repeal of the Board's sunset clause is clearly drafted with a mind to alleviate concerns about Congressional power under the commerce clause (link, see eg pp 4,5). Note that the 1884 report of the Board makes it clear that the prevailing constitutional interpretation was that Congress did not have the power to authorize a national compliance certificate that, once obtained, would guarantee a vessel entry into any State. Instead, State police powers were considered to trump a federal quarantine certification.

In 1882, some petitioners in New York and Massachusetts were anxious enough about protecting State interests in health that they petitioned the Senate to prevent the Board gaining 'vice' powers (link). The official reply was that the Board's powers were very narrow, but it is clear from the Board's annual reports that it undertook investigations into matters such as livestock health and sewers, as well as its more publicized work on cholera, smallpox and yellow fever quarantine measures.

The annual reports, however, also reveal instances of close and mutually beneficial cooperation with numerous State Boards of Health, and demonstrate a genuine-seeming interest in strengthening State sanitary legal infrastructure (for example, State legislation). I think the better view is that State resistance to the National Board's efforts probably did not originate specifically in the State Boards of Health, but was a reflection of more general attitudes and trends. There is also some evidence of some State-level authorities preferring their autochthonuos regulatory infrastructure and quarantine procedures: see eg The Daily Picayune, New Orleans Louisiana, p 4 1-17-1884 'The Defunct National Board of Health'.

Overall, I think the federalist analysis is the best lens through which to analyze the decline of the Board. In 1893 the centralizing forces, which had peaked in response to the chaos of the 1879 yellow fever epidemic, were outweighed by the interests of local and regional autonomy. In the slightly longer term, however, countervailing forces meant that many of the National Board's core functions were returned to a national level after its demise.

• letter_from_the_Board_requesting_Navy_refrigeration_vessels_for_combating_yellow_fever.pdf: letter from the Board requesting navy refrigeration vessels for combating yellow fever

• opinion_politics.pdf: Public Ledger, Philadelphia 10-18-1873 Op ed piece on National Board Vol LXXVI, issue 22, p 1.

• National_Board_in_Virginia_Article.pdf: Galveston News, Galveston Texas, 11-25-1878 Article on the National Board of Health

• Ohio_fail.pdf: The Cincinnati Commercial, 02-08-1879 Vol XXXIX Issue 149 p 3

• The_defunct_national_board_of_health.pdf: The Daily Picayune, New Orleans Louisiana, p 4 1-17-1884 'The Defunct National Board of Health'

If you have time on your hands, help me out with some research tips for students doing this kind of work in the future?: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/AmLegalHist/ResearchHelp

The Board initially came into existence through an Act in 1879 with a sunset clause to expire in 1883. It came close to being revived by repeal of this sunset clause in early 1883, due to its excellent performance. But it was not ultimately revived.

The literature around this time reflects great hope for rapid scientific advancement in many areas including disease origins and nature. There were hot debates both about the validity of new discoveries, and how these could best be translated into frameworks for prevention and remedy. A broad movement for public health had begun in Great Britain around the 1850s, and was slowly taking off in America, with interest turning to sewers and school hygiene. Later within in my chosen time period, the introduction of publicly provided childhood vaccinations began.

It should be remembered that each change in regulations could have significant commercial impact. For instance, a cholera-affected vessel that under new regulations did not have to destroy its cargo of hides or cotton or wool or food would face significantly different profit margins to one operating under older rules. The potential benefits to both lives and commercial enterprise strongly favored the constant change of processes to reflect advances in scientific and medical knowledge.

An even more important historical lesson from studying the Board, however, is its function signaling a national commitment to both preventative medicine and medical research. In a short span of years, both would take root in America on a scale to match even the optimistic predictions of the people involved in the Board's administration. Moreover the National Board of Health, even during the twilight of its chronically underfunded life, was instrumental in sparking and encouraging a layered regulatory commitment to public health measures. Its efforts and the ripple effects of these efforts undoubtedly saved many thousands of lives, and improved sanitary conditions for most Americans far beyond the levels they had been at when the Board came into existence. The many advocates of the National Board of Health and its work may have lost a battle for its renewal in 1893, but they went on to secure many far more significant victories in the war for the health of Americans.

Another national form of the yellow fever response was the creation of the National Board of Health. A nationally co-ordinated solution (although in the form of a national Sanitary Commission rather than a Board per se) was recommended to Congress by the Commission set up to investigate yellow fever:

After the Board

The 1878 yellow fever epidemic and its aftermath

De-funding, and motives

Potentially, the change to a Democratic President in 1885 was part of the ultimate collapse of appropriations for the Board. There is some evidence that the Board of Health in its early days was supported by business interests:

'The great transportation companies of the South, both river and rail, are unanimous in their approval of the action and method of the Board [in the 1879 yellow fever epidemic], because experience has shown that they give the necessary security against the spread of disease, without stopping, or retarding to any considerable extent, commercial intercourse' (link)

Another possibility is that of military views of health management clashing with civilian ones. One of the more expensive projects of the National Board of Health was the creation of the Ship Island quarantine station. A report for the Bill dismantling this station reveals that the United States Marine Hospital Service opposed this station from the outset (link and compare the report establishing the station). If construed along these lines, it is possibly significant that the 1893 Act, some time after the Board had been in practice abolished, vested its powers in the Marine Hospital Service(link), a strategy not favored by the American Public Health Organization (link). Against this reading is the presence of Army, Navy and Marine Hospital Officers on the Board, although they would not have been a majority.

Links to uploaded sources (others hyperlinked in text above)

• Additional_Powers_1882.pdf: Additional powers refused 1882

State Boards of Health and the National Board's operation

The yellow fever epidemic and its aftermath

The public, we may almost now say national health, is too vast and important a concern to be entrusted to inefficient boards of health and spasmodic Congressional legislation (Report to Congress in the wake of the 1878 yellow fever epidemic from the Commission as to the Causes and Prevention of Yellow Fever. Link here.)

State models and the Board's operation

Funding

Motives

Situation after the Board

Court Response

Acts

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. Although I scanned this in, google books has a publication called the Sanitarian from 1894 that is clearer, and contains the bill text at page 230.

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.

This attitude extended into the 1880s. Here is an address from the Army Surgeon John S Billings, President of the Sanitarian Until quite recently, very little has been done in this country towards increasing our knowledge of the causes of diseases by observation and experimentation towards that end … We have not had the statistical data, such as the registration system of Great Britain provides, nor the laboratories for experimentation in comparative physiology and pathology such as are to be found in Germany, nor the trained statisticians and scientific observers who could make proper use of these things if we had them. All these, however, will come; some of them are now here. For the most part they can only be provided by governments, their cost and the length of time required to produce really valuable results, placing them beyond the reach of individual effort.

Timeline with linked sources

• Annual_Report_1882_appendices_not_included.pdf: Annual report for 1882

• Expenditures_1881-2.pdf: Expenditures report 1881-2

• Message_from_the_President_1882.pdf: Message from the President 1882

• Report_for_1882_Bill.pdf: Report for 1882 Bill

• Pushback_on_Bill.pdf: Pushback on Bill

• Immigrant_Inspections_1882.pdf: Immigrant Inspections 1882

• Repeal_of_sunset_clause_extension_of_Board_1882.pdf: Repeal of sunset clause 1883

• Annual_Report_1883_appendices_not_included.pdf: Annual report for 1883

• Expenditures_1883-4.pdf: Expenditures report 1883-4

• Appropriation_1884.pdf: Appropriation 1884

• Annual_Report_1884.pdf: Annual report for 1884

• Report_of_the_Commerce_Committee_1886.pdf: Report of the Commerce Committee 1886

• Letter_fiscal_deficit_1887.pdf: Letter fiscal deficit 1887

• Removal_of_Ship_Is_Quarantine_Station_1887.pdf: Removal of Ship Island Quarantine Station 1887

• Creation_of_Department_of_Public_Health_1898.pdf: Creation of Department of Public Health

• Fifty_second_congress_Chap_114_1893_An_Act_granting_additional_quarantine_powers.pdf: Principal 1893 Act

• Forty_fifth_congress_Ch_202_1879_Establishing_National_Board_of_Health.pdf: The principal 1879 Act

• Annual_Report_1879_-Appendicies_not_included.pdf: The first annual report for the National Board of Health

• Report_on_expenditures_1880_-_1881.pdf: Report on expenditures 1880-1881

• Report_on_expenditures_1880_-_1881.pdf: Annual report for 1880

• Report_on_establising_a_Texas_Quarantine_Station_1882.pdf: Congressional report on establishing a quarantine station in Texas

• National_Board_of_Health_letter_expenses_1886.pdf: Letter dated 1886 concerning expenses of the National Board of Health

• Letter_1884.pdf: Letter concerning the functions of the National Board of Health 1884

The report notes that 32 of the States had, in 1885, boards of health or 'other forms of sanitary organization charged with the duty of devising and enforcing such measures as may serve to promote the well-being of the people'

OK, this is strange. Here is an annual report from the National Board of Health for 1885, when it had not yet been established by the 1894 statute. I am not yet clear whether this is a different board. [ok. have this sorted out in my head now. Watch this space...]

The report notes that 32 of the States had, in 1885, boards of health or 'other forms of sanitary organization charged with the duty of devising and enforcing such measures as may serve to promote the well-being of the people'

Key points: In the mid 1880s there was a virulent cholera epidemic in Europe, and American authorities were anxious to resist its introduction as much as possible.

Background: Disease and Quarantine in the Late 19th Century

The rise and fall of the National Board of Health

Court Response

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

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

Hey Emily, here's a link to an article (sorry not a primary source) on race, immigration, disease and law at turn-of-century. at least points to some potentially useful federal case law and hopefully other useful directions -- Andrew http://www.jstor.org/stable/828412?seq=1

-- AndrewKerr - 05 Dec 2009

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/

Good luck!

Angela Chen

Outline

Important Acts:

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

Help Request: does anyone know a good way to find early acts of Congress? The one I'm looking for is called "An act granting additional quarantine powers and imposing additional duties upon the Marine Hospital Service" and it was approved February 15 1893.

-- EmilyByrne - 13 Nov 2009

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

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.

-- EmilyByrne - 05 Nov 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

• Quick_and_Garran.pdf: Quick, John & Garran, Robert (1901) The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

• The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf: The_early_history_of_quarantine.pdf Eager, John M (1903) The Early History of Quarantine Washington: Government Printer.