Fas tease 4/28/20, 11:54 AM Search Terms: [select term(s) to navigate ~ Clear highlights 302 Ill. 422 134 N.E. 815 PEOPLE ex rel. BARMORE v. ROBERTSON et al. No. 14123. Supreme Court of Illinois. Feb. 22, 19 22. Rehearing Denied April 13, 1922. Original proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus by the People, on relation of Jennie Barmore, against Dr. John Dill Robertson and others, to procure release from custody in quarantine. Relatrix remanded to custody. Duncan, J., dissenting. [134 N.E. 816] [302 Ill. 424]Darrow, Sissman, Popham & Carlin, of Chicago, for relatrix. Samuel A. Ettelson, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (Berthold A. Cranson, Carl F. Lund, and John A. Bugee, all of Chicago, of counsel), for respondents. THOMPSON, J. \ah/a .· ·. . · ·.· ·. · J.t=J1hl~i.B9frn9re fiJ~q/io.· trisi col1.rt•·.•·~. t)th~ J u••.n~\terrn,\••iegi, pplicati6 n JOriia •. w rit··.•af•·· habeas corplJs)stating thats he J/l/as unlawfullyirestrained of her liberty at···her home in the city of Chicago by John Dill Robertson, commissioner of health, and Herman N. Bundesen, an epidemiologist of the department of health of the city of Chicago. The writ was awarded, and respondents made due return, by which they admit that they are restraining relatrix from going about the city of Chicago and from following her usual occupation of boarding house keeper, for the reason that she is a carrier of typhoid bacilli; that they are restraining her by virtue of the authority given them by the statutes of the state and the ordinances of the city and the rules and regulations of the state department of health, and that her detention was necessary for the preservation of the health of the citizens of the city and the state. The facts are stipulated by the parties to be substantially as follows·: Relatrix is a https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Oocument.aspx?LT1D=n ... 2fDvxPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 1 of 9 Fastcase 4/ 28/20, 11 :54 AM citizen of Chicago, and is the owner of the house in which she resides. She kept roomers and boarders. Information came to the department of health, by letters and otherwise, that several persons who [302 Ill. 425]had previously roomed and boarded at the house of relatrix had been ill with typhoid fever. Pursuant to this information the department placed relatrix and her house under quarantine, and caused a large placard to be placed in a conspicuous place upon the house. This placard warned all persons that a typhoid carrier resided in the house, and contained the ordinary warnings and instructions found on such placards. Relatrix submitted to the department of health bowel discharges, and an examination of them revealed the presence of large numbers of typhoid bacilli. Several bacteriologists and other medical experts testified that a typhoid carrier is one who has suffered from typhoid fever, and, although having apparently recovered, still carries the typhoid bacilli, or one who has never suffered from the disease of typhoid fever, but who continually or intermittently discharges the typhoid bacilli; that the means of freeing such a person of this disability is not known to medical science, and that a typhoid carrier may discharge typhoid bacilli for a number of years, and then for a period of years the body discharges may be free from bacilli, after which the disability may recur. The uncontradicted evidence of the experts is that typhoid bacilli are present in the bowel and bladder discharges of relatrix, and that typhoid fever may be communicated to healthy persons if these bacilli enter their bodies. Relatrix testified that she had never been sick with typhoid fever, and that no member of her family and no boarder or roomer in her household had ever been sick with typhoid fever while they lived with her, and that so far as she knew no one had contracted the disease by contact with her. There was no evidence introduced by respondents to contradict her testimony. The quarantine regulations prescribed by the respondents require relatrix to remain in her home and forbid her to prepare food for anyone but her husband, and forbid any one to come into her home, as roomers or otherwise, [134 N.E. 817] unless they have been immunized from typhoid fever. [302 Ill. 426] Hemenway on Public Health (section 30) says of human disease carriers: 'It is found that many healthy individuals are a constant source of danger to the community by reason of the fact that they are producing and throwing off disease germs. This is especially true of typhoid fever. After an attack of the fever, perhaps so mild that it was not at the time recognized, many persons continue to develop and discharge the bacilli of the fever, and they are thus causing frequent infections, especially because, owing to their apparent good health, neither the carrier nor his friends are on their guard against the everpresent danger. The legal rights of such individuals, and of the community as against them, may be a matter of some considerable question and perplexity. This must be recognized, however: That a typhoid fever patient is not properly quarantined so long as his infectious discharges are permitted to escape complete sterilization, and a typhoid carrier is entitled to no consideration if he so conducts himself that others receive infection from him. In other words, it is as necessary for the discharges of a carrier to be sterilized as it is for those of a patient.' This quotation shows at once the insidious danger of the disease with which we are https://apps.fast case.com/Research/Pages/Oocument.aspx?LT ID =n ... 2fDvxPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2f YCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZ T2u20ox4v5zl mWFdcg8%3d Page 2 of 9 Fas tease 4/28/20, 11 :54 AM dealing in this cause, and the difficult and perplexing problems its regulation presents. The health of the people is unquestionably an economic asset and social blessing, and the science of public health is therefore of great importance. Public health measures have long been recognized and used, but the science of public health is of recent origin, and with the advance of the science methods have been greatly altered. The results to be obtained by scientific health regulations are well illustrated by the remarkable changes made in health conditions in Cuba and Panama. With the increase of population the problem of conserving the health of the people has grown, and public health officers and boards have been appointed [302 Ill. 427]for the purpose of devising and enforcing sanitary measures. That the preservation of the public health is one of the duties devolving upon the state as a sovereign power will not be questioned. Among all the objects sought to be secured by governmental laws none is more important than the preservation of public health. The duty to preserve the public health finds ample support in the police power, which is inherent in the state, and which the state cannot surrender. Every state has acknowledged power to pass and enforce quarantine, health, and inspection laws to prevent the introduction of disease, pestilence, and unwholesome food, and such laws must be submitted to by individuals for the good of the public. The constitutional guaranties that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, were not intended to limit the subjects upon which the police power of a state may lawfully be asserted in this any more than in any other connection. 12 R. C. L. 1271; Booth v. Peogle,. 186 Ill. 43, 57 N. E. 798,50 L. R. A. 762, 78 Am. St. Re12. 229 ;State v. Robb, 100 Me. 180, 60 Atl. 874A Ann. Cas. 275;Kirk v. Wyman, 83 S. C. 372, 65 S. E. 387,23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1188;Ayres v. State, 178 Ind. 453, 99 N. E. 730, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 549. Generally speaking, what laws or regulations are necessary to protect public health and secure public comfort is a legislative question, and appropriate measures intended and calculated to accomplish .theseends ar~ not sµbject tqjudic;icilJ~Vi~w •.Th~. ¢?<~rc;i$e qfth~i police P9\1¥grJ~ a mattgrr~sting in the disbretion oft.he Legislature Or the l:JOard 6Ffribuhal ' to whichth¢ power is d~l~g9ted, and th~~ourts will nqtJpterfere with the exercise ofthis power exceptwhere thefegulations adOpted for the protection of the public health are ctrbitrar\/, /. oppr:gssiv~ a11d u11reasonabl~. The court has nothing to do with the wisdom or expediency of the measures adopted. Peo12le v. Weiner, 271 Ill. 74, 110 N. E. 870, L. R. A. 1916C, 775, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1065;State v. Morse, 84 Vt. 387, 80 Atl. 189,34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 190, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 218;State v. Sugerior Court, 103 Wash. 409, 174 Pac. 973. [302 Ill. 428]The Q~g1$lature may, i~ the exercislb¥ the police power of the state/ .. create .fl)ini?terial boards/ with power to prescribe rules andimpose penalties for their ViolatiOb\and provide for the collection of such penalties, and the exercise of this power by the Legislature i? .119~ 9. del~gatignof le~islative power. "[he LgQi~l~.tqre basth~ \qWthoritytO : e>t1.• 66ards and Oth.e ragencies ! authoHtyand ~discretlontoexecutetheselaws. Peoglev. Tait, 261Ill.197,103 N. E. 750;Klafter v. Examiners of Architects, 259 Ill. 15, 102 N. E. 193,46 L. R. A. (N. S.):>:32, Ann. Cas.l914B, 1221;Cityof Chicagov. Kluever, 257IIL 317, 100 N. E•. 917. In or:d~htq secure arid promote .the public health the sfate has ·created c:i departrJ)§t1f(}fpublic healttf • qS.·• ~n .JristrumehtalityYor agencyJOf that··pl.Jrpbse, ahd··•has ill\iested it•with the pdwerto https://apps.fastcase,com/Research/Pages/ Document. aspx?LTID =n ... 2fDvxPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP1 2AvZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 3 of 9 Fastcase 4/28/20, 11:54 AM adopt by..:laws, rules, and regulations necessary to secure the objects ofits organization.< Similar departments, usually administered by a board of health, have been established in every state in the Union. Vl/hileit istrue that the character or nature of such departments or boards is administrative qnly, still the powers conferred upon them by the Legislature/in · view of the great public interest confided to them, have always receivedfrom the courts a liberal construction, tion, and the right ofthe Legislatur~to confer upon them the power to make reasonable rules, by..:1aws, and regulations has loflg been [134 N.E. 818] r~cogniiecl by the authorities. When the~e departments or boards duly pdopt rules or by,., laws by virtue of legislative authority, such rules and byd9ws have theJ6h::e and effectof law, and are often saidto be in force by authority of the state. Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 121, 56 N. E. 89,50 L. R. A. 64, 80 Am. St. ReQ. 195. Section 55 of the Civil Administrative Code (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 24 1/2) confers upon the department of public health all the rights, powers, and duties vested by law in the State Board of Health and its officers. Section 2 of the acf Creating the/State Board of Health (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 111 1/2) gives the department of pubjic.health general supervision of the interests of the health ~rid lives of tb~)people of the state, and givesjt ~uprem.~. aµth.Prity ir1[302.Ill. 429Jrnattersof.quarantineJ]J is also.giy¢h authority toma~e suchrules and regulations as i.t sha11 .frorl1 time to tirne . de~rn n~cessary for th~ ptes¢rvation > and ii1Jprqverji¢11t.q fthe.pqblic: h~altli, (}rid makes it the duty of all IOC:al health and police officers 1:() ellforce these .rules and regulations. The act provides a penalty by a fine not to exceed $200, or imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months, or both, for a violation of any rule or regulation duly adopted by said department. Pursuant to this authority the department of public health has promulgated rules and regulations pertaining to the quarantine of typhoid fever patients and typhoid carriers. These rules and regulations provide that every physician or other person having knowledge of a known or suspected case of typhoid fever shall immediately report the same to the local health authorities, and shall give such information, including probable source of infection, as shall be available. The local health authorities are in turn required to report the case immediately to the state department of public health, and the house where the patient or carrier resides shall be immediatly placarded in accordance with the regulations, and instructions shall be given the inmates of the house. Rule 5, which relates to the quarantine, provides: 'The patient shall be confined to one well-ventilated room screened against flies and other insects and as remote as possible from other occupied rooms. The rooms should be stripped of draperies, carpets, upholstery and all furniture and articles not necessary for the comfort of the occupants. Visitors shall not be permitted to enter the sickroom or to come in contact with the attendants. Quarantine shall be raised only by the local health authorities or by the state department of public health.' The quarantine regulations further provide that other inmates of the infected premises may go about their usual business with certain regulations and restrictions. It is further provided: 'The local health authorities or the state department of publ ic health may require the https://app s.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID= n ... 2fDvxPPz%2b 6FYPaQ4%2fYC XScYZ2AAOP1 2AvZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 4 of 9 4/28/20, 11:54 AM Fas tease submission of [302 Ill. 430]specimens of blood or other material from cases of typhoid fever or suspected carriers for the purpose of examination by a state or municipal laboratory.' Rule 9 specifically governs typhoid carriers, and provides: 'Any person known to be or suspected of being a typhoid carrier, and therefore capable of spreading typhoid infection, shall be treated as a typhoid patient even though to all outward appearances such person may appear to and enforce all necessary police ordinances. governing typhoid fever cases: Provided, however, that in order to meet conditions peculiar to individual cases the state department of public health, upon its own initiative or upon recommendation of the local health authorities, may modify or relax these rules.' By the Cities and Villages Act the city council in cities is given power 'to regulate the police of the city or village and pass and enforce all necessary police ordinances. * * * To appoint a board of health, and prescribe its powers and duties. * * * To do all acts, make all regulations which may be necessary or expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease, ***'and 'to pass all ordinances, rules, and make all regulations, proper or necessary, to carry into effect the powers granted to cities or villages, with such fines or penalties as the city council * * * shall deem proper: Provided, no fine or penalty shall exceed $200 and no imprisonment shall exceed six months for one offense.' Pursuant to these powers the city of Chicago has established by ordinance an executive department of the municipal government of the city known as the department of health, which embraces the commissioner of health, the city physician, and other assistants and employees. The commissioner of health, who is required to be a physician, is made the head of the department of health, and is given the management and control of all matters and things pertaining thereto. He is appointed by the mayor, by and with the advice and consent of the city council. The commissioner is given general supervision over the sanitary [302 Ill. 431]condition of the city, and is given authority to appoint and to remove his assistants and all other officers, inspectors, and employees in the department of health. It is made the duty of the commissioner to enforce all laws of the state and ordinances of the city and all rules and regulations pertaining to the public health, and he is given power to make such rules and regulations in relation to the sanitary condition of the city and for the prevention and suppression of disease as he may deem necessary or advisable, but such rules and regulations are not to be in force until approved by the city council, except in cases of emergency. [134 N.E. 819] The commissioner and his assistants and employees are given full police powers, and are given authority to enter any building in the city for purposes of inspection, and to quarantine and examine and remove to isolated hospitals afflicted persons, and to arrest any person who violates any of the provisions of the ordinances and any of the rules and regulations of the department. The penalty for such violation is a fine of not less than $10 and not more than $200 for each offense. The city of Chicago has no board of health. [8] Under a general statute giving to the state department of health power to restrict https://apps. fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Docu ment.aspx?LTID " n ... 2 fDvxPPz%2 b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZT2u 20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 5 of 9 Fas tease 4/28/20, 11:54 AM and suppress contagious and infectious diseases, such department has authority to designate such diseases as are contagious and infectious, and the law is not void for this reason on the ground that it delegates legislative power. Ex parte McGee, 105 Kan. 574, 185 Pac. 14, 8 A. L R. 831. 'fh¢.(n~.cessity ptd.eJ~gc:ltipg to (:ln administrative body the pow~rto determine.what is a c6ntagious and ihfectious disease and giyipg th.e bpdy . uld oftentirnes endanger the [302 lll.432]health. and the lives ()fthe peOple. There is probably not a Legislature in the country that would have named the deadly Spanish influenza as a contagious and infectious disease prior to the epidemic of that disease that took a greater toll of lives throughout the country than any other epidemic kno\t\f..n...in ..th.i.s .country..Ip E;rper9eh.Ci~s oftnJs c:pc:lr.Cicteritis.)ihc!ispensal:>le.to.the preservation of publJ¢ healththat s.om.e .~<.irninistrative body shOuld.be clothed with .•a1Jthorityto make adeqUate .·ruleswhich havethefqrse pf lavvf aridtoputthese· rules ana•·. r~gulationsinto effect IJ.ro111ptly. Under.these general powers the. state department of health·.··• ha? .. authorityto isolate per?()nS who are throwing off disease germs and are thereby ehdangeririg the public health. Kirk v. Wyman, supra; State v. Superior Court, supra; State v. Racskowski, 86 Conn. 677, 86 Atl. 606,45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 580, Ann. Cas. 19148, 410;CraY-tOn v. Larabee, 220 N. Y. 493, 116 N. E. 355, L. R. A. 1918E, 432;Brown v. Manning_, 103 Neb. 540, 172 N. W. 522;In re Johnson, 40 Cal. App. 242, 180 Pac. 644. [lOJ . While.th~power?.given totnen~althaqthorities arebroad and far.,reac:hin9 . •they . ~I~ihot withbl.Jttheirlin1itations. As w~ have said, while thecourts will not. pass .upon tile ....... w isdom oftne·mea1JS·adopted to restrict and .suppre?s .the spread of contagious.and .••.•\i infectious diseases, they wilklnterfere if the regulations are arbitrary and unreasonable. People v. Weiner, supra; BaileY- v. Peo12le, 190 Ill. 28, 60 N. E. 98,54 L. R. A. 838, 83 Am. St. Re12. 116;In re Smith, 146 N. Y. 68, 40 N. E. 497, 28 L. R. A. 820, 48 Am. St. Re12. 769; Ex parte Dillon (Cal. App.) 186 Pac. 170;Ragg v. Griffin, 185 Iowa, 243, 170 N. W. 400, 2 A. L. R. 1327. Aperson cannotbe quarantined upon mere suspicionthathe m~y have a contagious 911cl.iinf~Stio1Js d.i§eaS,~. (Ex parte Shepard (Cal. App.) 195 Pac. 1077), hut the health authoritiesrnl.J?t.have reliable information on which they have reasonable ground tobelieve thatthe publichealth will be endangered by permitting the person to be at large. Where danger of an epidemic actually exists, health and quarantine regulations will always be sustained by the courts (Peo12le v. Board of Education, 234 Ill. 422, 84 N. E. 1046,17 L. R. A. [N. S.] 709,14 Ann. Cas. 943;[302 Ill. 433]Hagler v. Larner, 284 Ill. 547, 120 N. E. 575;Globe School District v. Board of Health, 20 Ariz. 208, 179 Pac. 55); but the health regulations are all sustained on the law of necessity, and when the necessity ceases therightto enforce the regulations ceases. Health authorities cannot promulgate and enfor c:erqles which m~rely haye atendencyto prevent.·•·the spread of contagious and )infeqtiQlJSdiseases, which are not founded upon an existing condition or upon a we11;.·.. founded belief that a condition is threatened which will endanger the public health. The health authorities cannot interfere with the liberties of a citizen until the emergency actually exists. Potts v. Breen, 167 Ill. 67, 47 N. E. 81 1 39 L. R. A. 152, 59 Am. St. Re12. 262; In re https;//apps.fastcas e .com/Research/Pages/Document.a s px?LTJD ~ n ... 2fOvxPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 6 of 9 4/28/20, 11:54 AM Fastcase Smith, supra; Rhea v. Board of Educationi 41 N. D. 449, 171 N. W. 103. Where one has been arrested and placed under quarantine on the ground that he is afflicted with a contagious disease, he has the right to have the legality of his detention inquired into by habeas corpus. Ex parte Hardcastle, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 463, 208 S. W. 531, 2 A. L. R. 1539. It is not necessary that one be actually sick, as that term is usually applied, in order that the health authorities have the right to restrain his liberties by quarantine regulations. Quarantine is not a cure-it is a preventive. As the term is used in this opinion, quarantine is the method used to confine the disease within the person in whom it is detected, or to prevent a healthy person from contracting the infection. Disease germs do not usually travel through the air unaided, but they are carried by insects, by dumb animals, and by human beings. Effective quarantine must therefore be not so much the isolation of the person who is sick or affected with the disease as a prevention of the communication of the disease [134 N.E. 820] germs from the sick to the well. Thus, in the case of typhoid fever, effective quarantine must include very strict restrictions upon the movements of the attendants who in any way come in contact with the sick person or his discharges. It must include the destruction of the bacilli in the discharges of the bowelspa.rtl1~$t9.t.t: . i~P(;lrd•.. Pf H~.91t9,•··.·.•PP9 b()(jr<:l ()f..• h.<;.qlJl1. ln/th<= c:ityof.·. ·Chicago dulyorgallizedipUrsUahftothe authority given the city council by the Legislature, undoubtedly hastherighftoestqblish reasonable quarantine regulations with respect to relatrix so long as she is discharging the germs of a contagious and infectious disease. Whether the authority exists to compel a person apparently will to submit to an examination to determine whether he is a germ carrier is not before us, for the reason that relatrix submitted to the examination which revealed that she is such a carrier. The only question presented for determination is whether she is legally and properly detained under quarantine in her home. In order to determine this question we must determine whether an https://a pps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Docu ment.aspx?lTID :n ... 2fDvxPPz%2b6FYPa Q4 %2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZT2u20ox4v5zl mWFdcg 8%3d Page 7 of 9 Fas tease 4/ 28/20, 11:54 AM authority authorized [302 Ill. 435]by the Legislature of this state to determine when a person is afflicted with a contagious or infectious disease and to quarantine against the spread of such disease has acted in establishing the quarantine over the home and person of relatrix. The Legislature has grar:ited to cities the power to appoint a board of health and to prescribe its duties and powers. A board of health must necessarily consist of more than .one person, and it 9enerallyc:oq:;;i5ts of several Pe[son~.;Jvtany authorities contend that the adrninistration of public health should be vested in ari individual and that that individual should be a .persontrained inthe science of pu.blic:. h~alth. This contention is based onthe groµnd··• that·this pfaQJ)1iQi?trntipn .().fJhe h~alt.h. lavvs .is productive ·of . effich~ncy and < e<:()f}9111Y(."Fbe s.a me;argu.m.entrriighfbe .made inf~vqrof an absolute monarchy/ but the < .expeHehce of the world has been.that other forms of government, perhaps more . cumbersome and less effideht, insure to the people a more reasonable and less arbitrary administration of the laws/Whatever may be best, the Legislature of Illinois has said that the public health of cities shall be regulated and guarded by a board of health, and until the Legislature grants to cities the power to supervise the sanitary and health conditions of the city by another instrumentality the cities must content themselves with the power that has been given to them. The c:ity council had no authority to delegate to a health officerthe pqwers and duties which the Legislature said it might delegate to a board of health ~ The P9yvers given toboards 9fhe9lth are extraordinary,\ and the Legislature was evidently LIJlVVilling to leave to one person the determination of such important and drastic measures as are given Jo s~cn board.~. Jp tbeJl.ldgment and fidelity of a greater ·number acting t()gefher is the greatestseC:urity against the abuse of extraordinary power~ In TaY-IOr v. Adair sountY.1 119 KY-. 374, 84 S. W. 2QQ, itwas held that county board of health did not have pbwer to delegate its duties to a health officer; In [302 Ill. 436] Commonwealth v. Yost, 197 Pa. 171, 46 Atl. 845, it was held that a board of health had no authority to delegate to its secretary power to act ina matter requiring the action of the board. In Young v. County of Blackhawk, 66 Iowa, 460, 23 N. W. 923, it was held thata board of health could not ·.· delegate its powers to a committee appointed by the board~ tqrm. a ... The health commissioner of Chicago is purely a ministerial officer, and has no ·· legislative powers whatever.\The statute gives to no such individual authority to make rules / and regulations which sh.all havethe effect of law. The city has no right to give him abthority to determine when a contagious and inf~ctious disease exists and to establish a qtJarantine; His authority is limited to carrying into execution proper orders of a legally cohstituted board of health. People v. Board of Education, supra . The department of health of Chicago reported the case of relatrix to the state department of health, and requested that department to authorize a modified quarantine. This authority was granted. While the original quarantine was established without authority [134 N.E. 821] of a legally constituted board of health, the state department of hea lth has, by authorizing the modified quarantine, in effect established such quarantine on the report of the department of health of the city of Chicago, and respondents are therefore restraining relatrix as agents of the state department. She is bound to respect the rules and regulations promulgated by the state department of health respecting the modified quarantine under whi ch she is placed, and for a violation of these rul es she is subject to the https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=n ... 2fDv xPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12Av ZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg 8%3d Page 8 of 9 Fastcase 4/28/20, 11:54 AM penalties provided by the statutes. In order that she may know what the rules and regulations are, it is necessary that she be furnished a copy of them. Relatrix is therefore remanded to the custody of respondents as agents of the state department of health. Relatrix remanded. DUNCAN, J., dissenting. GD Live Chat https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LT ID = n... 2fDvxPPz%2b6FYPaQ4%2fYCXScYZ2AAOP12AvZT2u20ox4v5zlmWFdcg8%3d Page 9 of 9