ground. mon quarantine able place either within or without their own limits; but if such place is without their limits, they shall first obtain the assent of the town within whose limits it may be. Board of health may establish the quarantine of vessels. 1699 Quarantine regulations to extend to all persons, etc. 1816 Penalty for violation after public notice. 1816 Vessels suspected of infection to be ordered to quarantine ground. 1816 P. S., 80, § 64. The board of health in each seaport town may from time to time establish the quarantine to be performed by vessels arriving within its harbor, and may make such quarantine regulations as it judges necessary for the health and safety of the inhabitants. P. S., 80, § 65. Such regulations shall extend to all persons, goods, and effects arriving in such vessels, and to all persons who may visit or go on board of the same. P. S., 80, § 66. Whoever violates any such regulation after notice thereof has been given in the manner before provided in this chapter shall forfeit not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars. P. S., 80, § 67. The board in each seaport town may at any time cause a vessel arriving in such port, when such vessel or the cargo thereof is in its opinion foul or infected so as to endanger the public health, to be removed to the quarantine ground and thoroughly purified at the expense of the owners, consignees, or persons in possession of the same; and may cause all persons arriving in or going on board of such vessel, or handling the cargo, to be removed to any hospital under the care of the board, there to remain under their orders. Penalty, if master, seamen, etc., refuse to answer on oath. 1797 P. S., 80, § 68. A master, seaman, or passenger, belonging to a vessel on board of which any infection then is or has lately been, or is suspected to have been, or which has been at or has come from a port where an infectious distemper prevails that may endanger the public health, who refuses to make answer on oath to such questions as may be asked him relating to such infection or distemper by the board of health of the town to which such vessel may come (which oath any member of the board may administer), shall forfeit a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars; and if not able to pay said sum, he shall suffer six months' imprisonment. P. S, 80, § 69. Acts of 1893, 79. expenses to be All expenses incurred on account of any person, ves- Quarantine sel, or goods, under quarantine regulations, shall be paid paid by owner by the owner of such vessel. The owner of a vessel under quarantine regulations is not liable for the expenses of a seaman at a hospital, to which he had been transferred by order of the board of health of a town, and which was under their care. Provincetown v. Smith, 120 Mass. 96. In an action of replevin of certain rags imported into a city by the plaintiff, and retained by the defendant under a claim of lien for the charges for disinfecting the rags, it is not open to the plaintiff to object that the answer, which is demurred to, does not show that the disinfection was accomplished to the satisfaction of the board of health of the city in accordance with a regulation of the board, but only shows that the defendant's process of disinfection was one satisfactory to the board, if such objection is not specifically assigned as a cause of demurrer. In an action of replevin of certain rags imported into a city by the plaintiff, and retained by the defendant under a claim of lien for the charges for disinfecting the rags, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that the provisions of the Pub. Stats., chap. 80, sects. 64, 67, contemplate a special exercise of the judgment of the board of health as to each cargo arriving, and not the passage of a general regulation, if the answer, which is demurred to, shows that there was a distinct order for the disinfection of the rags in question. A regulation of the board of health of a city, passed under the authority conferred by the Statute of 1816, chap. 44, and the Pub. Stats., chap. 80, and ordering "that on and after this date all rags arriving at this port from any foreign port shall, before being discharged, be disinfected under the supervision of an oflìcer of this board, and in a manner satisfactory to this board,” even if the order was formal only, and was passed without any inquiry into the character of the rags or their special history, is not unreasonable. A regulation of the board of health of a city, passed under authority conferred by the Statute of 1816, chap. 44, and the of vessel. 1816 Pub. Stats., chap. 80, and ordering "that on and after this date all rags arriving at this port from a foreign port shall, before being discharged, be disinfected under the supervision of an officer of this board, and in a manner satisfactory to this board," is not void as infringing the power of Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Under the Statute of 1816, chap. 44, and the Pub. Stats., chap. 80, sects. 18, 64, 65, 67, 69, the board of health of a city may pass a regulation without a hearing, ordering rags imported into the city to be disinfected, and the expense of such disinfection to be borne by the owner of the rags; and it is not competent for the owner of the rags, as a defence to the claim for charges for disinfection, to show that the rags did not require disinfection, and could not have transmitted disease, if they were of the class concerning which the regulation was made. Under a regulation of the board of health of a city, made in pursuance of the authority conferred by the Statutes of 1816, chap. 44, and the Pub. Stats., chap. 80, sects. 18, 64, 65, 67, 69, ordering rags imported into the city to be disinfected at the expense of the owner, the work of disinfection may be delegated by the board to a third person, who is entitled to claim a lien upon the rags for his charges. Train v. Boston Disinfecting Company, 144 Mass. 523. Dog licenses; description of be printed on them. DOGS; HYDROPHOBIA. P.S, 102, § 83. Acts of 1886, 101, § 4. Every license issued to the owner of a dog shall have hydrophobia to printed thereon a description of the disease in dogs known as hydrophobia, said description to be supplied by the secretary of the state board of health to the clerks of the several cities and towns upon application therefor. [See also Pub. Stats., chap. 102, sect. 101.] 1877 Selectmen may P. S., 102, § 101. The mayor and aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town may order that any dog or dogs within the limits of such city or town respectively shall be muzzled or restrained from running at large during such time as shall be prescribed by such order. After passing such order and posting a certified copy thereof in two or more public places in such city or town, or, in case a daily newspaper is published in such city or town, by publishing such copy once in such newspaper, the mayor and aldermen or selectmen may issue their warrant to one or more of the police officers or constables of such city or town, who shall, after twenty-four hours from the publication of such notice, kill all dogs found unmuzzled or running at large contrary to such order. P. S., 102, § 102. of oflicers. Said police officers or constables shall be compensated Compensation for service under the preceding section as provided in 1877 section ninety. P. S., 102, § 103. order. The mayor and aldermen or selectmen may cause Se vice of special service of any such order to be made upon any 1877 person, requiring that a dog owned or kept by him shall be muzzled or restrained from running at large, by causing a certified copy of such order to be delivered to him; and if he refuses or neglects for twelve hours thereafter to muzzle or restrain such dog as so required, he shall be Penalty. punished by fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars. OFFENSIVE TRADES. P. S., 80, § 84. trades; and them. 1692 The board of health of a town shall from time to time Board to assign places for exer. assign certain places for the exercise of any trade or em- cising offensive ployment which is a nuisance or hurtful to the inhabi- may prohibit tants, or dangerous to the public health, or the exercise of which is attended by noisome and injurious odors, or is otherwise injurious to their estates, and may prohibit 1855 the exercise of such trade or employment in places not so assigned; the board may also prohibit such exercise within the limits of the town or in any particular locality thereof. All such assignments shall be entered in the records of the town, and may be revoked when the board shall think proper. So far as this section extends, the rules and course of proceeding under the common law are superseded, but in all other respects it continues in force as before. If the board of health acts and assigns places in which any particular trade or employment may be carried on, such an assignment would undoubtedly legalize the occupation of any person conducting his business in that place, and he would then be liable to no process, suit or prosecution, other than those which are specially appointed and prescribed. But if no such assignment has been made, and the board, in the exercise of their discretion, have not seen fit to act at all, a remedy for injuries to the public or for violation of private rights by the permanent maintenance of offensive trades and employments must be found in the rules and principles of the common law. The statute, by leaving that body to act · according to the discretion of its members, has imposed no duty upon them which they are imperatively bound to perform, and no means have been provided by a recourse to which, as by a complaint made to them, they can be compelled to exercise the power with which they are intrusted. Commonwealth v. Rumford Chemical Works, 16 Gray, 231. The board may pass an order prohibiting the exercise of an offensive trade, without having given previous notice to parties interested. Belcher v. Farrar, 8 Allen, 327. In the above case, Bigelow, C. J., says: If, as preliminary to the exercise of any jurisdiction over the subject-matter, the selectmen were required to give notice to all persons exercising offensive trades or employments within the limits of the town, of their intention to prohibit the continuance of them, it would follow necessarily that such persons would have a right to appear and object, and ask for a hearing and trial on the question whether the use of their property was hateful or noxious, so as to fall within any of the classes contemplated by the statute. This would often lead to protracted examinations, which might occupy days or weeks. If, in the mean time, the alleged offensive and noisome trades might be carried on great injury to health might be occasioned; and it would be impossible to prevent the evils which it was the manifest object of the statute promptly to suppress." It is questionable whether the prohibition of offensive trades is a proper subject of a by-law or ordinance, because that matter is specially provided for by statute; and to prohibit their exercise in any particular locality in a town or city by by-law or ordinance would interfere with the right of appeal to a jury which the statute secures. Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 223. The keeping of swine cannot be considered a trade within the meaning of the law, and would be a proper subject of a by-law or ordinance. Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 223; but see 135 Mass. 526. An order of the board under this section is not in the nature of an adjudication of a particular case, but of a general regulation of the trade or employment mentioned therein It is not to be construed with technical strictness, but with the same liberality as all votes and proceedings of municipal bodies or officers |