The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-11-21
! VACCINATION RULE.
General Holds that the Trustees
NJ. =, 4. Authority to Enforce u.
I, ~ &c EXCLUDED FROM SCHOOL
80, 10 comply with ReRnln-
.,,. I. TO be Regarded as
'''' Measure of safety


", Texas, November ao'-The fol
Y. Was given out by the attorney gen
W ,..sriment today; it affects every
I, district in the state and IS there
: Kendall, state Superintendent
psslls Instruction, Austin, Texas,
s,,sruey generals Office Austin texas a.
Sw w. l7.--Dear Sir: Your favor OF the
,.n, 10 this department, together
,.t,er from Mr.. L. L. Comegys
.,,,spdent, Gainesville. Texas, and also
Z, d 4 resolution passed by the board
....,ees Of the public free schools Of
,...y,lle referred by you to this de-
',s.pt, has been received That por-
I, IN resolution, to which MI Come
,,,.er refers, is as follows:
r.harsas there exists In the State
ridespread prevalence OIL smaiipoN
/. ' school board believes 1t to be thelr
~ 10 use all possible precautionary
s,s IN their power TO prevent the
as.bsr spread of this loathsome dis
sse W, /. That every child attend
.s n nublic school. who has not been
ssosssfully yaccinated, shall nave 1t
~. within reasonable time and
|ss Ss the family physician shall be the
Va Judge as to the efficacy OF previous
ussolved 2. That a further failure
rsf,sal to submit to the process OF
.,s,nation shall be deemed a sufi-
mi cause for exclusion from the
.Soo,s until vaccination is performed
Rssolyed g. That the superintendent
sShools is hereby empowered and
sstn,cted to enforce these resolutions
4 their full extent and meaning
N, comegys in his letter stated that a
n perslstently and positively refuse to
v,ecipated." and his inquiry is as to the
II right to exclude from the schools
u who so refuse to be vaccinated.
mr statutes do not in specific terms
hier upon school trustees the power to
tlude from the schools children who
ma 10 be vaccinated when such is re-
lied BY the board. nor do I find that the
"a courts have passed upon this ques-
\. Neither do find that the constitu-
4 gives the school trustees such author
nor that the exercise of such authority
3ud be In violation OF any constitutional
tyision. 1t is then under these condi
III that the authority of the school board
it be determined.
d considering this question, It is well
the very beginning to relieve the mat
Of all confusion as between compulsory
tcinatou and the right to exclude from
hool pupils who refuse to be vaccinated
thl former there must be express au.
brity from the legislatures, as no such
wet will ever arise by Implication. Cad.
81 W. Burdge, IS Wis. 800, 81 l.. r. A.
4; Potts vs.. Breen, 1877 Ill, 81, 80 l.. r.
ls2). 1t should be borne In mind that
re Is here no effort to compel vaccina-
" They claim only the right to ex-
bde from the schools those who do not
uply With the regulations Of the board
has been thought necessary TO pre-.
eys the public health. (Duffield va.
Transport School District 1862 Pa, 476,
LRA A. 1922.
understand the city of Gainesville t
Incorporated for municipal purposes,
|sing assumed control of the public
lools within its limits, and that the
pa Of trustees were appointed by the
council under article 401S revised stat
. Of 1886 While think it inmate.
Il might be we'll to here note That
The act passed by the last legislature,
proved May 80. 1898, there is an excep-
In favor of the Cities as provided
In article 40lS" Such board of trus-
may adopt such rules, regulations and
Flaws for their own government as they
deem proper, and the public free
ools Of such city or town are placed
aer their control and supervision, and
BOARD has the exclusive power to
Nol manage and govern the schools,
tlels 1921.
ne question then is, has the board of
wees under the authority granted in
article, the power TO pass the reso-
0ns herelnbefore quoted, and enforce
lams,
n'li say here that, in considering this
uon, have not overlooked, nor failed
w que consideration to article 1906,
= provides that "All children, with
leeard to color, over s years of age
an0er y years OF age, at the beginning
4, scholastic year, shall be entitled to
nsal o. the public school fund for
!sN' but this right is not absolute
wy 20 be enjoyed by all on reason
" stoiaillons. SHERMAN VS.. Charleston,
N me board of trustees power to pre-
~ such regulations?
ssuMil as a proposition that the school
ns,su, rs discretion, under their power
wv, manage and govern the schools.
a. nssc'lee all reasonable regulations
at interests of the schools. And
a Aote me authority of the school
~. Y ns1 aehned by statute they never
n ,,u ave power to expel or suspend the
4 p0m school for sufficient cause. (21
v .pc. OF Law, III, and cases there
no.e % 1t may be well 10 here
MY few such regulations which
HI ~. nelu reasonable, and which
d ~ aus vested with similar author
bs,s,, Of the Gainesville board, have
Ia 'su 70 enforce, First, however,
IN. seneral rule announced by the
ICum, ssust OF Massachusetts,. In Spear
81 Amer, Dec. "a, the court
IN ehoos. Jaw provides that every town
mi eha,s committee. who shall have
pub,ls " and superintendence of all
\ sharsss sacol in such town. The gem
ence ~ ~ ana superintendent in the
M ths .apress legal provisions, in
~ ,hs,, power OF determining what
tiM =. % Received and what pupils
y. dete,nn,,s. committee may. for good
.-s.mlne that some shall not be re-
snnhIn w.