Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-16
LAW AND LIBERTY.

~
The question Of law and liberty an.
pears 10 be yet confused in some miuaa
which would naturally be expected 10
see the subject clearly. It Is concedea
that the liberty Of the citizen may be
10 some extent curtailed for the bencat
OF the community II is denied thai
This infringement may be pursued
Without limit. II 1t may. then the in.
dlyiual has no liberty. The line mus,
be- drawn somewhere.
It is conceded that In times OF con.
taglon. regulations may and ought n
De enforced 60 secure the public health.
such as proper sanitation, the isolation
Of persons affected by contaglon, whetb.
er diseased themselves or by exposure
to contaglon, are likely to carry II In
others. Thus the liberty Of the IN
dividual may be reasonably and law.
fully limited. This Is done by common
consent It Is provided for by law.
The majority rule in the manner agreed
upon. their representatives In the leeIs.
lauye department Of the government
formulate the restrictions. Law-abldIns
people comply with them. But what
Is now proposed is altogether different.
Would our contemporaries that ap.
pear TO confound the powers vested BY
law in certain public offices to enforce
sanitary regulations. with an assumed
right TO compel submission to surgI-
cal operation, claim that these are iden.
teal or even comparative? One Is In
accordance with law, the other Is sim.
ply inferred by officials determined Ia
compel submission TO disputed and
fast fading theory. We will not mlnele
with this important question the con-
troversy as to the virtues or evils Of
cowpox vaccination. II Is the main
question Of the right of health ofh-
GERS to force people 10 take one disease
into their bodies, on the plea that Il
is likely TO prevent or mitigate another
disease. Is not that altogether differ
Cnt from a sanitary regulation?
II citizen can be forced without law
to have his children infected with COW
pox under any pretext, he and they can
be compelled to swallow any drug or
poisonous substance that the same Off.
Gals declare TO be prophylactic.
II children can be forced to show signs
Of recent successful vaccination" 80
can every adult person be similarly
forced. Let down the bars 40 that the
liberty OF the individual as TO his per-
son and the bodies Of his children can
not be kept from the surgeons lancet
and where will this infringement come
to a stop7 a regulation could be as
lawfully and nationally enforced. that
no person, old or young, shall be per-
United TO enter public assembly with
out exhibiting on his chin. or at the end
OF his nose, signs Of recent successful
vaccination" as that no child shall bC
allowed to attend school without such
evidence.
II must not be lost sight Of that this
absurd requirement Of the board Of
health is not TO prevent contagIon. A
vaccinated child or adult can carry In
lection Just the same as one unvaccin.
ated. No one as yet has pretended thai
exposure TO contagion is affected In an,
way by vaccination as to lite effects
upon others. There Is some sense II
precautions against the spread OF con-
tagion; there is none in shutting ou
healthy children from the schools.
Even II person is thoroughly i'm
mune from smallpox, he can carry tn
Infection in his clothing. his hair, OF
his beard wherever he goes, II he hal
been exposed to II either by visltini
a person diseased or the oremises OF
surroundings OF the patient. Ever,
doctor who visits smallpox. diph
therltic scarlet fever. or similar pa
tlent. and who does not change all hi
clothes and thoroughly dlsinfect him
self, Is thousand fold more OF
menace 10 the public health than an un
yaccinated person who has not beef
thus exposed.
Let there be no misunderstanding Of
this matter The Deseret News ap'
the hosts Of protestants against IN
law-defying and tyrannical edlcts o
local officials, do not raise their voice
against any lawful sanitary regulation
nor wish to prevent the vaccination o
willing subjects. But they do demand
and will maintain. their own perfec
right 20 immunity from the doctor
lancet or scalpel when they personaill
object 10 il, and TO preserve their CHI
dren from the injection into thei
bodies Of the virus from a diseases
calf, and any other poison that doctor
may claim TO have protective virtues
Is II possible that any sane perso'
or paper cannot distinguish the diner
ence between lawful sanitary reguia
tons, ana lawless attempts TO invad
the personal liberty of the citizen.g