Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-05-01
THE elsr OF THE MATTER,

rHE oisr OF THE MATTER
Ths st,empt to inject partisan poll
,l,. into the discussion over The recent
,ul,ns o. me majority Of The supreme
,ogrt a, 10 the lawful powers Of boards
ofbeslth IN this state which has been
es.syed By the courts a%pologist VIII
N, soeesed In dlyerting the attention
of,bs people from the real question in'
VOWED nit proves to have any par
tls,n effect at all the probability Is
that It viii result IN the very opposite
Of that Intended, because 1t must be
clear to every thinking observer that
the Injection was introduced without
reason. end Tor a purpose that Is as
transparent as 1t Is Irrelevant TO the
issue
The whole matter turns on one salient
point. that IS, the exclusion from the
district schools Of a healthy child OF
proper age who had not been exposed
to a contagious or Infectious disease.
The question, was that lawful was de-
clded by the majority o. the court IN
the Affirmative by the minority IN the
negative. The majority based their
conclusion on this provision Of the
laws Of 1899. page 70:
"The local boards Of health shall have
Jurisdiction IN an matters pertaining 20
the preservation Of the health Of those
IN attendance upon the public and pri-
waite schools 10 the State. 10
which end q IL hereby made
the duty Of each o. the local boards
of health, QD To exclude from
said schools any person including
teachers. suffering with any contagious
or infectious disease. whether acute or
chronic or liable TO convey such dis.
ease to those In attendance,
The evidence in the record showed
that the child excluded was not In
either Of the conditions named in the
statute, but was excluded simply be.
cause It aid not give evidence OF re
cent successful vaccination. In
order to justify that exclusion. the
court had to proceed on the line
OF The general powers OF boards OF
health as exercised IN some Of the
states Of the Union Failing to find the
authority to compel vaccination. or to
exclude children from the schools for
the sole cause that they are ungaccl-
mated in terms in the laws or the Con.
siiiuiion Of Utah, they zen back on de.
cislons Of courts in other States But
these were rendered under different
constitutional and statutory provisions
from those OF this State. and therefore
do not apply in this case.
But those references are now put
forth again in support Of the decision
The best reply TO them Is the argument
Of the dissenting judge; he said.
The cases cited IN the majority opir.
ION do not support The same because fbs
iaeH n each Of said cases were radical.
ny inherent from he facts ln the case
az par IN none of these cases had tha
BOARD OF health exercised. as Was dome
IN this case powers which The legIgia.
.uls n4d deieg1ied 20 any other body TO
eAer'se nor had such body. as I'M the
.ase az Oar r~e-lelegated these powers
10 the board u health
The majority Of the court cited par.
ileularly the following case
In Blue " Beach. g n. f. Rem 90 fl
appeais that under a general %sfante
recurring the board Of health m 49,
Dy-ieNs 20 prevent the spread Of con.
,aslovs diseases, and where it also an.
Ie4Ieu mat smallpox endemic NAG
threatened. the local board IN bestlt
ulaae an order requiring thai mn ur'
l~aceinatcd child BE- allowed 4, &C.
0' puuhc schools during the p%reyaiebr1
W. listase u was held that AM Inn.
S~aeslhated child was properly erclp6oJ
lll'lt that time although Il ,gas r,ii
shl healthy, and had never hoen
posed TO the disease"
But the minority Of the copr, n,5o
This reply which covers the rrogr5
completely:
among those cited Is the caso u,
que vs. Beach, So n. ST. In tbo,
.ue court says: II is true bsv1r1 cI.
ro,.'sy mat the legislative dep,r'-
,I, u we state, wherein the c6ngti-
had lodged an legislative pag..r
hot De permitted 10 relieve I,s.'i
I. lnla power by the delegation thor..
,s.an confer upon any boly or
'ne power 90 determine What
49, " stAil De- as that power BE- 0r.
n'gn only The legislature ur5er amy
.1ulon' Is authorized i6 avar,'s
lnls constitutional InhIblti1, nm
.ot property De extended so as
.le grant of legislative autborlty
"iIlih iratIye board on Other
I.Duhal 20 ADOPT rules by-isws ~
lll ne government. on to car.
'ul particular purpose
But The dissenting Judge showed tina,
MS power is not delegated To- bo,r5. ~,
-i''n in this State ana therefore I,
,a' exercised without authority Of law.
ie said further:
Ihe action Of the board wa, o., a..
.ul. indirectly Co mako ya.eI,.,
.'iy This cannot ba dane ..,sa,
legly or Indirectly In the 5be.
w ana explicit authority of tb.
1T indirect measures can 4.
20 90 compel school oa1lrs, =,
.t 2" vaccination. b. bgs-I y.
under The decision In 0r9.t ~,
.,g power no. resort 90 euIrfrf.D.
otle' indirect means i, rrf1rr.
vaccination generally
Therein Is the danger Of such do.
. s.,'s a' that rendered by ths maiorIt,
'ne court il 90, only threatens h
p'.U'uIaF direction Indicated. bu.
? o,a.f "ayh Granting underlined DOW
~ responsible appointed boards 4
menace 90 tha Ub-rli.. /,