The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-02-15
Personal RIGHTS INVOLVED.

1t is worse than useless to meet the
objections of those who oppose the prac-
tice of vaccination by abuse. That is the
method resorted to by many, if not most,
of the adherents OF the vaccination
cause, Notwithstanding that, man for
man and woman for woman, the OPP
ponents of vaccination represent quite as
high an average of intelligence as it's
adherents.
We do not decide questions of scientific
interest or of sanitary moment by ma
jority vote. There are numbers of very
intelligent and philosophical citizens in
this community, as in others, who be-
lieve that the vaccination process is pois-
onous in its effects. They do not enter
tain that opinion from anything like ma
tive contrariety, although that is the
idea which many seek to propagate re-
garding them. They oppose the process
as a public requirement, and they have
their rights, just as well as those Of us
who believe they are wrong. While the
characterization society may be fairly
representative of the opinion implied in
the title of the society, they by no means
include the great numbers who from ex-
perience or reading entertain the opin-
ions which are held by the society as a
body Their belief may be a delusion;
but they are none the less entitled to en-
tertain it and act on it, unless in so do
ing they are acting contrary to a sound
public, sanitary policy.
The question which awaits settlement
in st. PAM is not one of mere opinion.
It is a question of personal rights. Pub
lie authority recognizes, through enacted
law and otherwise, that vaccination is a
preventive of smallpox, and prescribes
that citizens shall submit themselves to
the operation at stated times. There
is no insistauee on adults so doing with
in the prescribed periods or otherwise.
The health authorities think it safe
and necessary precaution against the
spread OF the disease that children in
attendance at the public schools shall be
subjected to vaccination. The point of
division is represented by the inquiry
whether d citizen shall be compelled,
whatever his opinions may be on the
subject, to have his child vaccinated as
a condition to the admission of that
child to the public schools.
Is that a reasonable and necessary
requirement? Does its enforcement in
volve transgresslon of personal rights?
AS police requirement is it constitution
al and proper? That question is now
awaiting settlement hy the local courts
1t will be decided on the best author
ity available to the courts 1t cannot
be tried in the newspapers with any
satisfactory results. A man may well
and still consent to his child being vac
cinated, when qualified public authority
tells him that as a Iaw-abi1ing citizen
he should do so. There is a state law
making vaccination a prerequisite to
the admission of children to school ana
giving power to health officials to en-
force its requirements
DR.. Ohage may be right In his con-
tentions. He usually is in his views of
his official obligations Mere academic
discussion Of the subject is out of place.
When the matter of the obligation o.
the citizen to submit his child to vacci-
nation has been authorltatively passed
upon by the courts, there is no doubt
whatever that even the most insistent
Observation-Disclosures, While they may still
adhere to their general opinions on the
subject, will submit 10 the regulation,
If the court declares it to be1av full.