Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-02-05
THE STATUS OF THE BILL.

The Dill Wnlch passeu poti Il"usee W
the Utah Legislature by more than
two-thlrds majority is now In the
hands Of the Governor. lie win have
Ave days in which 10 decide what he
VIII do with H. Within that time he
may veto It or sign 1t, II he leaves It
undlsposed of later, It will become n
law without further action. II he We
toes II the Legislature can pass II over
the veto, by q yea and nay vote OF two
thirds OF the members elected to each
house,
As there has been a great deal OF mis-
representation of the measure, and
consequently much misunderstanding
Of It's purport we here present It In
full as sent to the Governor:
House Bill No. 1S--By Mcmillan.
IAN act to prevent compulsory vac
cInation and to prevent vaccination be-
ing made condition precedent to en-
terlng the public schools Of Utah
BE il enacted by the Legislature OF
the State Of Utah
"Sectlon THAT hereafter Il shall be
unlawful for any board Of health board
of education, or any other pubhc
board, acting in this State, under po-
lice regulations or otherwise, to com
pei by resolution. order or proceedings
OF any kind, the vaccination OF any
child. or person OF any age, or making
vaccination a condition precedent to
the attendance Of any public or private
school in the State Of Utah, either as
pupil or teacher.
Section 2-This act shall take effect
upon approval"
There are many rumors aloat as to
The probable action Of the Executive.
One statement Is. that he VIII veto the
bin on an alleged constitutional OBJ
lection. That is, one that was raised
DUNG It's passage, that the title does
not fully cover all the. subjects con-
tanned in the bill, Careful comparison
OF the title and the body OF the meas
ure, however, falls TO give color 10 this
alleged objection. There Is only one
subject legislated upon In It's text;
that IL, compulsory vaccination. 1t
makes that unlawful, and specifies In
particular the making of vaccination "a
condition precedent TO the attendance
Of Giiy public or private school in the
States" The Constitution provides
that:
Except general appropriation bills,
and bills for the codiflcatlon and general
revision OF laws, no bill shall be passed
containing more than one subject
which shall be clearly expressed In It's
title. Art. vi, Sec, %.
A foot note cites q judicial decision
explanatory Of the meaning Of this pro-
vision, 1t is as follows:
"The title; An act relating to and
making sundry provisions concerning
elections, limits its subject to elections.
and Is sufficiently definite; but pro-
visions OF such act relating 10 the FILL
Ing Of vacancies In certain offices by
appointment. are invalid under this
section. Rtchle v. Richards U--47, Z,
$40. This section Is mandatory. Ia
1t viii be seen on examination that
the subject Of the bill in question Is
but one. II is CLEARLY expressed in
It's title" as the Constitution requires,
True the word private as well as
the word public" does not ap-
pear IN the title, but It is
not expected that the title OF any BIN
shall be a repetition of all that is in
lis body. II an act relating to elections,
with all its provisions as TO details. IS
covered by the title named above, then,
surely, the bill concerning compulsory
vaccination would be fully covered by
It's title, even Il 1t was simply named;
"An act TO prevent compulsory yacclna-
ton" without any further specification,
Aud II So then IT would not be yitiated
by that which follows In the wording Of
the title.
We think the legislature should have
stopped at those six words; or desiring
20 be more specific, might have inserted
the word private" as well as the word
public in reference TO the schools or,
better sim, have left out the word
'public." But granting that the title
would be sufficient. u 1t had been sim
ply. IAN act 10 prevent compulsory vac
clnatlon." comparing 1t with the title to
an elections act as Iudlclally declared to
be"suficlently definite" then that which
follows. making It even more explicit,
cannot take away anything from its
adequacy
We asaln draw public attention 20 the
fact that the bill which Is endorsed by
at least eighty-dve per cent (ninety
would be nearer the marD OF the poo
pie Of the state, does not repeal any
provision Of the laws concerning he
public health. nor deprive the health
officers of any power conferred upon
them by law The state board has ne
elected 20 perform many Of those duties,
and It's secretary has assumed authority
tat cannot be found In the statutes
Thcrc Is no law about compulsory vac
oinauon. or vaccinatlon at an II Is TO
make that clear that this bill has been
framed and passed II Is not party Of
a sectarian measure. Il Is endorsed
by people OF all classes alike
What is needed is the enforcement OF
the laws as they stand. That would
help TO preserve the public health and
stamp out disease. But the efforts OF
our health officers have been directed
chiefly to one end-the forcibe ex-
oiusicn OF healthy children from the