The Portland daily press., 1901-02-21
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND vAccr.
NATION.
Portland reh 10 toof

Portland, Feb. 10, 1901.
10 The Editor Of the Presss
some weeks ago you commented edi-
torially upon \ legal decision In the state
OF SO. Dakota. relative TO the power OF
the school board to enforcs compulsory
vaccination. The impression was given
In your editorial that the opposition TO
vaccination In this case was from a
Christian Scientist, and one might infer
from it that Ohrlftiau Scientists generally
were fighting similar laws With this.
hand you copy OF statement from
Mrs. Eddy's son, Mr.. Geo w. Glover,
and would ask you TO print It in your
columns.
Please note that Mr. Glover states that
Christian Sciencs was not connected with
this case, and that his action was based
solely on his own Judgment and expert
ence.
Yours truly,
FRANK Il. HARRIS.
Lead. s. d., Feb. 3, 1901.
Mr.. q 20. Il, tanning, Egan, 5. ID.
MY Dear Sir:-
i am In receipt OF your favor OF the goth
written by MIR. Wesley Spaufding Of
Toronto, and In reply will state My
attorneys have been very averse to having
any statement OF my case against the
Board Of Education OF Lend, Furnished
for publication In the newspapers, so long
a. 10 Is pending In the courts, but as
CARRIED and untruthful statements are
appearing In the public prints lin regard
to the controversy, they have consented
to my giving the facts.
In the first place there was no Christian
Science Involved In the cass, neither was
actuated by any Of It's teachings or
principles, In institutinR the action,
acted on my own judgment and expert
enoe.
Some ten or twelve years ago, while
stopping in Massachusetts,, had my
youngest daughter, who was then
healthy. rugged, robust girl, vHccinated.
Ever since then she has heen, compare
lively, an invalid, and 1t hns cost me
Thousands OF dollars to keep her alive. i
took solemn vow that no person should
aver again be permitted to inject pals
onous virus into the blood of any OF my
children, and although Mrs Mary Baker
Eddy ts my mother, have never consult
cd with her In regard to the matter.
Had there been any danger OF an cpl
demio OF smallpox In Lead Mt the time,
or any necessity for the authorities taking
precautionary measures, l should not
have complained, but should have quietly
Withdrawn my children from the public
schools, and kept them at home until the
danger had passed.
But the facts are, there was not case
Of smallpox in Lead, nor In Lawrence
county, nor In the western part or the
state, and there was no case Of it any
where within i've hundred miles OF the
city OF Lead, and regarded the order OF
the Board as high handed outrage, ar
bitrary and oppressive, not oalie1 for and
wholly unjustiiiable, and l therefore re-
sorted to the courts for the protection OF
my legal rights, and as q protest against
the attempt to enforce ompulsory vacci-
nation in the absence Of any statute au-
thorizing it.
/ was granted a writ of mandamus re-.
quiring the Board TO readmit my con TO
the public schools. On the evening OF
the day that the writ was served. the
Board convened ana passed another order
requiring all snhool children to be vacci'
mated, and excluding from the schools
all who failed or refused to comply; un-
der this order my son was again expelled.
When this last order was promulgated,
there had been no change in the condi-
tions, no threatening peril, no necessity
whatever, no smallpox nearer Lead than
five hundred miles. My attorneys insti-
tuted contempt proceedings, and had the
Board cited to show cause why they
should not be punished for disobeying
the mandate of the court; but although
making no valid showing Of justifiction
whatever, the judge held that they were
not guilty, and discharged them. An
appeal was taken to the Supreme Court,
where 1t is still pending ON pstition for
rehearing
(signedJ GEO. W. GLOVER.