Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-01-11

settled? II vaccination Is compulsory
why does not the law come out plain
and polnted2 And what power do
school trustees have In the matter2 II
compulsory, can the cost of yacclnating
The children be paid from the school
fund? Some one please answer
INQUIRER,
There seems 10 be a sort Of terror
among the school trustees IN different
parts OF the State. created by alleged
edicts OF the State board Of health
backed as enormously supposed, by a
ruling Of the Supreme Court OF Utah
The situation described by Inquirer Is
similar 20 that IN many places. II Is
outrageous and as win be seen from
study Of the statutes il without war
rant Of law. The arbitrary power now
being exercised was not contemplated
by the legislature, and is not conferred
by legislation II is assumed and WELD
ed In an autocratic manner suitable
to some parts OF Russia but altogether
foreign TO the institutions Of this Re.
public.
Under the ruling Of the majority Of
he Supreme Court Of Utah. the board
Of education and the local board Of
health OF Salt Lake city. We're justified
IN excluding n child from school who
had not been yacclnated The minority
opinion denied this, and showed that
the action OF the board was an at
tempt Indirectly TO make vaccination
compulsory" But the case then tried
was permitted to go before the court
without the denial Of a single fact al
legged by the board OF health, The real
merits OF the cause, apart from the
simple question Of the power given to
local boaris OF health under certain
conditions were not touched upon. The
court did not decide that those boards
held unlimited authority even In such
conditions as We're alleged to exist, but
said.
THE exercise Of the power is con-
trOlled. however, and when called upon
the board must show that us acts are
justified by the facts In the case"
In reasoning upon the matter the
court said, further.
"The order to exclude ihe child had
no effect beyond the eM tence OF the
emergency"
The court did not pass on the ques-
ton Of the actual existence Of cause
for the order OF exclusion but re-
marked
mo question was raised as o. the
emergency that existed last January,
for the board OF health TO exercise ito
powers and prevent the threatened
spread Of smallpox. neither We're the
rules and regulations prescribed ny the
board attacked as unreasonable on un-
necessary"
Thus It will be- seen that no test has
been made in the courts as TO the pow
ers Of the boards Of health. when the
conditions they claim to have existence
may be shown not to exist or when they
appear 60 be unreasonable or unneces-
sary The tlmldlty shown by some
"''i"' WI ~ "''''' '0 '"''"'"N o" ~ w
the authority they hold IN relation TO
the conduct OF the schools ana the gem
eral sentiments OF the public on these
questions.
But the chief point TO be- held In View
just now Is the assumption OF power
described In the letter we give place 70
above DR. Baker Is not member of
the state board Of health. II be We're
that would not confer upon him such
authority as he seems 20 have been eX.
ercislng As tho Deseret News has
pointed oul before, the laws ~ Utah OF
1893 give jurisdiction 100 all matters
pertaining to the preservation o. the