The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1907-02-14
VACCINATION.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT or
PENNSYLVANIA.
Reafnrming the Valitits Of the Act Of Iune 10
1895, Which Requires The Exclusion From
the Public Schools OF Children Who
Have Not Been vaccinated.

the Public Schools OF Children Who
Have Not Been vaccinated.
The following opinion of the Su-
preme Court was rendered in case
from Franklin county and was filed
in May, 1906. AS it discusses
subject that has been more or less
agitated in this county, we print it
in full. The opinion was filed by
Chief Justice Mitchell.
STULL } January, 1906.
v. mo. 63, c. p. Franklin.
WIed MAY 7, 1906.
The substantial question in this
case is whether the Act of June IS,
1895, P. l.. 2o3, requiring the ex-
clusion from the public schools OF
children who have not been vacci.
mated is a valid exercise of the
police power of the State. 1t has
been twice so decided by this court.
In Duffield V. School District of
Williamsport, I62 Pa. 476, SINH
lar regulation not even exacted by
the legislature but enforced by the
school directors under an ordinance
of the city of Williamsport was held
valid. And in Field v. Robinson,
1913 Pa. 63S. this very statute of
June IS, 1895, was held constitu-
tional. 1t appears to be thought
that because the decision was given
in brief opinion per curiam the
subject was not fully considered.
But the proper inference is precise
ly the reverse, that the conclusion
was SO perfectly clear to the whole
court that it did not require any
exterded argumentative support.
Aftet these two decisions the
question ought to have been consid-
cred as closed. But we have it
raised again with small variations
of facts and considerations none OF
which are at all material
On the constitutional question it
is said that section IL OF the act
contravenes sections 7 and of ar.
ticle 3 of the constitution in that it
is local and special legislation, re-
gulating the affairs of school dis
tricts. The terms of the act apply
expressly to the Several munich
palities" of the State and it is
argued that they do not include
school districts in townships and
therefore make an unwarranted dis
tinction in regard to such districts.
Whether townships are municipal
ties within the intent of the act it
is not now necessary to consider.
Even if not, the separate classifca-
tion of school districts in cities and
boroughs with reference to public
health where population is dense
and the danger Of contagion great,
would not be unconstitutional.
Sugar Notch Borough, 1872 Pa. 34o.
But the act is in no proper sense
a regulation of school districts. 1t
is an act entitled ''for the more ef-
fectual protection of the public
health in the several municipalities
of the Commonwealth and is
general statute on that subject.
What bearing it has on schools and
school districts is altogether Incl.
dental to them as constituents Of
the community. The constitution
al restrict ons on special legislation,
not to the incidental operation Of
statutes constitutional in themselves
upon other subjects than those with
which they directly deal. Sugar
Notch Borough, 1872 Pa. 34e.
1t is further said that section IL
contravenes section of article 10
of the Constitution, requiring the
maintenance of an efficient system
| Of public schools wherein all child
rem above the age of six years may
be educated. 1t is sufficient to say
that this article like all others must
be construed and applied in con-
nection with other fundamental
governmental powers. The schools
and school children, important as
they are, are only fractions of the
community and the police power of
the commonwealth in the preserva-
ton of the public health must, if