The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1907-02-14

| SHPfeHd Iet. III a child manlfeStly
suffering from small-po in its con-
tagious stage should be excluded
from school, it is hardly conceiv-
able that the propriety of such ac-
ton should be questioned. At what
period before or after the outbreak
of the disease the right of exclusion
should arise is leg gslative, not
judicial question. AS said by our
late brother Williams in Duffield v.
School District, I62 Pa. 476, al
ready cited, "It is conceded that
the Board might rightfully exclude
the plaintiffs son if he was actually
sick with, or just recovering from
the smallpox. Though he might
not be affected by it, yet if another
member of the same family was,
the right to exclude him notwith-
standing ne might be in perfect
health, would be conceded. How
far shall this right to exclude one
for the good of many be carried !
That is question addressed to the
official discretion of the proper Of
ficers; and when that discretion is
honestly and impartially exercised
the courts will not interfere. "
These words it should be remen-
bered were written with reference
to authority exercised under city
ordinance, and /orkori when the
police power of the state intervenes
under the authority of statute its
directions are commands that may
not be disputed.
It is further argued that sections
II and IL OF the act should be read
together, and the right under sec
tion f2 to exclude unvaccinated
children should be confined to the
schools in the districts mentioned
in section II, namely those in which
small pox is actually prevalent.
But this is manifestly not the legis-
lative intent. Section II deals with
a present and immediate danger,
with persons, dwellings and places
where the disease actually prevails,
and its prohibition includes adults
as we'll as children, vaccinated or
not. Section IL on the contrary is
a cautionary and prospective regu-
lation, having in view not the ac-
tual presence of the disease but its
appearance in the future. The OBJ
jects of the two sections are dis
tinctly different.
In this correction the learned
Judge below found as fact "that
there is not at the time of the
filing of this bill, nor has there
been for period of about forty
years any person in the said bo
rough of Waynesboro or within
many miles thereof, suffering from
small-pox (variola or varioloid) l."
and it is argued that this feature
distinguishes the case from those
heretofore decided by this court
But the language Of the act is gen
eral and it's intent plain. The leg
islature may we'll have had in mind
that the good fortune Of such a
community may not continue inde
fnitely. Immunity for forty
years in the past afforde no guar
anty of immunity for even forty
days in the future if chance visi.
tor from an infected locality or a
borough resident returning from a
visit to such locality should bring
with him the germ of infection.
Section IL is precautionary and
preventive, and it is an old and
sound maxim that an ounce of pre-
vention is worth pound of cure.
There is one hardship in the
twelfth section that may deserve
consideration with view to pos
sible remedy. The court found as
fact that occasionally it is be-
yond the power of children OF
school age as we'll as adults to be
vaccinated, although they may not
previously have had the small l'pox
nor previously been vaccinated;
that even repeated attempts to per-
form ,he operation of vaccination
upsn such children or adults is
without effect and vaccination will
not take. In such cases vaccina-
ton is not successful and physi-
clan cannot certify that such child
or adult has been successfully vac
cinated." The health authorities,
state or local might we'll consider
whether they have power to make
regulation as to what should be
deemed a successful vaccination or
its equivalent; whether the ratio of
such immune children is of suffi-
cient Importance to justify the ex-
ercise of such power if possessed;
and whether such regulation would
be undesirable as affording oppor-
tunitv for the evasion Cf the statute,