The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-08-25
COURT SUSTA|NS
STATE BOARD
OF HEALTH
Decision by Chief Judge ROweIl
Against st. Johnsbury
CANT USE RIVER WATER
Contention of Defendant That Boards
Order Was Violation of Personal
Liberty Denied

Montpelier, Aug. 25-Announce-
ment is made by Pres G. S. Caverly
of the State Board of Health that the
supreme court in a decision by Chief
Judge John w. Rowell had sustained
the Board of Health in its appeal in
chancery in Caledonia county court
against the village of st.
Johnsbury. The case was brought
against the village to pro-
hibit the furnishing and use of con-
taminated water from the Passumpsic
river for domestic purposes on the
ground that ii endangered the public
health.
II was contended by the attorneys
for the village Elisha May and Harry
Blodgett that no order could be made
by the Board of Health in violation Of
the personal liberty of the citizen and
that the Board had no right to punish
those who used the water.
On this point the Supreme court
says. las to personal liberty on: liill
of Rights declares that government IS
or ought to be instituted for the com
mon benefit, protection and security
of the people, nation. or community,
and not for the particular emolument
or advantage of any single man, fam
lily or set of men who are a part only
of that community. Closely allied to
this fundamental proposition is the
further declaration that people of the
state by their legal representatives
have the sole, inherent and exclusive
right of governing and regulating ;ne
internal police of the state. This
right the state did not surrender when
it became a member of the Union but
retains ii still: and that right, to say
the least. embraces such reasonable
rules and regulations. established dur
ectly by legislative enactment as VIII
protect the public health and the pub
lie safety. And the state may invest
local or state boards created for adj
purposes with authority
in some proper way to safeguard the
public health and the public safety.
The way in which these results are
to be accomplished is within the als-
erection of the state, provided the pow
ers and functions of the general gov
eminent are not thereby infringe6.
state nor the United States
I'VE come now to consider more
what personal liberty is as
secured by constitutional provision;
and on this Question We refer to jack
son V. Massachusetts, 1877 u. S. H. %
Sup. CT. 1858, 40 l.. Ed 643 which al
firms the legality OF compulsory vac
cination for the prevention of small
pox. There the plaintiff in error in
sisted that his LIBERTY was invaded
when the commonwealth subjected
him to fine and Imprisonment for re-
fusing to submit to vaccination; that
he compulsory vaccination law was
arbitrary, and oppres-
sive, and there fore hostile to the in,
herent right of every free man to care
for his own health in such way as to
him seemed best: and that the eXecu-
ion of such law was nothing short
Of an assault upon his person. But
the court said that the liberty secured
by the Constitution of the United
States to every person within its jur-
sdiction does not import an absolute
right in each person to be at all times
and in all circumstances wholly free
from restraints TO which every person
is necessarily subject for the common
good; that on any other basis organ
lied society could not exist with safe
ty to its members; that society bas ID
ON the principle that every man Is
law unto himself would soon be con-
fronted with disorder and anarchy
that real liberty could not exist under
H. - win nj
ognizes the right of eacn individual
person to use his own whether in res
Dect of his person or his property re-
CARELESS of the injury that might be
done to others; that the court mad
more than once recognized 1t as a run
iamental principle that persons end
,ronerty are subject to all kinds or
and burdens in order to Sc
,ure the general comfort, health and
of the state. of the perfect
right of the legislature to do when
no question was ever raised, nor on
general principles ever can be raised
as far as natural persons are concern
ed. 1t is said in Crowley V. Christen-
sen, 1917 U. S. S6y11 Sup. CT. 10, "a l..
Ed $40 that the possession and enjoy
nent of the rights are subject to such
conditions as may be deem
id bv the governing authority essen
.ial to the safety, health, peace, goou
order and morals of the community
hat even liberty itself, the greatest
If all rights. is not unrestrained nc
,nse to act according to ones own
will. that Il is only freedom from RS
RANT. under conditions essential I'd
he equal enjoyment of the same rlent
DIV others, and is, therefore liberty
regulated by law.
"And this court said in Lawrence "
Rutland railroad Co, so VI 80, 300
N All. 1921. Is L. r. A. On. 81 55O, |
the right to contract ina.
[ is not am absolute right 10 contract
hat it is not an absolute rlght' put
subject. on general principles, so such
restraint as the puDhe
GOOD requires: that it is the general
light to acquire property and by mes
assarv implication the. general right |
a contract concerning it, that the
protects but that the pro
cotton does not make those rights ao-
,olue I'm all respects, for II II does
THAT becomes. the court asks, II the
,olice mower, which inheres in every
rec government. and Is Daseu On ln'
maxim that you shall so use your pro-
,erty as not to injure the rlsnts Vi
,thers. which is universal anu pei
,ading obligation, and condiulon on
which all property is held, the appl-
.ation of which to particular cohdt
ms must necessarily be within Inc