Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-11-18
COURT TAKES CASE
Right to Bar N0n-vaccinated
From School Argued.
ANALYZING THE STATUTE
Board Of Education Files Answer to
Rule Issued.
EXCLUSION OF YOUNG HARRIS
Extended Discussion by Attorneys
Before Justice Anderson, Who
Reserved Decision.
ANALYZING THE STATUTE
EXCLUSION OF YOUNG HARRIS

Reasserting its right to make a regu-
lation prohibiting the admission to the
public schools Of children that have not
been vaccinated, the board of education
today filed answer to the rule i'm man
damus recently issued against 1t by the
Supreme Court of the District of Column
bia
The board holds that there has never
been repeal of section 274 of the Re
vised Statutes of the District, which pro-
vides that mo child shall be admitted
into the public schools who shall not
have been duly vaccinated or otherwise
protected against the smallpox There
fore. the board denies the charge of the
petitioner that it has. without warrant
of law. enormously adopted the rule re-
quiring vaccination.
Acting Oh the advice of Assistant
United States Attorney Stanton c. Peelle,
its legal adviser. the board adopts the
statements of facts made by DIR. George
r. Harris, on behalf of his nine-year -old
son Carl, concerning the application for
admission and the boys mental aualifi-
cations for the grade for which applca-
tion was made. By this means a clear
cut issue was framed for the decision of
the court, the board admitting that the
sole ground and reason for the refusal
to admit young Harris was that he had
not. at the time Of his application, been
vaccinated and was not otherwise pro-
teoted against smallpox.
After hearing extended arguments by
Attorneys Charles w. Darr and Walter
c. Balderston for the petitioner, and by
Mr.. Peelle, Justice Anderson took the
question under consideration. He will
announce his decision later
Exclusion of Harris.
Young Harris, October IL, accompanied
by his father. sought admission to the
third grade at the Adams building and
the principal of the school declined to
issue the necessary permit because the
boy had not been vaccinated. The parent
then asked the Intervention of the court
and rule, was laid on the members of
the board of education.
Counsel for DIR. Harris contended that
because the words ''or otherwise protect
ed are vague and indefinite. Even If the
court should sustain the act as valid,
counsel said, the writ of mandamus
should issue because the subsequent COM
pulsory education law, requiring without
of eight and fourteen to attend school
under penalty, has repealed the vaccina-
ton law.
A conflict exists, said counsel, between
the requirements of the two acts. and
since the latter enactment provides for
the repeal of all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with it's provisions. the COM
pulsory vaccination law must be con-
sidered wiped off the statute books. They
pointed out that no child could be pun
lab fo~ l;rr mol Goy oh
be refused admission for failure to sub
NIT to vaccination.
The Case for the Board.
Legal Adviser Peelle. in opposition to
this contention, claimed that when Con-
gress passed the latter law it is presumed
to have had knowledge of the previous
enactment and may reasonably be sup
posed to have intended to preserve pro-
vision for the health of the child while
requiring its attendance at school. He
declined to agree with counsel for the
petitioner that the two acts were in such
conflict as to make the vaccination law
fall under the repeating clause OF the
compulsory education act.
Mr.. Peelle contended that the act on
which the rule of the board is predicated
Is valid and is in no manner rendered
void by the words "or otherwise protect
ed" The meaning of these words, he
urged, is to exempt an immune, who has
suffered from the disease, or one on whom
repeated attempts at successful vaccina-
ton had failed