Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-16

main in public schools Justice
1Anderson's ruling.
The regulation of the board of educa-
ton requiring vaccination as a condition
precedent to admission to the public
schools Of the District was sustained to-
day by Justice Anderson of the District
Supreme Court.
The court denied the application OF
Carl Harris. the nine-year-old son Of DR..
George r. Harris. for a mandamus to
compel the board to admit the boy to
school without being vaccinated.
Attorneys Walter c. Balderston and
Charles w Darr counsel for the boy,
noted an appeal from the decision and
will take the ma .ter to the Court of Ap-
peals for review.
Provisions of the Regulation.
The court holds there is no uncertainty
in section ia Of the Revised Statutes.
on which the board relied in framing the
regulation. The section provides: "No
child shall be admitted into the public
| schools who. shall not have been duly
vaccinated or otherwise protected against
the smallpox"
justice ANDERSON also ONeTTuteS the
contention OF the antl-vaccinatiOn adNo-
Gates. that the acts of Congress passed
June and ~, 1906. were intended to
cover the whole subject of school legis-
latfon. On the contrary, says the court,
the acts themselves only purport to re-
peal prior acts parts Of acts In con-
fiict Herewith.
The court also holds that The contagious
diseases act of 1897. relating to persons
generally, was not intended to supplant
section 21i, relating to school children
and prescribing condition precedent to
their admission to the public schools.
Justice Anderson's Ruling.
The case at bar. says Justice. Anderson
is not Of penal statute requiring strict
construction, but one in which the only
question presented is whether the court
can, by fair and reasonable construction
give effect to the section under considera-
ton. III this can be done without viO-
lence or importing anything into the
statute, the court expressed the opinion
that it is the courts duty to do SO.
There can be no question saws Jus
tice Anderson, '.as to the validity Of stat
utes making the vaccination Of children q
condition of their right to enter or re-
main In public schools He then quoted
cobsen agt. Massa achusetts, and added:
Language Held to Be Clear.
THE words or otherwise protected
against the smallpox cannot. in the judg-
nent Of the court. be said to be uncertain
or indefinite when used in connection with
the word 'vaccinated. which has a def
mite and well understood meaning. It is
medical profession, and likewise justified
by long experience that one who has al
ready suffered from smallpox is usually
thereafter immune, as is, also, one who
has been vaccinated without success on
several occasions. The words or other
wise protected against the smallpox were
evidently used in the statute to embrace
not only such means Of protection as
those just mentioned. but also such other
recognized and accepted means of pro-
lection known to medical science IL any,
or that might thereafter be discovered.
The court is, therefore, of opinion
that the point urged by the relator that
section .74. Revised Statutes, District of
Columbia. is void for uncertainty is not
well taken.
Regulation Not Repealed.
The second and remaining question to
be determined. the court holds, is, Has
| legislation?
Alter SGtiIUS lOItu lne cOnIenIlOn OF
Attorneys Balderston & Darr, that SD
seauent legislation did repeal section 274
| Justice Anderson says:
The court is unable TO agree with the
contention Of relator that these two acts
of June and ~, 1906, were intended
to cover the whole subject of school
| legislation. On the contrary, the acts
| themselves only purport to repeal prior
| acts or parts of acts in conflict there
with. And it is to be observed, to state
one instance Of prior school law that
still remains III force. that sections 1v4
to 31l, Revised Statutes, District OF CO.
lumbia, respecting the existence of sep
\ arate schools for the white and colOrei !
races, obviously still in force, notwith-
standing those. provisions are not ex-
pressly embodied or referred to in the
act of June 20. 1906
Acts Not in Conflict.
The court is further of opinion that
the settled rules of statutory construc-
| tion do not support the contention of the
relator that the contagious disease act Of
| 1897 relating to persons generally sup
planted the provision of section 274 RS
| ID. c.. relating to school children, and pre-
scribing a condition simply of their. ad-
mission to the public schools. a provision
/ in statute for the use of one means In
the case of school children. as a condition
of their admission. is not in any way in
conflict with the provision OF another
| statute for the use of other means in the
| case of the community as whole. And
| 1t Is clear to the court, after a careful
consideration of these various statutes,
| that section pa. r. S. d. c.. is not In con-
| fiict with later statutes. but therefore has
| not been repealed thereby, but is still in
! force. 1t certainly was not in conflict
| with the other provision of the original
| compulsory education act of 1864. In
| which it was embodied. which prescribed