The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-08-12
VACCINATION AND THE LAW By Hon. Harry Weinberger, of the New York Bar
 (FromT The Fra.)
(Fronn The Fra>)

>--S@-r-~~--~-~~-~~~-~S exact education required by the law nor the exact amount of tfnne-iu I fact, a good deal less. The Board Ethereupon requested him to have his children vaccinatedd, and that he would be allowed then to send them 1 to school. Upon Thorpe refusing, he
 was served with summons from the
 Education Law. s
 | The following argument was made
 before the Court: 'AlI Children are 1 healthy or unhea1thy-both sides can 1 agree on that. If the Court and the l Board of Education claim that the 1 Thorpe children are healthy, though
 unVaccinated, then Thorpe complied 1 with the law by sending healthy cI1iI-
 dren to school in the first place, and l the Board of Education was at fault
 in not taking them. But if the Court
 and the Board of Education say that
 the Thorpe children are unhealthy, l because unvaccinated, then Thorpe did not have to comply with the law, because the law distinctly says that children in proper physical condition ] must be sent to schoo1.'' The Court and the Board of Education were ask ed to take either horn of the dilen-
 ma. Thorpe was dismissed and the Board of Education woefully failed.
 The Attitude of the Courts.
 The pro-vaccinationists contend that the courts have upheld vaecina-
 records what do we find ?? In the Vie
 meister case, decided by the New York
 Court of Appeals. and which is the
 leading case in the United States and
 typical of almost all of the cases
 which have kot into the courts, and
 in which the pro-vaccinationists claim
 victory, we find that Viemeister asked
 that the Board of Education be com
 pe1led by mandamus to take his child
 into school, even though unvaccinat-
 ed. The Court held that public edu
 cation. even though guaranteed in the
 York, was only a privilege and not a right, and that, therefore, the State had a right to prescribe rules for the admission of children into schools. Without quibbling as to whether the Court was correct in deciding that ed- ucation was a privilege and not a right, and without going into the ques- ton of whether there really is any difference between the two, the Court yet refuses to pass on vaccination, ex- cept that it is a rule that the State can pass the majority of the people must therefore comply before your children can go to school. Judge Woodward of the Appellate Division in the same case, said: ''It may be conceded right to compel any per son to submit to vaccination"
 The Situation in Massachusetts.
 The United States Supreme Court, in Jacobson versus Massachusetts, held: That where there was an epi- demic of smallpox and the law pre- scribed that every one shuold be vac cinated, and any one who refused | should be fined five oIlars, that that did not infringe upon the constitu tionaI rights of the individual. The Court also seemed to hold that a 1 should be vaccinated. Yet, that not being the real issue before the Court, | it Is only obiter ddctum. And fur thermore, the decision is not final, be- cause it is not decided according to It stands with the Dred of the black man-and which would not stay settled because not settled | right. If any State passed a law compelling vaccination, and you re- sisted, believe. the United States Su- preme Court would protect you, and declare the law unconstitutional. It must be noted in the Jacobson case that there was an epidemic, and the for refusing to be vaccinated was a fve-dolIar fine, sort of bribe to be Vaccinated. The Court may have also been influenced by the fact L that the Massachusetts law was like the old English Compulsory Vaccin- ation Law, where if you refused to be vaccinated you were fined. In England to-day, if you file certii- cate that you have conscientious ob- Iections against vaccination, you and your family are free from the fine and your children can remain unvac- einated. So, To and behold, the great victories of the pro-vaccinationists vanish.
 Vaccination stands to-day in the po- sition of any medical operation, and the consent of the person % be operated upon, and in the case of the infant requires the consent of he parents. No medical prescription, even though written into law, at the ,equestt of the po1itico- o-medicos, can De really enforced. They may at { .empt to buIldoze by fines in some by pub1ic-schoo1 educa- ion for children in others-but you an apply your reason to the question l ,f vaccination and decide for yourself you want to De vaccinated or lot. :
 In the words of Alfred Russe1 Wal ace, the great scientist, Vaccination i s a de1usion-its penal enforcement ( crime.'' |
 That Ithaca girl student who lived m 50 cents a week ought to receive z