BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 9 , Reading 1

BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 9 , Reading 1 - 197 U.S. 11, 25...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 765, 49 L.Ed. 643 Supreme Court of the United States. HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err. , v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 70. Argued December 6, 1904. Decided February 20, 1905. IN ERROR to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts for the County of Middlesex to review a judgment entered on a verdict of guilty in a prosecution under the compulsory vaccination law of that State, after defendant's exceptions were overruled by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Affirmed . See same case below, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719 . The facts are stated in the opinion. A state Legislature, in enacting a statute purporting to be for the protection of local communities against the spread of smallpox, is entitled to choose between the theory of those of the medical profession who think vaccination worthless for this purpose, and believe its effect to be injurious and dangerous, and the opposite theory, which is in accord with common belief and is maintained by high medical authority, and is not compelled to commit a matter of this character, involving the public health and safety, to the final decision of a court or jury. **358 *14 Messrs. George Fred Williams and James A. Halloran for plaintiff in error. *18 Messrs. Frederick H. Nash and Herbert Parker for defendant in error. *22 Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court: *12 This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination. The Revised Laws of that commonwealth, chap. 75, § 137, provide that ‘the board of health of a city or town, if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty- one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit $5.' An exception is made in favor of ‘children who present a certificate, signed by a **359 registered physician, that they are unfit subjects for vaccination.’ § 139. Proceeding under the above statutes, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 27th day of February, 1902, adopted the following regulation: ‘Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and still continues to increase; and whereas, it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated; and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that *13 all the inhabitants habitants of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1st, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.' Subsequently, the board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/23/2011 for the course BUL 4602 taught by Professor Johnson during the Spring '11 term at W. Florida.

Page1 / 11

BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 9 , Reading 1 - 197 U.S. 11, 25...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online