A newspaper photograph of Frank M. Eastman, a Harrisburg attorney who represented Dr. Samuel G. Dixon, Pennsylvania Health Commissioner, in the vaccination case against the school directors and others of Jackson Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, who refused to comply with the vaccination law of 1895.
_____________________________________________
The Pennsylvania Superintendent of Public Instruction, in his annual report for 1905, commented in support of the compulsory vaccination law of 1895, but thought that additional laws were needed to insure its enforcement. From the Harrisburg Daily Independent, January 8, 1906:
VACCINATION LAW NEEDS AMENDMENT
Dr. Schaeffer Points Out Its Defects In Annual Report
IN ACCORD WITH DR. DIXON
“Health Should Never Be Sacrificed for the Sake of Any Kind of Schooling”
Professor Nathan C. Schaeffer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, has submitted his annual report for the year just closed, in which he refers to a number of matters that are just now entering the attention of the public, growing out of the enforcement of the school laws. and laws relating to the health of schools….
In discussing the question of vaccination and compulsory attendance, Dr. Schaeffer quoted the recent decision of the Attorney General given to State Health Commissioner Dixon to the effect that the scholar not provided with a certificate of vaccination cannot attend school, and the parents cannot be punished for violation of the compulsory educational law by keeping the children from school. Dr. Schaeffer says “an unvaccinated child has his school rights suspended until there is compliance with law,” and he is in hearty accord with the suggestion of the Attorney General that at this point additional legislation is needed. Under present conditions, Dr. Schaeffer thinks, unless a private tutor can be provided, ignorance and illiteracy must be the doom of the child whose parent or guardian neglects or opposes vaccination. The act of 1895 is unsatisfactory for the following readons:
It has failed to make vaccination universal.
It has disorganized the schools in communities where there was no apparent danger from smallpox.
It punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.
It does not exclude unvaccinated children from public places, and yet assumes that they must be kept away from other children.
It does not impose vaccination upon teachers, but obliges them to shoulder the odium which arises through the neglect of a duty for which parents, physicians and health officers should be held responsible.
“The efforts of the Health Commissioner,” Dr. Schaeffer says, “to make vaccination universal, should be seconded and supported by all who are in any way connected with the public schools. Whenever smallpox becomes epidemic the schools must be closed, and at times the school treasury has been depleted by the expense involved in the care of smallpox patients. Health is a matter of such great importance that it should never be sacrificed for the sake of any kind or form of schooling.”
_____________________________________________
The anti-vaccinations would have none of it and continued campaigning to have the law repealed. From the Harrisburg Daily Independent, January 24, 1906:
ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS WANT LAW REPEALED
Resolution Asking the Governor to Issue Supplement
The anti-vaccinationists of Cumberland County want the Governor to issue a supplemental proclamation and ask the legislature to repeal that part of the Act of 1895 which compels pupils to have a certificate of vaccination before they can attend school. In the House today Mr. Brinkerhoff offered the following resolution which as objected to and not considered. He says he will offer it again next Monday night and get a vote on it:
Be is resolved by the House of Representatives, if the Senate concur, that the Governor of the Commonwealth be requested to supplement his said calls by another designating the following additional subject for consideration by this body to wit:
To repeal section 12, act of June 18, 1895, relating to the vaccination of children before admission to our public schools to the end that said enforced vaccination of school children may be done away with in this Commonwealth.
Mr. Brinkerhoff was howled down when he introduced his resolution. May loud cries of “No” arose from all ports of the house with a few isolated “Ayes.”
“The chair hears objections,” announced Speaker Walton, the resolution went back to Mr. Brinkerhoff.
____________________________________________
As for what was happening in Jackson Township, as of near the end of January, no decision was made as to how to proceed. From the Harrisburg Daily Independent, January 30, 1906:
Conferred With District Attorney
Attorney Frank M. Eastman, representing the State Health Department, had a conference this afternoon regarding the action of the Jackson Township School Board, which is said to be opposed to enforcing the law compelling children who attend school to have a vaccination certificate, and which is alleged to have endeavored to influence a teacher to open her school to unvaccinated pupils. No decision was reached at the meeting and the matter will be further investigates.
_____________________________________________
But at the end of January, a decision was made to charge the Jackson Township directors with conspiracy. From the Harrisburg Daily Independent, January 31, 1906:
CONSPIRACY THE CHARGE
Against Jackson Township Officials
It is said that the suit against the school directors of Jackson Township will be entered on a charge of conspiracy, the allegation being that the directors insisted on pupils being admitted to the schools without having certificates of vaccination. Miss Lehr, a teacher, is alleged to have refused to admit the children and resigned when her course was criticized, and another teacher engaged, who, it is said, had opened the school to all children, whether vaccinated or not. The State Heath Department, through its attorney, Frank M. Eastman, proposes to see whether its laws can be defied.
___________________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, January 31, 1906:
TO TEST HEALTH LAW
Health Department Will Prosecute School Directors Who Didn’t Enforce Vaccination
Prosecution, on the charge of conspiracy to defeat the objects of a State law, will be brought by the State Health Department against the School Directors of Jackson Township, because unvaccinated children were allowed to attend school without any restriction.
Frank M. Eastman, counsel representing Samuel S. Dixon, State Commissioner of Health, conferred yesterday with John Fox Weiss, District Attorney. The State Commission alleges that the directors of Jackson Township decided not to enforce the law requiring each pupil to have a certificate of vaccination. It is said that Miss Lehr, a teacher near Fisherville, resigned when she was reprimanded for refusing admission to several unvaccinated children. The teacher now in charge is said to allow all to enter.
___________________________________________
All that was then left was to serve notice to those who would be charged and allow the courts to handle the matter.
___________________________________________
Part 3 of a 7-part series of posts on the Jackson Township anti-vaccination case of 1906.
News articles from Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.