Dr. Samuel G. Dixon, Commissioner of Health for Pennsylvania, took the results of the March 1906 trial as a victory for compulsory vaccination even though the court had ruled that the Jackson Township school directors and community members were “not guilty” of the charge of conspiracy.
From the Harrisburg Daily Independent, March 30, 1906:
DR. DIXON IS NOT DISCOURAGED
Result of Suit Against Directors Won’t Injure Vaccination
HAS EMPHASIZED QUESTION
Judge Kunkel’s Statement From Bench Will Have Weight With Opponents
Dr. Samuel G. Dixon, State Health Commissioner, is in nowise discouraged over the outcome of the suit against the Jackson Township School Directors, on a charge of conspiracy. The announcement of Judge Kunkel that the vaccination law must be obeyed as long as it is on the statute books pleased Dr. Dixon very much for he realizes the force of the Judge’s charge and the effect it will have on others who are not observing the law, or are antagonistic to it. Speaking of the outcomes of the trial, Dr. Dixon says:
“A great aim of the Department of Health has been to get the school children of the State vaccinated for the protection of themselves and others against the ravages of smallpox, and I do not feel that the result of the present litigation will in any way injure our cause. In fact, I am encouraged to believe that as a result of the hearing and the strong words of the Judge in the interest of law and public health, the vaccination of school children will go on in Jackson Township as it is doing in other parts of the State.
“Yesterday morning just before leaving my office for the court room I notices on my desk requests for nearly a thousand vaccination blanks to be used in districts where there had been at one time strong opposition to vaccination, but where now by reason of our campaign of education the eyes of the people have been opened, their prejudices broken down, and they stand ready to permit their children to be made immune against smallpox. I feel sure that this will be the case in Jackson Township, and that these very School Directors who were acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to have the law violated will go back and use their influence for the right.
“When the witnessed were called upon the stand it was found that there was nothing in the evidence to prove conclusively that these School Directors conspired together to maliciously have the law of the Commonwealth broken. Their counsel brought out that they were looking for light and that they had no desire to thwart the work of protecting the health of their people by having the vaccination law violated. This being the case, I felt that the Department of Health had accomplished its purpose; that these men had been brought into the light which would make clear the road to duty, and I, therefore, agreed with counsel that it was unnecessary to take any more testimony but to ask the Judge to charge the jury for acquittal.
“There can be no question in their minds as to the construction they should put upon the vaccination law, for Judge Kunkel in no uncertain terms admonished every citizen of the Commonwealth of his duty to obey the law and under no circumstances endeavor to procure the violation of it by others.”
___________________________________________
Dixon also strongly stated that he would not be deterred from enforcing the compulsory vaccination law. From The Courier, Harrisburg, March 30, 1906:
HEALTH COMMISSIONER WILL BRING SUIT
State Health Commissioner Dixon announces that the acquittal of the Jackson Township school directors yesterday on the charge of conspiring to prevent the operation of the compulsory vaccination law, will not prevent him from bringing suits to enforce that statute. The decision of Judge Kunkel in no way effects the constitutionality or the effectiveness of the vaccination law. It merely decides that the school directors had not conspired against the enforcement of the law and is not a victory for the anti-vaccinationists.
The health commissioner will bring suit in other places on new charges and if the Jackson Township directors do not proceed to enforce the vaccination law, they may also find themselves hauled into court on another charge.
___________________________________________
And, from the Harrisburg Telegraph, March 30, 1906:
JACKSON TOWNSHIP CASE
The acquittal of the Jackson Township directors on the charge of conspiracy to defeat the objects of the vaccination law is a matter of great interest to school directors all over the State.
As a matter of fact, however, the question of the constitutionality of the vaccination law was not squarely raised in this suit. About all that the Jackson Township case involved was the prosecution of certain school directors and others for conspiracy to violate a law.
It is the opinion of lawyers that the only way the vaccination act can be squarely tested in the courts is through the arrest, perhaps, of a school teacher admitting unvaccinated pupils. An appeal to the courts would then result on the constitutionality of the law.
There is undoubtedly a great deal of opposition to the law as it now stands. The whole matter will have to be worked out patiently and with due regard for the strenuous opposition which prevails in many communities, especially in the rural districts.
State Health Commissioner Dixon is deeply in earnest in his desire to properly enforce the laws relating to his department, and he ought not be criticized for doing what he believes to be his duty.
If there is a question of unconstitutionality in the act, that can be determined through proper legal proceedings. This step will probably be undertaken in another way.
___________________________________________
The county superintendent of schools stated that attendance was affected by the “difficulty” over the compulsory vaccination law, but overall, the school year was successful. From the Harrisburg Telegraph, June 2, 1906
ABOUT COUNTY OFFICIALS
County Superintendent H. V. B. Garver was in the city yesterday holding an examination for professional certificates, three having applied at the court house for the papers. Mr. Garver says that all of the schools under his supervision except one in Halifax and one in Jackson Township have closed after a most successful term. The year has been marked by large attendance and except in the districts where difficulty occurred over the vaccination laws, the attendance was large. Mr. Garver is hopeful that there will be less difficulty over the vaccination law next winter as it will then be better understood.
____________________________________________________
In reporting on the trial of the Jackson Township school directors and community members, the news from the community of Dietrich was that they were “found not guilty.” However, the result of the trial was that the judge clearly ruled that the compulsory vaccine law had to be enforced, and this fact was not reported. From the Lykens Standard, news from Dietrich, April 6, 1906:
The school directors of this district who were arrested on a charge of conspiracy against the State vaccination law, were tried last week, Wednesday and found “not guilty.” The costs were placed upon the county.
____________________________________________________
Days after the trial was over, the anti-vaccination movement was still festering in Jackson Township. Lora C. Little, a national anti-vaccination firebrand, stationed herself in the area and doubled down on her efforts to get the law repealed. From the Lykens Standard, news from Fisherville, April 6, 1906:
Mrs. Lora Little, editress [sic] of the “Liberator,” is expected to lecture here Wednesday evening in the interest of the anti-vaccination. If the weather is favorable, a large audience is expected.
____________________________________________________
Readers of the Elizabethville newspaper were led to believe that the smallpox vaccine gave a small child ulcers in the eyes and that Cuticura products would give great benefit and relief for any injuries caused by the vaccine – including the prevention of scars. From a paid testimonial published in the Elizabethville Echo, May 24, 1906:
ULCERS IN EYES
Awful Discharge From Eyes and Nose —
Grateful Mother Strongly Recommends Cuticura
“I used the Cuticura remedies eight years ago for my little boy who had ulcers in the eyes, which resulted from vaccination. His face and nose were in a bad state also. at one time we thought he would lose his sight forever, and at that time he was in the hospital for seven or eight months and under specialists. The discharges from the eyes and nose were bad and would have left scars, I feel sure, had it not been for the free use of the Cuticura remedies. But through it all we used the Cuticura Soap, Ointment and Resolvent, and lots of it, and I feel grateful for the benefit he received from them. The Cuticura resolvent seemed to sent the trouble out, the ointment healed it outwardly, and the Soap cleansed and healed both. He is entirely cured not, but since I have bought the Cuticura resolvent to cleanse and purify the blood and the Soap I cannot speak too highly of as a cleansing and medicinal beautifier. Mrs. Agnes Wright, Chestnut Street, Irwin, Pennsylvania. October 16, 1905.
____________________________________________________
A minister from Elizabethville was the agent for an anit-vaccination magazine. A paid notice in the Elizabethville Echo, June 7, 1906:
Subscribe for The Vaccination Magazine, published monthly at only twenty-five cents per year, and learn of vaccinations failure and injury. Also agent for other Anti-Vaccination literature. Address: (Rev.) D. A. Brown, Agent, Elizabethville, Pennsylvania.
____________________________________________________
Resistance was still coming from Jackson Township and the community of Fisherville. From the Lykens Standard, news from Fisherville, June 8, 1906:
The anti-vaccination society met Monday evening and passed resolutions that they will not support any candidate for the Legislature who will favor the notorious vaccination law and will not favor its repeal. The society will meet twice a month.
____________________________________________________
The Wiconisco schools were supporting and enforcing the compulsory vaccination law. From the Lykens Standard, August 10, 1906, and again on August 17, 1906:
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Wiconisco School Board intends to rigidly enforce both the Vaccination and Compulsory Education Laws. A Truant officer will be employed to see that all children attend school. It is hoped that parents will do their duty and save themselves trouble, as the Board must comply with the law or be liable to lose part of the State appropriation.
WICONISCO SCHOOL BOARD, August 4, 1906
_______________________________________
The Elizabethville schools were supporting and enforcing the compulsory vaccination law. From the Elizabethville Echo, August 23, 1906:
The schools will open on Monday, September 3rd. The vaccination and the compulsory school laws will be rigidly carried into effect from the opening of the term.
_______________________________________
The Halifax schools were supporting and enforcing the compulsory vaccination law. From the Lykens Standard, news from Halifax, August 24, 1906:
The Halifax schools will open on Monday, September 3rd…. The vaccination and compulsory education laws will be rigidly enforced from the opening of the term.
_______________________________________
The Pennsylvania Attorney General was very definite in that the compulsory vaccination laws would be enforced. From the Harrisburg Telegraph, September 14, 1906:
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS PUPILS MUST BE VACCINATED
Tersely Settles the Question Once and For All To-day
Attorney General Carson to-day sent a letter to a Berks County man who had queries him on the vaccination law in which he emphatically declared that the school is no place for any unvaccinated pupil. The letter is terse, but stronger than those which the Attorney General has issued on the subject.
The letter was addressed to Levy N. Christman, Strausstown, Berks County, and says:
“Replying to your letter I answer that it is the imperative duty imposed by statute, sustained by the Supreme Court, upon every teacher to exclude an unvaccinated pupil from the schools. I cannot too emphatically repeat what I have frequently said before, that the schools are open to vaccinated children only, and that any teacher who tolerates the presence of an unvaccinated child, or fails to require the production from a reputable doctor of a certificate of vaccination or a previous case of smallpox, is a violator of the law. The question as to when the term of the teacher began is wholly immaterial.”
_______________________________________
Nevertheless, Elizabethville and area residents were exposed to out-of-state resistance through a paid classified ad in in the Elizabethville Echo, September 20, 1906:
A brief on Worst Crime of the Age — Vaccination as cause of great white plague and untimely death of millions. 10 cents. C. L. Seward, Attorney-at-Law, Liberty, Indiana.
_______________________________________
After the school year began, a question began to surface about children for whom the vaccination would not be successful. Also, what would happen if the parent could not produce a certificate of successful vaccination, but claimed that their child was vaccinated? Dr. Dixon was then forced to issue a policy statement on how that should be handled. From the Lykens Standard, September 28, 1906:
VACCINATION
Dr. Samuel Dixon of the State Board of Health, says that the vaccination law does not require or demand impossibilities. One successful vaccination is sufficient. Where children have been successfully vaccinated and no certificate was, or if given was lost and the physician being dead of having moved away, then the parent or guardian may take the child to some competent physician who, if upon examination of the mark is satisfied that the child had at one time been successfully vaccinated, may issue a certificate of successful vaccination upon such examination. In the even of anyone having been unsuccessfully vaccinated for three times, then the physician may issue a certificate of immunity.
________________________________________
In Elizabethville, support for the compulsory vaccination law was almost universal, but there was some regret in that there were a few resisters. From the Elizabethville Echo, October 11, 1906:
One month of the school term of 1906-1907 is past. The work along all lines has been all that could be reasonably expected. The marked increase in all grades deserves special mention, as well as the excellent order which with a few exceptions has been above criticism. The interest taken in the school by the patrons is very gratifying to the teachers and directors, and has been shown by the hearty manner in which they have complied with the Compulsory Education and the Vaccination Laws. It is a sure sign of the right educational spirit when the patrons of a community willingly come forward and take the responsibility of such matters off the shoulders of the teachers and directors and thus save them from duties which are exceedingly unpleasant. We regret to say, however, that there are still a very few who have not complied with these laws, probably through careless neglect, rather than intention.
________________________________________
By November, support in the area of Elizabethville for compulsory vaccination, presumably meaning Jackson Township, had increased. From the Elizabethville Echo, November 8, 1906:
The vaccination of school children in this section is on the increase. Some parents have been taking their children to Harrisburg to get them vaccinated.
________________________________________
Dr. Dixon had to issue another policy clarification in December, in which this time he made a distinction between enforcement in cities and boroughs as opposed to enforcement in rural areas. From the Harrisburg Telegraph, December 1, 1906:
CHILDREN MAY BE ADMITTED IF UNVACCINATED
In Case There Are Three Failures Application Can Be Made
DR. SAMUEL G. DIXON OUTLINES A WAY
No Intention to Work a Hardship on Little Folks
CAN APPLY TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Plan Adopted for Both City and Rural Communities By the Commission
“After three carefully performed but unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child have failed, that child should not be debarred from school privileges but should be admitted and the State Department of Health has provided for this,” said State Health Commissioner Samuel G. Dixon in an interview to-day.
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,” continued Dr. Dixon, “Called attention in the recent opinion it handed down reaffirming the validity of the so-called vaccination law of June 18, 1895, to the hardship involved in the twelfth section of that act when it is beyond the power of children of school are to be vaccinated although they may not previously have had smallpox nor previously been vaccinated; that even repeated attempts to perform the operation on such children are without effect and vaccination will not take.
Court Suggested Change
“In such cases, as the Court pointed out, the physician cannot certify that such child has been successfully vaccinated so as to meet the requirement of admission to school. The Court’s decision suggested the possibility of the health authorities, State or local, making a regulation setting forth the conditions under which a child upon whom vaccination will not take should be permitted to go to school. The court also suggests that the health authorities would have to consider whether such a regulation would be undesirable as affording opportunity for the evasion of the statute.
“The Department of Health has taken this tendency to evade the law into consideration as it was obliged to and yet we have endeavored t see that those children who could not be vaccinated should be admitted to school. Our method of accomplishing this from the first has been as follows:
“When the cases that we received inquiry about were within the limits of a borough or city having a board of health of its own, we suggested that after two unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child, the third attempt be made in the presence of the physician of the board of health. If this attempt failed, then the physician of the board acting in his official capacity should authorize the admission of the child.
“In the rural districts, where there are no boards of health to pass upon such cases, I have always asked that after three unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child have been made, the name of the child and the physician who made the attempts be referred immediately to State Department of Health.”
________________________________________
More from Dr. Dixon in mid-December as well as his comments on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s validation of the compulsory vaccination law of 1895. From the Lykens Standard, December 14, 1906:
WHEN VACCINATION FAILS TO TAKE
Health Commissioner Dixon Explains Provision That Is Made In Such Cases So That Children May Not Be Debarred From School
THE CLAIM IS MADE THAT “CHILD IS UNFIT”
In Exceptional Cases, Where Careful Investigation By Local or State Health Authorities Justifies Admission to School, It is Authorized
“After three carefully performed but unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child have failed, that child could not be debarred from school privileges, but should be admitted, and the Department of Health has provided for this,” said State Health Commissioner Samuel G. Dixon.
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,” continued Dr. Dixon, “called attention in the recent opinion it handed down reaffirming the validity of the so-called vaccination law of June 18, 1895, to the hardship involved is the twelfth section of that act when it is beyond the power of children of school age to be vaccinated, although they may not previously have had smallpox nor previously been vaccinated, and even repeated attempts to perform the operation upon such children are without effect and vaccination will not take in such cases, as the court pointed out, the physician cannot certify that such child has been successfully vaccinated so as to meet the requirement o admission to school. The court’s decision suggested the possibility of the health authorities, state or local, making a regulation setting forth the conditions under which a child upon whom vaccination will not take, may be permitted to go to school. The court also suggests that the health authorities would have to consider whether such a regulation would be undesirable as affording opportunity for the evasion of the statute.
“The Department of Health,” continued Health Commissioner Dixon, “has taken this tendency to evade the law into consideration, as it was obliged to, and yet we have endeavored to see that these children who could not be vaccinated should be admitted to school. Our method of accomplishment this from the first has been as follows:
“When the cases that we received inquiry about were within the limits of a borough or city having a Board of Health of its own, we suggested that after two unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child, the third attempt be made by or in the presence of the physician of the Board of Health. If this attempt failed, then the physician of the board, acting in his official capacity, should authorize the admission of the child.
“In the rural districts, where there are no Boards of Health to pass upon such cases, I have always asked that after three unsuccessful attempts to vaccinate a child have been made, the name of the child and the physician who made the attempts be referred immediately to the State Department of Health. The cases have then been at once investigated by our County Medical Inspectors or some one deputized by them, so that the child might not be debarred from school privileges. These methods of dealing with the situation have been in conformity with the Supreme Court’s suggestion that the health authorities assume the responsibility of authorizing the admission to school of children upon who, after a reasonable number of attempts, vaccination does not take.
“Taking advantage of the spirit of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we have also endeavored to deal with the cases of children where there was reason to believe that the child’s physical condition did not vaccination at the present time advisable. The Attorney General of the State had given an opinion that a teacher was not authorized to accept a certificate from a physician stating that the child was not in a physical condition to be vaccinated. It is reasonable to believe, however, that although the simple giving of such a certificate by the family physician would not be sufficient, the spirit of the Supreme Court’s opinion would permit the recognized health authorities throughout the state, after careful investigation, to pass upon such cases.
“Therefore, when such cases are not brought to the attention of our department, we have suggested that inside borough or city limits, the local Board of Health, through its physician, decide whether the child is well enough to attend school and yet not in a fit condition to be vaccinated. In the districts where there are no Boards of Health we are having such cases investigated and passed upon by our regular County Medical Inspectors.
“It will thus be seen,” concluded Dr. Dixon, “that the State Department of Health is doing everything possible to prevent any child from being unjustly deprived of its schooling. If the parent or guardian however, refuses to permit a child to be vaccinated simply through prejudice, the health authorities certainly have no power to interfere with the operation of the law. In such cases we have done everything we could to overcome this prejudice by education, so that the innocent child might not be made to suffer because the parent desired to leave it exposed to the ravages of smallpox rather than undergo vaccination, which the the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in the exercise of its police power has made one of the requisites of admission to school.”
____________________________________
Part 6 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.