UNVACCINATED CHILDREN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 87, 11 April 1906, Page 5

UNVACCINATED CHILDREN.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE POLICE COUET.

SUCCESSFUL. OBJECTORS.

The adjourned cases in which the Registrar of Births summoned parents to show cause why their children should not be vaccinated, came before Mr. C. C. Kettle, SAL, this morning, when several of the defendants brought their children into the uncongenial atmosphere of the Police Court-. Mr. Mays appeared for the Crown Solicitor, who had been instructed for the prosecuted. One of the defendants was Mr. George George, director of technical education in Aueklarid; - who dechiied ort o&th that he conscientiously believed that -vaccina- j tion would injuriously affect his child's ' health. He was carefully vaccinated in England, but sores came out on Ms body, and he had a good deal of trouble before they disappeared. He attributed the sores directly to vaccination, and so strongly did he now feel on the subject that he would suffer the extreme penalty of the law rather than ajlow his children to be vaccinated. Mr. Parr argued on Mr. George's be-! half that if the law permitted a conscientious objection within four months, it should apply at any timeHaving elicited from Mr. Mays the fact that no evidence would be called for the prosecution, his Worship said he would decline to grant an order for the child's vaccination. Mr. Mays: Does your" Worship saythat you propose to extend the time when a conscientious objection shall apply from, four months to 14 years? His Worship: Whatever is "the effect, I cannot help it. I won't take the re-1 sponsibility of ordering this child t be vaccinated. It may die or become diseased, and I would be responsible. The law says the District Health Officer shall compel them to do' it. When a parent swears positively that he honestly be- j lieves vaccination likely to be- injurious to his cMld's. health, I will not order him to consent. If you like I will state a case for the Supreme Court. Mr. Parr i What are the intentions of the Health Department? Do they wish that the Court shall order every conscientious objector to have his child vaccinated? Mr. Mays: I asked the chief of the Health Department if. he was willim? that the four months' exemption should be extended to 14 years, and he most distinctly said "No!" The Legislature has fixed four months as the limit, and it should not be extended. There was some further discussion upon the point, and Mr. Mays asked the magistrate if he was prepared, to say that a conscientious objection was sufficient? His Worship-. I do not say it on the evidence of the defendant. The next defendant, Ernest C. Hadfield, offered to produce witnesses to show that there had been six cases of blood poisoning and two deaths in Auckland directly attributable to vaccination. He was also prepared to swear that he believed the operation would injure his child's health. . The magistrate declined to grant, an order,- and several other cases were similarly dealt with. One of the defendants asked if the proceedings would be ended, but was informed by Mr. Mays that if the Department thought fit he could be brought up once a month. In, eight cases where the registrar asked for an order to vaccinate the application was declined, on account of the parents' conscientious objection, and. there were no instances in which the magistrate made any order.