THE NAPIER VACCINATION CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13369, 26 December 1906, Page 5

THE NAPIER VACCINATION CASE.

Sir.—Will yon allow mo to tow w her* id lies the interest and • significance of the above case, reported in your issue of the 1 17th in-1, ft appears that Mr. 3l«efatlane, a schoolteacher, and, we may presume, an intelligent and conscientious man, declined to have hi* chilli vaccinated, on the ground that be objected So vaccination. It would -corn that neither ho nor the vaccination officer made any reference to the statutory formula of objection. Probably Mr. Macfariaue had never seen it. or, if ho had. had forgotten its wordtfig, and the officer did not enlighten him or give a hint of th« necessity of using it. On the contrary, be takes advantage of Mr. Macfarlane'a technical omission, appeals to the stipendiary magistrate, ami is reluctantly granted an order for vaccination upon Mr. Mae.farlano'* child on that same ground. that he had objected to vaccination per se, and had not used a legal form-—vit.. that Ik- "conscientiously objected because be believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of hit child." It is impossible to avoid the impression that Mr. Macfartane lias been exposed to a little "sharp practice." Like most father- he would probably suppose that it was sufficient to make a decided protest against vaccination, and that thereby ho complied with the law's demand; and be certainly would hardly esjiect that such exacting regard would Im> paid te the letter of the law and so little to its spirit and intention. Evidently, too, as 1 take it. the magistrate, left to ids own inclination, would have allowed Mr. Macfarlane the benefit of hi.- unintentional and ignorant, omission. But, then, he recalls the de*. liverance of the English Lord Chief Justice. This gives him "pause." for this great authority laid it down that a declaration of objection to vaccination in general and perse was no lawful ground for exemption! Here again, taking the letter of fjord Alverstone's remarks. Mr. Brabant rightly quotes and accepts them as a {fuidiojj precedent. Yet. sir, 1 submit, with all respect, that Lord Alverstone had no such caso a* this in view when he made that deliverance. For you will remember it was addressed to English magistrates to correct

and regulate their administration (or, rat hot, their mel-administratkm) of the Act of 1893

in regard to applicants for exemption—and hereby hangs a tale, a touch of historic irony! Before the passing of the Act an amendment was moved by Mr. Pickersgill to protect applicants from being heckled, browbeaten, and intimidate* by magistrates. Ministers gave their " Parliamentary word" that nothing of the kind would occur or -be allowed and with this assurance the amend-

merit was all too confidingly withdrawn. For those men, proud men. "dressed m » little brief authority," so bullied ant? insulted applicants for exemption, so refused tlieir appeal.*, so fined and imprisoned thorn, that in his address to the Birmingham grand jury in 19-34 Lord Chief .Just-ire Alverstone insists that magistrates were not; entitled to think that thej must, bo satisfied that vaccination would bo harmful to the child, or to have medical evidence before them that it, would, or to allow themselves '' or the applicant to deal with the question of . vaccination in general, but to confine themselves to those two conditions: That tho applicant conscientiously believes; and the other, that he believes vaccination would be prejudicial to tho health of his child. I submit, sir, with all due respect, that to transfer these authoritative directions from the magistrate to the applicant, and n fckvt his unwitting neglect of them the ground of refusing him exemption, is to pervert the meaning and intention of the Lord Chief Justice, and to relieve tho magistrate at tho expense of the applicant. Lord Alverstone makes it the duty of a magistrate to confine tho appeal to the two specified conditions. The public lesson ( of this case is writ large When a parent or custodian of a child registers the birth and desires exemption from vaccination, let him 'cmomiwr and repeat the statutory form, "I, so-and-so, conscientiously believe, that vaccination would bo prejudicial to the child's health," and add 110 other words either before registrar or magistrate. Edwin Cox. Cambridge, December 19.