The Waikato Times, THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE, AND KAWHIA ADVOCATE. Established Thirty-Four Years. THE OLDEST DAILY NEWSPAPER IN THE WAIKATO. THE LARGEST CIRCULATION OF ANY DAILY PAPER SOUTH OF AUCKLAND. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1906. THE VACCINATION LAW.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8082, 19 December 1906, Page 2

The Waikato Times, THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE, AND KAWHIA ADVOCATE. Established Thirty-Four Years. THE OLDEST DAILY NEWSPAPER IN THE WAIKATO. THE LARGEST CIRCULATION OF ANY DAILY PAPER SOUTH OF AUCKLAND. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1906. THE VACCINATION LAW.

.... • I in; responsibilities of parents in reference to the vaccination of their children, and the application of the provisions of the Act for the issue of exemption certificates to those conscientiously objecting to the operation were dealt with at the Napier Magistrate's Court on Saturday by -Mr H. VV. Brabant, S.AL., in a case which has aroused some comment. Mr Mac Farlane, a school teacher, had applied lor a certificate of exemption in respect to his child, on the ground that lie objected to vaccination. The application was refused, the -Magistrate holding that applicant did not show that lie had a conscientious opinion that vaccination would be prejudicial to his child's health. The vaccination inspector thereupon applied for an order directing defendant to cause the child to be vaccinated. Mr Brabant, in giving las decision in this case, said he was of opinion that defendant had shown no sullicient cause why the child should not be vaccinated. The fact of his having a conscientious objection would not, lie thought, be sullicient cause, seeing that defendant applied for a certificate, which was refused. But even if the conscientious objection "ould be so considered, still defendant had shown no cause, because the conscientious objection, considered in the light of Lord Alverstoue's remarks, did not exist. Defendant stated hi.--objection to be to vaccination generally and not to the vaccination of this particular child. If the Act contemplated the granting of exemptions for such a reason, it would have made it clear. lie could not see his way to retu-e the order. Mr Brabant said if the opponents of vaccination doubted the correctness of his decision, lie hoped they would carry it to tlie higher Court, and get the matter satisfactorily settled. This case is of particular interest, and if -Mr Brabant's decision be sound, and there is no reason to doubt that it is, the operation of the exemption clause is very considerably restricted. There is reason to bel'eve that a large number of exemption certificates granted in the Couits of the colony have been wrongly granted, for the most common cause shown is that the parent conscientiously objects to vaccination on general grounds; in comparatively few cases could it be shown that there was reason to fear prejudicial effects from the operation on the health of the patient. We do not for a moment believe that the Legislature intended that such wide scope should be given to the exemption clause, which if indiscriminately applied, would defeat the object of the Act. Mr Brabant's decision, based on a leading English authority, that has not, we believe, previously been quoted in colonial cases, at anv rate in New Zealand, leaves very little to appeal upon, and his judgment may be taken to be a correct interpretation of the law upon the si'bject. 1 .iere is no need to go into the q lestion of the wistVn or otherwise of compulsory vaccination, but there is no doubt that the decision of Mr Brabant in the Napier case, which lias received such publicity, will, unless successfully appealed against, very largely govern future cases of the kind, with the result that the Act will be much more rigorously enforced than has been the case in the past.