View report page

32
requisition of the officers appointed by the law. They had
succeeded in retaining their liberty of action. But the course
they had adopted culminated in the injury, and even in the
death, of many of their neighbours.
The man who disseminates disease among his neighbours
is rightly regarded as a public enemy. Beyond his immediate
surroundings outside his district, or even his county, the
effect may be felt in illness and in death. Another generation
may have occasion to regret his default. The consequences
are not limited to time or place.
No one would seriously contend that he who carelessly or
wilfully exposes his neighbour to danger is undeserving of
punishment, or deny that legislation which restrains such a
one from his own folly, and safeguards the public from its
effects, is more expedient than that which would prescribe
penalties after the event. From these considerations we are
bound to believe that the vaccination laws are justified both
in their inception and in their operation.
In exceptional instances, it is true, injury has resulted
from the operation, either on account of the sickly condition
of the subject or from the inoculation of disease producing
material; but the exceedingly rare accidents of practice do
not afford grounds for an argument adverse to the principle.
Undoubtedly there is room for improvement in the details
of administration. As vaccination is made compulsory in
the interests of the public safety, the charges incidental to
its performance should be defrayed at the public cost; but
its association with the administration of Poor Law Relief,
under circumstances which must be distasteful to the least
sensitive of the community, is a policy which must tend to
bring the operation into disrepute. Moreover, the employment
at the public station of humanized lymph, an agent
less efficient as a means of protection than calf lymph, is a