Pox_ An American History - Michael Willrich [242]
86 State v. Hay, 126 N.C. 999, 1005 (1900).
87 State v. Hay, 126 N.C. 999, 1004 (1900). “Jacobson SJC Brief,” 30, 31. “Those who pose a risk to the community can be required to submit to compulsory measures for the common good,” writes Lawrence Gostin of the harm avoidance principle. “The control measure itself, however, should not pose a health risk to its subject.” Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000), 69.
88 Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 F. 1, 7, 10 (1900). Charles J. McLain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994), 234–76. Henry Bixby Hemenway, Legal Principles of Public Health Administration (Chicago: T. H. Flood & Co., 1914), 633: “Few diseases have been more subjected to judicial inquiry than smallpox.” Tobey, Public Health Law (1926), 118: “A few decades ago, it seems as if the bulk of court decisions arose out of conditions in which smallpox was the principal factor.”
89 “Jacobson SJC Brief,” 3, 14, 16, 18. “Pear SJC Brief,” 3, 14, 16, 18.
90 “Marcus Perrin Knowlton,” memorial, 231 Mass. 615 (1919).
91 Commonwealth v. Pear; Same v. Jacobson, 183 Mass. 243, 245 (1903).
92 Commonwealth v. Pear; Same v. Jacobson, 183 Mass. 243, 246, 248 (1903).
93 Commonwealth v. Pear; Same v. Jacobson, 183 Mass. 243, 248 (1903).
94 “Virus Squad Out,” BG, Nov. 18, 1901, 7. Antivaccinationist literature after 1903 noted the noforce principle articulated in Commonwealth v. Pear; Same v. Jacobson. See, for example, Charles M. Higgins, Open Your Eyes Wide! Parents, School Officers, Editors, Judges, Legislators, Doctors; And Look at These Facts About Vaccination, 2d ed. (London: Anti-Vaccination League of America, 1912), 15.
95 Commonwealth v. Mugford; Same v. Same, 183 Mass. 249. There was a straightforward reason why the SJC would identify Jacobson rather than Pear as governing. Mugford, like Jacobson, had raised two questions: constitutionality of the statute and admissibility of evidence. Like Jacobson, Mugford had tried to put vaccination itself on trial by presenting medical evidence as to its dangers. Pear had made only the constitutional case.
96 “Jacobson USSC Transcript,” 21–22.
97 See, e.g., J. C. Henderson, “An Appeal,” Life (New York), Sept. 24, 1903, 288; Stuart Close, “Drug Diseases and Compulsory Medicine,” Medical Advance and Journal of Homeopathics (Chicago), 41 (Nov. 1903), 588. On the Court’s writ of certiorari, see Currie, Constitution in the Supreme Court, vol. 2, 5.
98 Geoffrey T. Blodgett, “The Mind of the Boston Mugwump,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 48 (1962), 614–34. Gordon S. Wood, “The Massachusetts Mugwumps,” New England Quarterly, 33 (1960), 435–51. “Williams, George Fred,” Who’s Who in New England, ed. Albert Nelson Marquis, (Chicago: A. N. Marquis & Company, 1916), 1160.
99 “George Fred Williams’ Platform,” in The Commoner Condensed, ed. William Jennings Bryan (Lincoln, NE: The Woodruff-Collins Printing Co., 1903), 344. George Fred Williams, “Our Real Masters,” Arena, Jan. 1903, 7–12. “In the Mirror of the Present,” Arena, Oct. 1906, 405–10, esp. 408. Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U.S. 340 (1903).
100 Plaintiff in Error, Brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, No. 70—October Term, 1904 (hereafter “Jacobson USSC Brief ”), esp. 19. See also ibid., 11 (schools) and 26 (no exemptions). “Involves Vaccination Law,” WP, Dec. 7, 1904, 5. “Final Appeal on Vaccination,” Boston Herald, Dec. 7, 1904, 16.
101 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 15, 16 (1905). “Jacobson USSC Brief,” esp. 8.
102 “Jacobson USSC Brief,” 30–31.
103 Lisa Paddock, “Harlan, John Marshall,” American National Biography Online, http://www.anb.org/articles/11/11-00385.html; accessed Jul. 21, 2010. See Linda Przybyszewski, The Republic According to John Marshall Harlan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999).
104 Plessy v. Ferguson,