CrimeAgainstSchoolChild1915

In 1915 New York state was trying to pass an act to force the immunization of all people in all 8 major New York cities. This document shows, with legal references, supreme court decisions, death rates of vaccinated people, studies, and other sources how forced vaccination is illegal and there is no study that shows vaccination is worth the risk of death. Forcing useless medical procedures is nothing new in the US. The text version of this booklet is here: https://pastebin.com/sX3nyY5u

-----
The Crime Against the School Child


CHAS M. HIGGINS


Return this book on or before the
Latest Date stamped below. A
charge is made on all overdue
books.

U. of I. Library




INDEX

Page

Introduction--The Fundamental Legal and Medical Fact Against All Compulsory Vaccination . 3

The New School Vaccination Law, Now in Force in New York State,
Different for City and Country. 5

Mr. Loyster's Peculiar Work in the Passage of This Law. Compulsion
Removed From His Own Country Schools and Put on All Our City
Schools with Double Pay for the Vaccinators. 7

Political Cowardice and Medical Craft in Passage of This Law Which Places
Compulsory Vaccination on All Schools in the Ten Leading Cities of
the State and Removes it from the Small Towns and Country Districts . 7

Mr. Loyster's Remarkable Pamphlet Showing the Death of His Own Boy
and Many Other Children From Vaccination in 1914.. 7

Smallpox Ten Times More Frequent in Country Than City. Absurdity
and Illegality of the Loyster Law Shown. 10

How to Legally Evade and Defeat the New Law. 10

First Defense: Doctor?s Certificate of Danger to Health or Life now Accepted in Schools Under Rule of Department of Education.. 10

Deaths of 30 Children From Vaccination in 1914. 11

The Greatest Sin in the Moral Code Committed by Vaccinators. Denying
Danger and Death from Vaccination. Impugning the Known Truth. 11

Second Defense: (For City Parents) Change Residence to Country. 12

Third Defense: Private Schools and Constitutional Rights. 12

Compulsory Vaccination Legally a Crime. Court Decisions Cited. 12

Fourth Defense: Criminal Prosecution of Vaccinators Under Common Law
and Penal Code.. 13

Fifth Defense: No Legal Power Exists to Compel Vaccination. 14

Vaccination Law Conflicts with Education Law and District School
Officers Have Power to Suspend Vaccination Law and Admit Unvaccinated Children, According to Decision of Department of Education by Commissioner Draper in 1912. 14

No Law in the State to Compel Vaccination. Decision of State Courts and
U. S. Supreme Court Given. 14

Decision of Court of Appeals in Ekerold Case Explained. A Law Exists
to compel Education of Children But No Law Exists to Compel Vaccination of Children or to Fine Parents for Failure to Vaccinate. 15

Decision of Commissioner Draper of Department of Education in the Case
of the Town of Olean in 1912. Legal Discretion to Suspend Vaccination Exists in All Local School Officers. 16

Re-Vaccination Illegal. One Vaccination Sufficient.. 17

Vital Legal Point: Education When Paid for Is a "Right" and Not a "Privilege." Decisions of Our Courts Cited. 17


Deaths from Vaccination Greater than Deaths from Smallpox. Shocking
Figures Given by Registrar-General of England. 19

Public Rebuke and Challenge Given to Our Vaccinating Doctors and Health
Officials Who Deny and Conceal Deaths from Vaccination. 19

Compulsory Vaccination Not Necessary to Prevent Smallpox. Sanitation
and Hygiene More Important and Effective. 20

The Leicester Method. Preventing Smallpox Without Vaccination. In
Use for Over Thirty Years in the Model Sanitary and Manufacturing
City of Leicester, England... 21

A Most Important Point: Vaccination Admittedly Spreads and Increases
Smallpox . 22

Our Ten New York Cities of First and Second Classes, Upon which Compulsory Vaccination Is Now Placed, Compared to Unvaccinated Leicester . 23

Voluntary Vaccination Not Opposed by Our League. 24

Highest Medical Authority Today Opposed to Compulsion.. 24

Recapitulation of Legal Defenses Against Compulsory Vaccination. 25

Compelling Vaccination by Force or Intimidation a Crime Under Penal
Code and Decisions of Our Courts. Caution to Parents and School
Officers and Warning to Vaccinators, Doctors and Health Officers.... 25

Civil Damage Suits. Verdicts Given by Our Courts Against Doctors and
Health Officers for Coercive Vaccinations. 26

Conclusion. . How to Assert Legal Rights and Defeat All Compulsory
Vaccination . 26

Officers of the Anti-Vaccination League of America. 27

Full Text of the Loyster-Tallett Vaccination Law Now in Force in New
York State. 28

The Loyster Law Legally and Logically Analyzed. Points for Lawyers and
Laymen Showing This Law to Be Illegal and Non-Enforceable. 30

First Point: Illegal Discrimination Against Large Cities and in Favor of
Country Districts Which Are Most Subject to Smallpox. 30

Second Point: Illegal and Excessive Penalty. 30

Third Point: Vaccination Cannot Be Legally Forced Exclusively on One
Special Class or Part of the Population, Such as School Children, Without Any Special Reason or Justification.. 31

School Children Most Vital, and Immune Part of the Population with
Lowest Death Rate, Only Five Per Cent, of Total Deaths, While Forming Twenty-five Per Cent, of the Population. 32

School Age Most Immune to Smallpox. Record of Last Epidemic Shown.. 33

Relative Dangers from Smallpox, Lightning and Lockjaw. Vaccination and
Lockjaw More Dangerous Than Smallpox, and Smallpox Less Dangerous Than Lightning!. 35

Vaccination for Voters Suggested Instead of for School Children. Voting
Ages Five Times More Subject to Smallpox Than School Age. 35

Fourth Point: The Theory That Vaccination Prevents Smallpox, Whether
Right or Wrong, Does Not Justify Any Law Which Forces Vaccination
Arbitrarily and Unreasonably on One Class Only of the Population,
viz., On the School Children Who Are Naturally Least Subject to
Smallpox . 36


Fifth Point: Inflicting a Wound and Disease Coercively on the Human

Body Is an Illegal and Criminal Act.. 38

All Vaccination Potentially Dangerous or Deadly and Cannot Be Legally
Forced on Any Person. Decision of Supreme Court of U. S. Cited... 38

Sixth Point: False Doctrine of "Police Power" to Inflict Disease or Death
in the False Name of "Public Health". 39

Inherent and Constitutional Rights of the People Superior to All Police
Power of the Legislature Which Cannot Invade These Rights. 39

Seventh Point: Several Constitutional Provisions Invaded by the Loyster
Law . 40

Proposition First: Right of Healthy Child to Education and Right of Parent
to Educate Child Inherent and Unalienable. 41

Proposition Second: To Force a Wound and Dangerous Disease on the
Human Body Is Absolutely Illegal and Criminal. 42

Eighth Point: Illegal Medical Graft in Double Compensation to Health
Officers as Found in the Loyster Law Renders It Invalid Under Article
3 of the Constitution. 42

Ninth Point: Other Possible Medical Graft in Exclusive Use of Special
Virus Makes Law Vicious and Doubtful. 43

Tenth Point: Only One Good Feature of the Loyster Law, Record of Vaccinations to Be Able to Trace and Suppress Dangerous Viruses. 43

The Lockjaw Lie, and Dr. Anderson's Report, Answered. Five Children Killed in One Week. 45

Letter to Mr. Loyster from Mr. Higgins Exposing the Evils of the Loyster
Law .... 46


Death of the Stillwaggon Boy from Vaccination Cited as an Example of
Many Others. Vaccinators Who Kill Children Compared to President
McKinley's Assassin. Absurdity and Worthlessness of Their "Reports"
on Such Deaths Demonstrated Warning Against This Child Slaughter
as Being a Crime Under the Penal Code. 46

Endangering Health or Life of a Child a Crime Under Penal Code, Section 483.. 46

The Loyster Bill Analyzed and Condemned. 47

Mir. Loyster's Answer. His Full Responsibility for the Evil Law Admitted 49

A Few Words for Mr. Loyster and His Colleagues, Bringing This Responsibility Home to Them?. 50


Gigantic Medical Interests Behind Our Vaccination Laws Shown. The
Most Dangerous Power in Body Politic. Figures Given on Vaccine
Makers and Medical Societies to Show the Dangerous Power Behind
Our Vaccination Laws, Influencing Our Legislature and Controlling
Policy of Our Health Departments Against Best Interest of Public.. 51

Letter to Governor Whitman Asking Veto of Loyster-Tallett Bill and
Exposing Its Evil Nature and Improper Means Used in Its Passage.... 54

Sinister Facts in Canvass and Passage of This Bill Exposed and Condemned. Letters of Legislators Given.54-59

The Hearing Before the Governor, March 29th, 1915. 56

Governor Whitman's Mistake, Deferring to Health Commissioners Interested in Vaccination What He Should Have Decided Himself as an Impartial Judge or Jury on the Facts Submitted. 59

New Law Suggested for Repeal and Prohibition of All Compulsory Vaccination .. 61

Other Reforms Suggested for Attention of Parents and School Officers.... 62


(1) Remonstrance to State Department of Education for Its Blind Acceptance of Gross Medical Falsehoods Relating to Smallpox and Vaccination and for Failing to Protect Our Two Millions of School Children
from the Fatal Dangers of the Medical Malpractices Which Are Now
Improperly Forced on Our Public Schools with Great Injury to Health
and Life of School Children. 62

(2) Suggested Criticism of Deputy Commissioner Finegan for His Woeful
Mistake in Forcing Vaccination Coercively on Our Schools Against
Discretion of Local School Officers and in Violation of Decision of
Commissioner Draper, Which Has Caused Deaths of 30 or More
School Children in 1914. 62

(3) Question of Legal Responsibility of Department of Education or State
Government for Deaths of Children Killed by These Illegal Acts of
Coercive Vaccination Ordered and Performed by State Officials. 63

(4) Proposed Act of Legislature to Indemnify Parents for Destruction of
Health or Loss of Life of Children Killed by Vaccination Improperly
Forced Upon Them by Agents of the State. 63

(5) Proposed Criminal Prosecution of Doctors or Health Officers for
Fatal Vaccinations Inflicted on School Children Under False Representation of Actual Necessity and Perfect Safety.. 63


(6) Suggested Public Investigation of Our Health Departments to Expose
Denials and Concealments of Deaths from Vaccination and to Disclose
the Amount of Medical Graft in Practice of Vaccination and Sale of
Virus in the State, Cities, Towns and School Districts, and to Show
Who Get the Pay for This Large and Needless Expenditure of Public
Monies . 63

(7) Proposed New Law to Remove Doctors and Members of Medical
Societies from Heads of Our Departments of Health and Vital Statistics and to Put Able Laymen in Their Places, in Best Interest of the Public, as Is Now the Practice in England.. 63

Protest of Parents to Board of Regents and Department of Education.... 64










INTRODUCTION:


THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL AND MEDICAL FACT AGAINST
ALL COMPULSORY VACCINATION

The Public Letter of Advice to a parent of school children forming
the first part of this pamphlet, as well as the supplement forming the
final part, are both specially addressed to parents and school officers
in our own State of New York and this address is intended to be an
exhaustive consideration of our new school vaccination law, passed in
1915 and now in force in this State, known as the Loyster-Tallett Law,
with the special purpose of showing the evil and illegal features of this
particular law and the legal defenses by which its enforcement in our
schools may be frustrated, or on which it may be wholly invalidated in
our courts if tested there.

The advices given and defenses suggested in this pamphlet are,
however, not confined to the vaccination law now in force in New
York State, but apply equally in all other States where similar laws
attempt to force vaccination in any form on any section of the people
against free will and consent or as a condition for the exercise of any
inherent or fundamental right of the citizen or his child.

The fundamental legal and medical facts now set forth in these
advices and defenses may be briefly epitomized here by stating that all
compulsory vaccination is essentially illegal and criminal in its very
nature from a truly logical, legal and constitutional basis, and cannot be
validly forced on any person, for the reasons expressed in these simple
propositions:

First: No valid law can be based on what is essentially and demon¬
strably a falsehood, but must be based on actual truth.

Now all compulsory vaccination law is based on this triple false¬
hood, viz., that compulsory vaccination of a part or the whole of the
population is necessary to prevent smallpox epidemics, that nothing else
prevents smallpox epidemics but general vaccination, and that vaccina¬
tion is perfectly safe and harmless and never causes injury or death.
All of these propositions are absolutely and demonstrably false, and
therefore any law based on them is absolutely invalid.

3


Second: To inflict a bodily wound on any person, forcibly or
against the will of that person, and to inoculate into that wound an
infectious disease which may infect the whole body and destroy health
or life, as occurs in the act of vaccination, is an illegal and criminal
act in fact and law under the simplest fundamental principles of com¬
mon law, statute law and constitutional guarantees; and any law allow¬
ing or authorizing such an act is, of course, absolutely invalid.

Third: The medical profession, interested in vaccination, constantly
represents that this medical and surgical operation known as vaccination
is actually necessary for the health of school children and is perfectly
safe and harmless for them and never causes injury or death. This
false representation greatly aggravates the legal offense of the coercive
vaccinator and the crime of forced vaccination, because for any doctor
to represent and recommend to a patient a surgical operation like vac¬
cination as actually necessary to his health and perfectly safe and harm¬
less, which is not at all necessary for health and which is essentially
and potentially dangerous and deadly in every case and now actually
kills more children than smallpox, is in itself obviously a grave medical
malpractice and is believed to be actually a positive crime under our
present laws and indictable and punishable as such.

Under these fundamental legal and medical facts, therefore, which
we believe to be impregnable as a matter of legal, medical and statistical
demonstration, no parent of school children or local or general school
officer, high or low, in this State or other states, need pay any atten¬
tion to any attempt to force compulsory vaccination upon them, except
to denounce it as a form of child slaughter, medical barbarism and legal
crime, and refuse to have any of the children in their charge forcibly
vaccinated or excluded from school or denied their fundamental right
to education and to health; but parents and school officers must insist
upon the free legal right to education for every healthy child in this
State without having first to endanger its health or life by compulsory
disease, as fully set forth in the advices and defenses given in this
pamphlet.

CHAS. M. HIGGINS,

Member of Anti-Vaccination League and League for Medical Freedom.

271 Ninth St, Brooklyn, N. Y.

October 4, 1915.


4


The Crime Against the School Child.

An Expose of the New Loyster-Tallett Law in the State of New
York which Now Forces Compulsory Vaccination on Every School,
Public and Private, in the Ten Leading Cities in the State, viz., New
York, iBuffalo, [Rochester, Syracuse , Albany, Yonkers, [/Schenectady,
Utica, Troy and Binghampton, but Removes it {From the Country
Districts.

How Our Country Politicians, in a Deal with Medical Interests in
the State, Put Compulsion More Heavily on Our Big Cities but Took it
Off their Own Country Districts, and How the State Commissioner of
Health Saved His Own Official Head in the Deal.

How to Legally Defeat this Evil Law Shown.

Vital Points for Lawyers and Laymen.

Note.?This letter of advice to one inquiring parent is now pub¬
lished as an open public letter for the benefit of other parents of
school children and for all school officers in the State and for the
public generally.

Mr. Leroy A. Mershon,

55 Cedar Street,

New York City.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of August 17th was duly received but was not answered
before this on account of absence from town.

THE NEW VACCINATION LAW FOR CITY AND COUNTRY.

I note that you wish to get your boy admitted to public school No.
152 in Flatbush in the Borough of Brooklyn without vaccination, which
you strongly object to. I understand that the boy has never been vac¬
cinated but has heretofore attended the Staten Island Academy in the
Borough of Richmond, which I believe is a private school, where vac¬
cination was not required under the old law, which applied to public
schools only. This year, however, a new law was passed known as the
?Loyster-Tallett Law,? which is much worse than the old law and
applies to all schools, public and private, in this State. It is called the
Loyster-Tallett Law because it was drawn by Mr. James A. Loyster
of Cazenovia, Madison County, in consultation with the State Depart-

5


ment of Health, and apparently to suit this department and other
medical interests, and it was introduced in the Legislature by Mr.
Loyster's local representatives, Assemblyman Tallett of Madison County
and Senator Jones of Chenango County. Notwithstanding vigorous op¬
position to this evil law from different parts of the State, it was finally
passed under the false representation that it did not apply to New York
City at all, and many of our legislators from New York City actually
voted for it, being misled by this false idea by somebody, whereas this
law applies particularly to New York and to the four other big cities in
the State, viz., Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, as well as to
the five smaller cities of the second class, viz., Yonkers, Schenectady,
Utica, Troy and Binghampton, making vaccination necessary for admis¬
sion to any school, public or private, in any of these, ten cities which
contain two-thirds of the population of the whole State; while in the
country districts in all the rest of the State outside of these ten big
cities children can be freely admitted without vaccination unless a case
of smallpox should some time arise in the town or district, when the
unvaccinated children may be excluded, but not until then.

This peculiar Loyster-Tallett-Jones Law is obviously another glar¬
ing instance where the country politicians seem to control the making
of laws for New York City; and in this shameful piece of medical
legislation the country politicians seem to have actually succeeded in
making a deal with some medical interests in the State, which seem
to control our legislation, to take compulsory vaccination off the schools
in their own country districts for the price of inflicting it more heavily
than ever on the big cities of the State where the profit to the vaccine
and medical interests will be obviously greater. Another feature that
seemed to figure in this deal relates to the status of State Health Com¬
missioner Biggs himself, against whom a special bill was introduced to
legislate him out of office for the alleged reason that he gave only a
part of his time to the public business of the State and most of his
time to his own private practice, at the big salary of $8,000 per year.
This bill was introduced by Mr. Hinman of Albany in the Assembly,
March 23rd, and provided that the Health Commissioner must give all
his time to the business of the State, and it was passed unanimously on
April 8th without a dissenting vote, but was not forced in the Senate
for some reason which the country politicians can tell us if they will.
Coincidentally Commissioner Biggs approved the bill of the country
politicians to take compulsion off their own country schools but to put
it heavier on all the city schools, although this bill was strongly opposed
by the medical societies of the State who are opposed to any relaxation

6


of the dangerous but profitable practice of vaccination in either city or
country. Nevertheless the country politicians got their bill through, tak¬
ing compulsory vaccination off their own country schools, and Com¬
missioner Biggs saved his official head by the defeat of the bill to make
him either resign or give all his official time to the business of the
State, for which he is so well paid. I make no comment on these legis¬
lative, medical and political facts, which seem to speak clearly for them¬
selves and show how some of our laws are made and what influences
sometimes determine their passage and what a dangerous grip the medi¬
cal powers?the most dangerous in our body politic?now have on the
people of this State to be able to dictate or determine our laws, as will
hereafter more fully appear.

MR. LOYSTER?S PECULIAR WORK.-CAN ANY ONE
EXPLAIN IT?

Mr. Loyster, who seems to be quite something of a country poli¬
tician himself, being a member of the State Republican Committee, and
evidently having considerable political influence in the Legislature,
excused the passage of this shameful and cowardly law on the ground
that it was the only concession he could force from this dangerous medi¬
cal power which, as I have just said, seems to have such a sinister grip
on the legislature and people of this State.

POLITICAL COWARDICE AND MEDICAL CRAFT.

That it was a most cowardly piece of political work, whoever was
responsible for it, to be satisfied with getting the evil of compulsory
disease taken off the country schools in their own political districts for
the price of putting it heavier on all the schools, public and private, in
all the big cities of the State and for the further price of giving the vac¬
cinating doctors double pay for this evil work, is so obvious and ?raw?
in its moral and political ugliness that it needs no further comment here.
But perhaps there was some special reason for this peculiar piece of
work, which some of our politicians can explain to us if they will.

MR. LOYSTER?S PAMPHLET.

Now with regard to Mr. Loyster, it must be specially noted that
this intelligent man was a most grievous sufferer himself from the medi¬
cal crime of compulsory vaccination, having lost his own precious boy

7


through this medical evil last summer, and he has since published a
striking pamphlet as a memorial to his lost boy, showing the deaths of
about thirty children from coercive vaccination in this State in 1914.
A copy of this remarkable pamphlet will be mailed upon request, ac¬
companied by ten cents to cover costs of printing and postage. The
title of this pamphlet is ?Vaccination Results in New York State in
1914,? and it is illustrated with photographs of many children killed by
vaccination in this State in the great vaccination raid of 1914 improp¬
erly forced upon the schools of the State by the Department of Educa¬
tion under the illegal dictation of the Department of Health.

In this pamphlet Mr. Loyster shows what our League has been
impressing on the public for years, that vaccination is killing more
children than smallpox and is now not only more dangerous than small¬
pox, but is quite needless as an alleged remedy for its prevention. In
his ''conclusions? he manfully took the same ground that we have been
urging for years, demanding the complete repeal of all compulsion as
the following extracts from his pamphlet will show, viz.:

(1) ?Vaccination has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of
the death of at least fifty children in New York State in 1914.?

(4) ?Vaccination of children is wrong in principle, is not in
harmony with the trend of the best medical practice and should be
abandoned.?

(8) ?A new section of the Public Health Law should be enacted
which should provide for the repeal of compulsory vaccination as a pre¬
requisite for an education.?

Notwithstanding this clear re-echo of the principles of our League
from a man who is not a member of it, and, shameful and strange to
say, this man drew up a bill in connection with the State Departments
of Health and Education which violated every one of these principles
and gave this bill to his local legislators to introduce, using all his own
political influence to rush it through the legislature. This shocking
bill, as first drawn, instead of reducing or repealing compulsion, actu¬
ally gave the medical interests everything they had been trying to get
for years past and which our League had so far prevented, viz.:

(1) Compulsory vaccination on every school child in the State,
public and private.

(2) Forced vaccination of every school child repeated every year!

(3) It changed the discretionary enforcement of the law from the
school officers who have no pecuniary interest in vaccination, as in the

8


old law, to the mandatory enforcement of the health officers having
a direct pecuniary interest in this enforcement; and,

(4) It actually gave the vaccinating doctors extra or double pay
for every vaccination performed, as you will note in paragraph 3 of this
law annexed, which is in gross violation of the State Constitution,
Article III, Section 28. This remarkable piece of medical craft and
graft was probably either the result of Mr. Loyster's own innocent ideas
or the crafty work of the medical or vaccination interests in this State
into which he was unconsciously misled by his unfamiliarity with and
newness in this whole subject. After drawing this bill he submitted it
to us for approval and actually had the simplicity or effrontery to expect
that the members of our League were such fools, cowards, stultifiers and
traitors that we could be expected to co-operate with him in the ad¬
vancement of such a stupid and dangerous measure instead of fighting
against it to the end as representing every evil against which we had
been working steadily for years and as a complete surrender to the
advocates of medical compulsion of everything for which they had been
long striving and which they now get in this Loyster Law. We there¬
fore believe that for a man of Mr. Loyster?s intelligence, with his ex¬
perience of acute suffering from vaccination and his evident political
influence in the State, that for him to have drawn and advocated any
such bill, or to work for or accept any reform less than a full repeal of
all compulsory vaccination, which by his own showing killed his own
son and forty or fifty other children in the State in one year, was
nothing less than a most contemptible piece of political cowardice which
makes a most shocking anti-climax to his remarkable pamphlet and a
most sinister monument to his martyred boy, which must forever haunt
and mock at him for the rest of his life unless he immediately repents
of this mistake by working for the absolute repeal of the present shame¬
ful law at the earliest possible moment.

From what has been already shown it is almost needless to now
say that such a law as I have just described?the present Loyster-
Tallett-Jones Law?is a moral crime on the people of this State and is,
I believe, clearly illegal and unconstitutional on broad legislative prin¬
ciples, but, of course, it will take a great deal of hard work and much
expense to defeat such laws in our courts, no matter how bad they are,
a work which I presume men like yourself are not anxious to tackle
or able to undertake.

I enclose one of my pamphlets, ?A Heart to Heart Talk,? which
will show you how our League has fought this evil law to the very
end. It was finally passed, however, and signed by the Governor about

9


April 1st, with a serious change which we helped to compel, viz., cutting
out the condition for vaccination every year, but the evil of separate laws
for city and country districts was added, which, backed by the country
politicians and the State Department of Health, we were not able to de¬
feat but which will yet kill this law in our courts, if not repealed before
this legal test is made, as this arbitrary local discrimination against the
cities makes this enactment an illegal class law and not a ?law of the
land.?

SMALLPOX TEN TIMES MORE FREQUENT IN COUNTRY

THAN CITY

The alleged reason for taking rigid compulsion off the country dis¬
tricts and putting it on the cities was the false and stupid reason that
smallpox is less frequent in the country than in the city, whereas the
very reverse is the fact, smallpox being actually more of a country dis¬
ease than a city disease and being usually from five to twenty times
more frequent in the country than in the city. For example, in 1914 the
total number of smallpox cases in our whole State of ten millions was
791 with only 3 deaths! The 3 deaths were all in the districts
outside of the 5 big cities; and only 24 of these cases occurred in New
York City, with over half the population of the State, and only 41 of the
791 cases occurred in the ten leading cities, containing two-thirds of the
whole population of the State. On the other hand, 749 cases occurred
in the country districts, having only one-third of the total population,
or nearly thirty times the absolute number in New York City or sixty
times the relative number! This remarkable showing of statistical facts
is sufficient proof of the folly and falseness of our vaccination laws
and the gross ignorance or dishonesty of some of their advocates or
promoters and beneficiaries.

HOW TO LEGALLY EVADE AND DEFEAT THE LOYSTER

LAW

FIRST DEFENSE: DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE OF DANGER TO

HEALTH OR LIFE

Under the present circumstances, therefore, the best advice I can
now give you for legally defeating or evading this evil law and getting
your child admitted to school without the serious or fatal danger of

10


vaccination is to get a doctor's certificate that vaccination will be in¬
jurious to your child in his present state of health, upon which cer¬
tificate he can be admitted to any public school under existing rules of
the Department of Education. You will find that there are several
good doctors in the city strongly opposed to child vaccination who are
fully aware of its great dangers to the health and life of children and
who know that there are many children so susceptible to this form of
blood poisoning as to make it highly dangerous or possibly fatal to them.


DEATHS OF 30 CHILDREN FROM VACCINATION IN 1914

We have now on hand positive and circumstantial evidence, suffi¬
cient to convince any ordinary jury, of nearly thirty deaths of school
children from vaccination, by lockjaw and other blood infections in¬
troduced in the vaccination wound, all in 1914 in this State alone!
Three or more of these deaths occurred in Brooklyn or its vicinity,
whereas there were only three deaths from smallpox in the whole State
in the same year! As supplemental to this irrefragable evidence against
vaccination, the yearly reports of the highest statistical authority in the
world, the Registrar-General of England, show that for several years
past the deaths of children from vaccination greatly exceed deaths of
children from smallpox, and yet our health officials and vaccinating
doctors in this City and State constantly deceive the public mind with
the outrageous medical and statistical falsehood that vaccination is per¬
fectly safe and harmless and never causes any serious injury except
that brought about by the fault of the patient himself.


THE GREATEST SIN IN THE MORAL CODE COMMITTED BY

VACCINATORS.

This awful falsehood of our vaccinators constantly uttered that
vaccination is perfectly or relatively safe and harmless, may therefore
be said to come under the classification of the highest sin in the moral
code of Christianity known as ?the sin against the Holy Ghost"?the
Spirit of Truth?which consists in brazenly ?impugning the known
truth" for the motives of some concealment of error, pride of opinion
or professional profit. This is the gravest of all sins which The Greatest
Hebrew Prophet has solemnly told us will not be forgiven either in this
world or the world to come!


11


SECOND DEFENSE (FOR CITY PARENTS) : CHANGE RESI¬
DENCE TO COUNTRY DISTRICT


Another good suggestion I can give you for the defense of your
children against this barbarous law which makes compulsory disease a
pre-condition for education, is to change your residence to one of the
suburbs on the outer edge or beyond the limits of New York City,
where children can be admitted under the present law without vaccina¬
tion.

THE THIRD DEFENSE?PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CONSTI¬
TUTIONAL RIGHTS.

A further suggestion is to send your child to any of the big private
schools in the City, the Friends School or the Berkeley Institute for
instance, which are opposed to compulsory vaccination and in which
it is believed that the Health officials or medical interests back of
them will not attempt to enforce the present evil and illegal law and
where this law will be readily broken down if legally tested there. My
own children go to the Friends School and to the Packer Institute, and
I am prepared to legally defend them from this almost criminal law
and defeat it legally in the courts if any attempt is made to deprive the
children of these schools or their parents of any of our inalienable and
constitutional rights?the highest and most indispensable of these rights
being obviously the right to education?which our medical despots will
find cannot be taken away from any citizen in this great State ?unless
by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers? (see State Con¬
stitution Article 1st).

COMPULSORY VACCINATION LEGALLY A CRIME

The present law is not a ?law of the land,? as already shown, but
is the law of a political and medical clique which controls our legislation
applied arbitrarily to one section of the people only and passed under
conditions which I believe will not stand the light of day and are illegal,
as I showed in my protest at the hearing before the Governor. This
law, in fact, impresses an illegal and criminal condition on the citizen
and parent, that he must first endanger the health or life of his healthy
child as a condition for education by deliberately inflicting upon him
a disease of blood poisoning, which is now demonstrably more danger¬
ous to public health and human life than smallpox itself and actually

12


kills more children every year than smallpox and has also been proved
to be the cause of our great epidemics of foot and mouth disease of
cattle, which have caused the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
farm animals all over this country in 1902, 1908 and 1914, and have
already cost the State and National governments and our farmers,
dairymen and stockmen many millions of dollars. Of course, no such
evil practice capable of such deadly results can be forced legally on
any person in this State under our fundamental laws and charters.

FOURTH DEFENSE: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF VACCIN¬
ATORS UNDER COMMON LAW AND PENAL CODE

You will see that I have described forced vaccination under the
present Loyster Law as a crime on the people, which I insist upon
with all legal soberness and seriousness because it is actually a crime
under common and statute law to maim, wound or assault the human
body or to inflict upon it any medical malpractice or infectious disease
capable of causing serious injury or death, and particularly is it a crime
to inflict such a malpractice on children under section 483 of the Penal
Code, which prohibits ?Endangering Life or Health of Child? and it
is therefore high time that all persons who may be legally or morally
responsible for the killing of the thirty or more children in this State
by forced vaccination in the last year were tried before a Common
Court and Jury under these laws.


13


FIFTH DEFENSE: NO LEGAL POWER EXISTS TO COMPEL

VACCINATION

VACCINATION LAW CONFLICTS WITH EDUCATION LAW
AND DISTRICT SCHOOL OFFICERS HAVE POWER TO
SUSPEND VACCINATION LAW AND ADMIT UNVACCIN¬
ATED CHILDREN, ACCORDING TO DECISION OF DEPART¬
MENT OF EDUCATION BY COMMISSIONER DRAPER IN
1912.


This is a very important point of legal defense against the vaccina¬
tion law which I wish to particularly impress upon and make plain
to you and other parents and especially to all school officers in public
or private schools.


NO LAW OR LEGAL POWER IN THE STATE TO COMPEL

VACCINATION

Contrary to the general false idea there is absolutely no law in this
State now and never was, directing, requiring or compelling any one to
be vaccinated or directing or compelling any parent to have his child
vaccinated to attend school or otherwise. In fact, some of our higher
courts have decided that there is no power in the Legislature itself to
make vaccination compulsory or compel any one to be vaccinated. See
decision of Judge Gaynor against Health Commissioner Emery of
Brooklyn in 1894, and the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining
Judge Gaynor. See also decision of Judge Woodward of the Appellate
Court in the case of Viemeister in 1903. The Supreme Court of Massa¬
chusetts in the case of Jacobson in 1903 decided that it was not in the
power of the law to compel vaccination of any one who objected to it,
but only to collect the fine of five dollars. The Supreme Court of the
United States, in this same case of Jacobson, decided in 1904 that
the fine as an alternative to vaccination was constitutional, but Judges
Brewer and Peckham dissented, evidently holding that not even this
fine of $5 was constitutional as an effort to compel vaccination.
This great court, however, agreed unanimously that vaccination could
not be forced on any one who could show that it was dangerous to their
health or life. Judge Bartlett of the New York Supreme Court in the
case of Walters in 1894 decided that to compel vaccination by intimida¬
tion or force was criminal assault.


14


The only school vaccination law we now have or ever did have
in this State does not compel any one to be vaccinated but merely
authorizes the school officers to exclude or refuse admission to any
child or other person who does not wish to adopt vaccination, but there
is no power in the school officers or even in the law or legislature itself
to compel any one to be vaccinated against will and consent. Now,
therefore, while we have no vaccination law compelling or directing any
one to be vaccinated, we have an Education Law which very clearly
and positively compels all children between six and fourteen years of
age in proper physical and mental health to ?attend upon instruction?
at a school of some kind, public or private. There is also a distinct
law applying to all parents, or others in parental relation to children,
compelling them to cause all healthy children of school age to ?attend
upon instruction? under positive penalties for neglect to do so. Now
please note this important point, viz.: There is a distinct penal law
compelling parents to send their children to school and also a law
binding on the school officers compelling education for every healthy
child, but there is no law whatever compelling any parent to have any
child vaccinated to attend school or otherwise. Consequently every
parent who sends his healthy child to school, whether vaccinated or
not, obeys this law, and the school officers who refuse to admit such
healthy child and give him education?his most indispensable and in¬
alienable right which no one can take away from him?break this law.
Therefore, the parent who will persist in sending his child to school and
persist in refusing to have his health or life endangered by vaccination
breaks no law whatever but faithfully performs his parental duties and
fully obeys the laws as they are and cannot be prosecuted for fading to
have his child vaccinated, as there is no such offense under any of our
existing laws. On the contrary, the parent can properly plead that
there is one penal law that he would violate if he had his child vaccin¬
ated, to the endangering of his health and life, viz., Section 483 of the
Penal Code, on this very point already referred to.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS IN EKEROLD CASE

EXPLAINED

There is one recent decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of
the parent Ekerold which has been grossly misrepresented by the vac¬
cinators who try to make it appear that Ekerold was fined for not hav¬
ing his child vaccinated. He, of course, could not be legally prose¬
cuted or fined for this act or omission because there is no law whatever
compelling any parent to vaccinate his child under penalty of fine or

15


otherwise, and it is, of course, as true in the laws of the State of New
York as in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans that ?where no law
is there is no transgression. ,, Ekerold was fined simply for not sending
his child to school and not for failing to vaccinate him, and the whole
decision turns on that point and the Court clearly pointed out that if
Ekerold objected to vaccination he could easily have sent his child to
private school, where vaccination was not required under the old law
under which this decision was rendered. If, therefore, Ekerold had been
properly advised in the first place he would have persisted in sending
his child to the public school and demanded education for him there
under the compulsory education law, and also would have persisted
in his legal right to refuse to have the health or life of his child en¬
dangered by vaccination, and if the school officers then refused to
give him education they would thereby be the breakers of the education
law and not Ekerold, who could not, of course, be prosecuted under
this law, which simply requires that parents cause their children to
?attend upon instruction.?

Now to show how sound and safe this point of law is I will simply
state that there have been about half a dozen cases already tried before
courts and juries in different parts of the State where it was attempted
to convict and fine parents for violation of the education law under
these very circumstances where parents persisted in sending their
children to public school, but refused to have them vaccinated, and
the jury failed to convict in every case and freed the parent.

DECISION OF COMMISSIONER DRAPER OF DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION IN THE CASE OF THE TOWN OF OLEAN

If, therefore, you and other parents will combine and adopt this
legal course and refuse to have your children vaccinated but persist
in sending them every day to your local public school and demand in¬
struction for them under the compulsory Education Law you will see
that the school officers will soon find a good legal reason to admit
them. This reason is in the law itself, as just explained, and in the
decision rendered in the Department of Education at Albany by Com¬
missioner Draper in 1912 in the case of the town of Olean, where
hundreds of parents refused to have their children vaccinated on
account of danger to health and life but insisted on their right to
public education under the education law and where two thousand
children have ever since attended school unvaccinated. The schools
in Newburgh, Niagara Falls, and several other towns in the State

16


have also admitted unvaccinated children freely on this decision. In
this case Commissioner Draper decided that the vaccination law con¬
flicted with the education law and that, as both laws could not be en¬
forced, the school officers should suspend the vaccination law and en¬
force the education law until the Legislature should remove the conflict
in the two laws. The Legislature has not yet, however, removed the
conflict, as the new law is just as stupid and conflicting in this respect
as the old law and therefore the decision of Commissioner Draper still
holds as a binding authority on the Department of Education and on all
public schools under it and it should here be fully understood that a
decision of the Commissioner of Education is final and unappealable
and binding on every public school officer in the State.

Under these legal principles, therefore, the officers of every public
or private school in the State have power at their discretion to admit
any child unvaccinated with or without a doctor's certificate, as men¬
tioned in the First Defense.

RE-VACCINATION ILLEGAL?ONE VACCINATION
SUFFICIENT

Another point that I wish to particularly impress upon you is that
if your child has been once vaccinated, whether ?successfully" or not,
and no matter how many years ago, he cannot be legally required to be
re-vaccinated under section 310, paragraph 1 of the present law apply¬
ing to cities but must be admitted to school without re-vaccination. It
may be that your child has been already vaccinated, although a long
time since, and, if so, you can get him admitted to any public school in
the cities under the present law without further vaccination.

ANOTHER VITAL LEGAL POINT
EDUCATION WHEN PAID FOR IS A RIGHT AND NOT A

?PRIVILEGE"

The cases of Walters in 1894 and of Viemeister in 1903 were in¬
stances where parents attempted to force the admission of their children
into the public schools without vaccination under the old law of 1893.
In both these cases our courts decided that public education ?at the ex¬
pense of the State "?which means to a person who pays no school taxes
or costs of education?is a ?privilege" and not a ?right." Walters
and Viemeister it appears were not taxpayers and this point was actu¬
ally raised against them in court. To a parent, however, who is a tax¬
payer and pays his school taxes or other costs of the education of his

17


children, it is obvious that the case is quite different and that this legal
point made in these court decisions does not apply to him and that paid-
for education, public or private, is not a mere ?privilege,? like free board
for a pauper, but is clearly a citizen's ?righf? and cannot, we believe,
be legally refused under the Compulsory Education Law to any tax-
paying citizen or healthy child merely because the parent will not
expose his healthy child to the serious or fatal danger of disease inocu¬
lation, which is in itself an illegal requirement, as before shown. We
have already shown that the court in both of these cases admitted that
there was no power in the law to compel any one to be vaccinated and
that to force vaccination on any one was criminal assault.

These decisions, therefore, in no way refute the right of a tax-
paying citizen to get his healthy child admitted to school without vac¬
cination and particularly not where the school officer elects at his dis¬
cretion to so admit him under the decision of the Commissioner of
Education in the case of the town of Olean in 1912, as before cited,
which is final and binding in the schools of the State, as has been shown.

Under these several decisions, therefore, there is everything to
authorize and nothing to prevent any school officer, in public or private
school, from exercising his discretion and admitting any healthy un-
vaccinated child, notwithstanding the present Loyster Law, which is
actually legally non-enforceable in the case of every school officer who
thus acts within his legal rights, as already indicated.

I will finally here point out a fundamental, vital and legal reason
to justify any school officer in suspending the vaccination law in any
school at any time, which is this:?The school vaccination law was
passed by the Legislature under a medical deception and is now main¬
tained on the people by a gross medical deception that this operation
is entirely beneficial, necessary for the prevention of smallpox epidemics
and perfectly safe and harmless, and never causes any injury or death,
whereas, in fact, by government record, it now kills more children than
smallpox, as shown by the reports of the highest statistical authority
in the world, the Registrar-General of England. This positive fact,
therefore, entirely alters the aspect of this medical operation before the
Public, the Courts and the Law, so that there is sufficient solid ground
in this legal, hygienic and statistical fact alone to justify any local
school board in at once suspending vaccination in any school or district
where this fact becomes apparent to their official minds. Our highest
court in this country, the U. S. Supreme Court, in the case of Jacob¬
son, appealed from Massachusetts, decided positively on this very
point that vaccination could not be legally forced on any one who can

18


show that it is dangerous to health and life, and two judges of this
court by dissent held that this Massachusetts law to enforce vaccination
by a fine was not constitutional.

DEATHS FROM VACCINATION GREATER THAN DEATHS

FROM SMALLPOX

A PUBLIC CHALLENGE RENEWED

To prove the positive statement made in the previous paragraph as
to the demonstrated fatality of vaccination and therefore the conse¬
quent illegality of its enforcement, I will now refer to the report of the
Registrar-General of England and Wales for the recent year of 1911
where this most significant comparative data is given as to deaths from
smallpox and vaccination for that year:


Total deaths from smallpox for all ages. 23

Deaths from smallpox under 5 years. 6

Total deaths from vaccination, all ages.. 14

Deaths from vaccination under 5 years. 14

Specific Diseases or Causes of Death in Said 14 Fatal
Vaccinations?

From ?Vaccinia? or ?Cowpox? directly.... 6

From Vaccination resulting in Fatal Septicemia. 5

From Vaccination resulting in Fatal Erysipelas. 3

Total. 14


Here we will see from one of the latest published annual records of
the highest statistical authority in the world that for the year 1911 in
England and Wales, in a population of about 36,000,000 the total deaths
from vaccination were 14, or more than half the total deaths from small¬
pox, which were 23! On the other hand, the deaths from smallpox in
little children were only six, and exactly equal to the deaths caused
directly by ?vaccinia? or cowpox, pure and simple, in children of the
same age, whereas the additional deaths from wound infections in the
vaccination sores, viz.: from Septicemia and Erysipelas, added eight
more fatalities, thus making the deaths from vaccination in little
children over twice as many as the deaths from smallpox!

To show that deaths from vaccination in this year of 1911 in Eng¬
land, as compared to deaths from smallpox, are nothing unusual and
that such deaths occur more or less constantly every year, and that the
total yearly deaths from vaccination exceed total yearly deaths from
smallpox, particularly in children, I can give this further impressive

19










data from the reports of the Registrar-General for several years previ¬
ous to 1911, as follows:


Year. Total Deaths from Total Deaths from

Smallpox. Vaccination.

1906 . 21 29

1907 . 10 12

1908 . 12 13


Total Deaths from Smallpox for six years 1905 to 1910.. 199
Total Deaths from Vaccination for six years 1905 to 1910 99

Deaths from Smallpox in said period under 5 years old.. 26
Deaths from Vaccination in said period under 5 years old 98

This awful record of fatal vaccinations thus speaks very clearly for
itself and forms an absolute indictment of the whole barbarous and
murderous system of compulsory vaccination, particularly for little
children, as being both illegal and criminal in its very nature, and needs
no further comment here. It can be further proved that an equal or
greater fatality from vaccination, as compared to the English records,
occurs in our own State of New York, but these fatalities are denied
and concealed in our death certificates and yearly reports by our vac¬
cinating doctors and health officials of city and state, as I have re¬
peatedly and publicly charged and have challenged these doctors and
officials to deny or disprove this charge if they can or dare, and I now
hereby renew this public challenge on this most serious point.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION NOT NECESSARY TO PRE¬
VENT SMALLPOX

In England, the home of vaccination, no compulsion is placed on
the school age but only on the infant class, under five years, this age
being the most susceptible to smallpox, the adult age (over 20) being
the next most susceptible, whereas the school age (from 6 to 19) is the
least susceptible to smallpox of any part of the population. Even in
this infant age any child can be exempted from vaccination by a special
law known as the ?conscientious clause/' which allows their parents to
file a declaration of conscientious objection within the first year of life,
under which law nearly half of the children born in England are now
exempted from vaccination as a recognition by parents of its great
danger to health and fife. Notwithstanding this great decline in English
vaccination and its almost entire absence on school children, smallpox
has steadily declined in England with the corresponding increase of
sanitation and hygiene, so that the English Minister of Health, Hon.
John Burns, made this public declaration in the House of Commons on

20





April 12, 1911, that: ?Just in proportion as in recent years exemptions
(from vaccination) have gone up from 4 per cent, to 30 per cent., so
deaths from smallpox have declined.?

In the third greatest state in our country, Illinois, with the second
largest city, there is no compulsory vaccination on school children and
yet no increase of smallpox has been shown after many years of trial.
In the large state of Minnesota there is also no compulsion on school
children, and in the small state of Utah compulsion is absolutely pro¬
hibited; yet in all of these instances of small and large states it has not
been found that any increase of smallpox has resulted from the decline
of vaccination. In fact, the English city of Leicester, of about 300,000
population, is a brilliant example of the needlessness of vaccination to
prevent smallpox and the value of its abolition to health and life. This
city has practically abandoned the use of vaccination for the last 35
years and has relied almost entirely on sanitation and isolation and yet
has had no trouble in controlling smallpox, but has had one of the lowest
figures for smallpox mortality, general death-rate and infant mortality
in the world. See the remarkable acknowledgment of these facts
from opposite sides, viz., from the anti-vaccination side in the book by
Mr. J. T. Biggs, former town official of Leicester, entitled ?Leicester?-
Sanitation vs. Vaccination,? London, 1912, and from the pro side in the
recent convincing work of Dr. Killick Millard, present health officer of
Leicester, in his book, ?The Vaccination Question/' London, 1914.

THE LEICESTER METHOD
PREVENTING SMALLPOX WITHOUT VACCINATION

This is the gist of what Health Officer Millard?a pro-vaccinist?
says of the success of the Leicester method of preventing smallpox
without vaccination :

?The two crucial and outstanding facts which I wish to lay
stress upon, are:

?(a) The unexpected and remarkable experience of the town of
Leicester, which for thirty years has abandoned infantile vaccination,
yet has shown an enormous decline in smallpox mortality.

?(b) The fact that although infantile vaccination is falling more
and more into disuse throughout the whole country, yet smallpox, con¬
trary to all pro-vaccinist expectation and prophecy, continues to de¬
cline and has almost disappeared."

* * * ?The striking facts that in Leicester, without infantile
vaccination the decline has been greater than in most places, and

21


that throughout the country smallpox has continued to decrease in spite
of the falling off in vaccination, should surely be sufficient grounds
for legitimate doubt.

* * * ?If it can be shown that ?sanitation? thoroughly carried
out, is alone sufficient for the effective control of smallpox in this
country fas in Leicester] why inflict upon the community universal
vaccination with all its inseparable drawbacks? Moreover, what justi¬
fication can there be any longer for compulsion?

?It cannot be denied that vaccination causes, in the aggregate,
very considerable injury to health, most of it only temporary, but
some permanent. * * * we must never forget that vaccination is

an evil. Vaccinia is just as much a disease as smallpox, though a
less serious one, and all diseases must be regarded as evil and to be
avoided if possible. There is not the slightest evidence that vaccination
apart from its effect in preventing smallpox is of the least value or
anything but detrimental to the human race. * * * ?During the

last decade the deaths from vaccinia have several times outnumbered
those from smallpox, whilst if we have regard to the amount of ill
health caused by the two diseases (and putting aside for the moment
the question of the alleged effect of vaccination in lessening smallpox)
it looks as if vaccinia were becoming, so far as the community is con¬
cerned, the more serious disease of the two. * * * ?Infantile vac¬

cination has one serious drawback; whilst mitigating smallpox it also
disguises it, and in this way tends to spread the disease.

?I regard this proposition of so much importance, and it has re¬
ceived so little attention, that I propose to devote a separate chapter
to its consideration.?


A MOST IMPORTANT POINT
VACCINATION ADMITTEDLY SPREADS SMALLPOX

Dr. Millard in this last paragraph makes a point which seems to
be novel to pro-vaccinists but has been well known to anti-vaccinists
for a long time, and it is very important that this should be clearly un¬
derstood. This point really is that the majority of cases of smallpox
always occur among the vaccinated and the majority of cases are
usually very mild, whether among the vaccinated or unvaccinated.

It is in fact just because smallpox is usually such a mild disease,
instead of the very severe disease popularly supposed, that most epi¬
demics are allowed to spread. Ordinary smallpox may simply and

22


briefly be described as like an ordinary or severe cold, with pimples
breaking out on the face and hands, and the average person and even
the average doctor being unacquainted with the disease does not recog¬
nize it until some time after the infected person has exposed many others
to the disease. Smallpox is often confounded with measles, scarlet
fever, chicken pox, scurvy and some other diseases, and this con¬
fusion by non-expert doctors is one of the chief causes for the spread
of the infection in most outbreaks of the disease.

Now on account of the ignorance and incompetence of the aver¬
age doctor in recognizing smallpox and by his false faith in vaccina¬
tion as a sure preventative a false rule of diagnosis has been generally
adopted by the profession which is actually this: If the patient has
been vaccinated, recently or otherwise, the disease is diagnosed as not J
smallpox, but if not vaccinated, it is declared to be smallpox! The
result is that the vaccinated person with actual but ?disguised? small¬
pox is not isolated but is allowed free range until he has infected
several others and spread an epidemic in his own vicinity. On the
other hand if this infecting person had not been vaccinated at all his
disease would promptly be declared to be actual smallpox and he
would be at once isolated and further spread of the disease prevented.

It is for this reason therefore that Dr. Millard so wisely and truly
says that vaccination actually serves to spread smallpox, a fact long
well known to our anti-vaccination leagues but now clearly admitted
by a pro-vaccinist.


OUR TEN CITIES OF FIRST AND SECOND CLASSES
COMPARED TO LEICESTER.

Before leaving this subject of the Leicester method of preventing
smallpox without vaccination, it may be proper to call attention to the
fact that of the five big and five small cities in this State on which com¬
pulsory vaccination is now placed by the Loyster law, eight of these
cities, viz.: Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Yonkers, Schenectady, Utica,
Troy and Binghampton, are all much smaller in population than Leices¬
ter, and only New York and Buffalo are larger, and yet this large city
of Leicester, larger than eight of our ten largest cities, has proved how
practical it is to prevent smallpox by sanitation and hygiene, without
vaccination, which result can, of course, be equally effected in our
cities, large or small, without any of the coercive vaccination which is
now forced on these cities by this evil and illegal Loyster Law.

23


VOLUNTARY VACCINATION NOT OPPOSED BY OUR

LEAGUE


HIGHEST MEDICAL AUTHORITY TO-DAY OPPOSED TO

COMPULSION

At this point we might emphasize the fact that while our League
is absolutely opposed to all compulsion, we do not oppose voluntary
vaccination, although we believe that in most cases the operation is
needless and dangerous and will yet be prohibited by penal law, just
as its dangerous predecessor smallpox inoculation was so prohibited,
although approved for over a century by the highest medical authori¬
ties of the time.

It will therefore be seen that we agree with the most advanced
and intelligent pro-vaccinists of to-day, as represented by Dr. Millard
in simply opposing all compulsion and leaving voluntary vaccination
free for every one who desires it.

This fundamental attitude which Dr. Millard and our leagues take
on freedom from all compulsion, is that also taken in the latest and
highest work of medical authority to-day, viz.: the latest edition of
?Modern Medicine? by Doctors Osier and McCrae published in four
volumes and dated 1913. In Vol. 1, P. 848, this latest and highest
medical authority states as follows as regards vaccination: ?With the
greatest care, however, certain risks are present and so it is unwise
for the physician to force the operation upon those who are unwilling,
or to give assurances of absolute harmlessness.?

Now this is substantially the attitude which our Leagues take in
this controversy and if it is good enough for the highest and latest
written authority on medicine to-day it is good enough for our medical
societies, our health departments, our school officers and our legislators
in this state to take, and therefore all compulsory or coercive vaccina¬
tion should be at once abandoned, repealed and prohibited as being
absolutely a gross medical barbarism and danger, particularly on
school children, and a violation of fundamental personal rights of parent
and child as already demonstrated.


24


RECAPITULATION


COMPELLING VACCINATION BY FORCE OR INTIMIDATION
A CRIME UNDER PENAL CODE AND DECISIONS OF OUR
COURTS.

CAUTION TO PARENTS AND SCHOOL OFFICERS AND
WARNING TO VACCINATORS, DOCTORS AND HEALTH
OFFICERS.

As a condensation or recapitulation of the advices already given, I
will now say that parents and school officers must not for one minute
lose sight of these four most important legal points:

(1) There is no law in this state to actually compel or require any
one to be vaccinated.

(2) Parents have an absolute right to refuse to have their children
vaccinated, or deliberately diseased, as endangering their health and life.

(3) Parents have an absolute right to have their healthy children
educated when they pay for the education.

(4) Every school officer in public or private school has the full
right to admit, at his discretion, any child or person unvaccinated, where
he believes vaccination will be dangerous to health or life, with or with¬
out a doctor's certificate.

With a clear recognition, therefore, of these four impregnable legal
points, parents and school officers have the matter of school vaccina¬
tion securely in their own hands and can suspend vaccination in any
given case or in any particular school at their own discretion as they
shall best determine, and no power in this State can compel any child
or other person to be vaccinated against will and consent or force any
school officer to exclude from school or deny education to any healthy
child against the will and discretion of such school officer.

Any person in this State has the right to be vaccinated or to re¬
frain from vaccination, as he may see fit, and any person attempting
to compel the vaccination of any other person by any form of force,
coercion or intimidation, no matter how high he may think himself in
either of our two Departments of Health and Education, will simply
be committing a crime against the people under Section 530 of the
Penal Code on ?Coercion,? which is in these words:

?A person who, with a view to compel another person to do or to
abstain from doing an act which such other person has a legal right to

25


do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and unlawfully uses or at¬
tempts the intimidation of such person by threats or force, is guilty of
a misdemeanor.?

In case, therefore, any child, parent, teacher or school officer is thus
coerced or intimidated by any doctor or health officer or by any
misinformed school commissioner in thus forcing vaccination illegally
upon any such person against free will and consent or with a view to
deny to any healthy child his inalienable right to education under the
laws of this State, I would advise that a complaint be at once entered
before the nearest Magistrate for the arrest and prosecution of such in-
timidator under this Section of the Penal Code.

CIVIL DAMAGE SUITS

I might here cite two civil damage suits that were tried in Brook¬
lyn against doctors and health officers for illegal vaccination by in¬
timidation or force, as a civil warning to our present vaccinators in
addition to the criminal warning already given.

One of these suits was the case of Smith vs. Health Commissioner
Emery, tried before Judge Brown and a jury in 1896, where a verdict
of $489.00 was given in favor of the expressman Smith for false im¬
prisonment and illegal quarantine while Dr. Emery was trying to force
him to be vaccinated against his will and consent. The other instance
was the case of Schaeffer vs. Schelling, in which a judgment for $1,500
was entered Nov. 19, 1895, in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn against
Dr. Schelling, Commissioner Emery's Assistant, in favor of Mr.
Schaeffer for forcible vaccination of himself and his family, and the
record in the County Clerk's Office shows this judgment was duly paid
to the injured Schaeffer.

These instances of the illegality of all actual compulsory vaccina¬
tion given by our own Brooklyn courts and juries should be sufficient
warning to any of our would-be medical despots who may now attempt
any illegal intimidation under the false cover of the new Loyster Law.

CONCLUSION

From what has been already shown it now rests entirely with
parents, teachers and school officers themselves to simply assert their
legal rights most firmly and positively along the lines fully stated herein
to make this present Loyster Law a non-enforceable absurdity in Law
and Equity, as it really is, and thus lead to its early repeal in the next
Legislature or its invalidation in our courts if any confident vaccinator

26


desires to test it there. In this case, therefore, the old motto of Civic
Liberty applies here most emphatically, ?He who would be free , himself
must strike the blow ?

Strike boldly, therefore, all ye parents, teachers and school officers,
against this evil law forced on the people by the medical interests, and
thus secure your freedom from the greatest barbarism ever inflicted
upon a free people by the most dangerous form of coercive dogmatism
now existing in our body politic, viz., compulsory medicine , which is
far more dangerous to human liberty, health and life than compulsory
religion ever was but which must now be explicitly prohibited by law
as fully and completely as all compulsory religion is now prohibited.

Hoping, therefore, that these facts, suggestions and advices will be
of some help to you and other parents in securing your constitutional
and inalienable right to the education of your children without having
to surely poison them, or possibly kill them in advance, as a pre-con¬
dition for such education, I remain,

Yours very truly,

CHAS. M. HIGGINS,

Treasurer Anti-Vaccination League of America.

271 Ninth St., Brooklyn, N. Y.,

August 27, 1915.

Main Office of League
1420 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.

John Pitcairn, President
Porter F. Cope, Secretary

Other Officers in New York State

Dr. J. W. Hodge, Niagara Falls, Vice-President
Hugh A. Daniel, Newburgh, Director

Officers in Other States

Vice-Presidents?C. Oscar Beasly, Philadelphia; J. D. Nasmith,
Toronto, Canada; John W. Griggs, St. Paul, Minn.; Dr. J. H. Greer,
Chicago, Ill.; Mrs. J. L. C. Henderson, Wayland, Mass.; Dr. W. B.
Clarke, Indianapolis, Ind.; Dr. Zachary T. Miller, Pittsburgh, Pa.;
Dr. Walter M. James, Philadelphia, Pa.

Directors?Thomas Boudren, Bridgeport, Conn.; D. F. D. Jenkins,
Chicago, Ill.; N. A. McQueston, Mansfield, Ohio; I. P. A. Bruechert,
Omaha, Neb.; Harry B. Bradford, Kensington, Md.; Alex. Y. Scott,
Rosedale, Miss.; John S. Snavely, Lebanon, Pa.; Prof. Enoch S. Price,
Bryn Athyn, Pa.


27


FULL TEXT OF THE LOYSTER-TALLETT VACCINATION
LAW NOW IN FORCE IN NEW YORK STATE.


Laws of New York.? By Authority.

CHAP. 133.

AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to vaccination.
Became a law March 30, 1915, with the approval of the Governor. Passed,

three-fifths being present.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Sections three hundred and ten and three hundred and
eleven of chapter forty-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and nine,
entitled ?An act in relation to the public health, constituting chapter
forty-five of the consolidated laws,? are hereby amended to read, re¬
spectively, as follows:

§ 310. Vaccination of school children. 1. A child or person not
vaccinated shall not be admitted or received into a school in a city of
the first or second class. The board, officers or other person having
the charge, management or control of such school shall cause this pro¬
vision of law to be enforced. The board of health or other board, com¬
mission or officers of such city having jurisdiction of the enforcement
of the chapter therein shall provide, at the expense of the city for the
vaccination of all pupils of such school whose parents or guardian do
not provide vaccination for them.

2. Whenever smallpox exists in any other city or school district,
or in the vicinity thereof, and the state commissioner of health shall
certify in writing to the school authorities in charge of any school or
schools in such city or district, it shall become the duty of such school
authorities to exclude from such schools every child or person who does
not furnish a certificate from a duly licensed physician to the effect
that he has successfuly vaccinated such child or person with vaccine
virus in the usual manner or that such child or person shows evidence
by scar of a successful previous vaccination. Whenever school authori¬
ties having the charge, management and control of schools in a district
or city cause this provision of law to be enforced, the local board of
health shall provide for the vaccination of all children whose parents or
guardian do not provide such vaccination.

3. The expense incurred, when such vaccination is performed
under the direction of the local health authorities, shall be a charge
upon the municipality in which the child or person vaccinated resided,

28


and shall be audited and paid in the same manner as other expenses
incurred by such municipality are audited and paid. The local boards
of health or other health authorities may, in their discretion, provide
for the payment of additional compensation to health officers perform¬
ing such vaccination.

§ 311. Vaccination how made; reports. 1. No person shall per¬
form vaccination for the prevention of smallpox who is not a regularly
licensed physician under the laws of the state. Vaccination shall be
performed in such manner only as shall be prescribed by the state
commissioner of health.

2. No physician shall use vaccine virus for the prevention of
smallpox unless such vaccine virus is produced under license issued
by the secretary of the treasury of the United States and is accompanied
by a certificate of approval by the state commissioner of health, and
such vaccine virus shall then be used only within the period of time
specified in such approval.

3. Every physician performing a vaccination shall within ten days
make a report to the state commissioner of health upon a form fur¬
nished by such commissioner setting forth the full name and age of the
person vaccinated and, if such person is a minor, the name and ad¬
dress of his parents, the date of vaccination, the date of previous vac¬
cination if possible, the name of the maker of the vaccine virus and
the lot or batch number of such vaccine virus.

§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.


29


THE LOYSTER LAW LEGALLY AND LOGICALLY ANALYZED
POINTS FOR LAWYERS AND LAYMEN


We think that any competent lawyers who carefully consider this
vaccination law will agree that it is a rich piece of medical craft and
graft and of legal fatuity from beginning to end.


FIRST POINT: ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LARGE

CITIES

It will be noted that the country legislators who fathered this
bill discriminated in favor of themselves and against citizens in
other parts of the state?the ten big cities?so as to admit unvaccinated
children freely to all schools in their own country districts, as in
section 310, paragraph 2 of the law, whereas in paragraph 1 no un¬
vaccinated child can be admitted to any of our schools whatever in the
ten cities of the first and second class! And yet smallpox is ten times
more frequent in country districts than in cities and vaccination is
therefore needed ten times more in the country than in cities if the
theory of the vaccinators is correct!

Such law is therefore unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminating
and of course no law making such arbitrary, class, and local distinctions
can be legal or constitutional as before stated. See interesting opinion
of Justice Woodward on this very point on ?Magna Charta? and the
?law of the land? in the decision of the Appellate Court in case of
Viemeister in 1903.

SECOND POINT: ILLEGAL AND EXCESSIVE PENALTY

The ?penalty? which this law ostensibly applies for failure to sub¬
mit to vaccination is to deny the school child his most inalienable
right to education, and to the school teacher his inalienable right
to earn his living and follow his most important profession of teach¬
ing the child. This we believe to be absolutely unconstitutional on
two principles, viz.: 1st, That cruel and unusual punishments cannot
be inflicted and, 2d, that no ?franchise,? ?privilege? or essential
?right? of any citizen can be taken away ?unless by the law of the land
or the judgment of his peers.? Both of these prohibitions are in the
very first article of our state constitution, showing their primal im¬
portance in all valid law.


30


We therefore very much doubt whether the violation of any
mere rule of so-called ?police power? or ?public health? can be penal¬
ized in this extraordinary fashion by taking away some fundamental
or primal right of the citizen. Such rule can obviously be legally
enforced only by some penalty which is not ?excessive,? ?cruel? or
?unusual,? such for example as that of a specific fine which is not in
itself ?excessive.? The law of Massachusetts for example is a speci¬
men of such a rational or constitutional law where it is attempted to
enforce the vaccination rule only by a fine of five dollars. And it
will be remembered that the highest court of that state in passing
on this law decided that while the fine might be legally enforced and
collected, yet the state could not compel or enforce the actual vaccina¬
tion of any person who objected to the operation.

And remember also that the learned court gave this decision under
the false idea, into which it was misled by false medical authority, that
vaccination was ordinarily perfectly safe and harmless and only ?theo¬
retically? capable of the ?possibility of injury.? What would this
learned court have said on this law if it realized the easily demon¬
strated truth that vaccination is actually more dangerous than small¬
pox and now kills more children every year than smallpox?

It may be further noted that the Supreme Court of the United
States passed on this case?Jacobson vs. Massachusetts?in 1904, with
a divided opinion, the majority holding that to enforce a rule for
vaccination by a fine was constitutional, but Judges Brewer and Peck-
ham dissented to this evidently holding that all vaccination must be free
and voluntary under our national constitution. The majority of the
court also decided that vaccination could not be enforced if it were
dangerous to health or life.

THIRD POINT: VACCINATION CANNOT BE LEGALLY
FORCED EXCLUSIVELY ON ONE SPECIAL CLASS OR
PART OF THE POPULATION WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL
REASON OR JUSTIFICATION.

It must be here specially noted that the aforesaid law of Massa¬
chusetts applies to all classes of the population generally and is not
arbitrarily limited to one or two classes, as in our absurd vaccination
law, which is limited to pupils and teachers in our schools, as if school
children and teachers were the only part of the population that were
subject to smallpox and therefore must be specially protected from it
by forcing them to be vaccinated under penalty of abandoning their

31


primal rights?a penalty which is not applied to any other part of the
population! I have already shown that the school age to which this
absurd law specially applies is, on the contrary, the very section of the
population which is least subject to smallpox and has the greatest natu¬
ral immunity against this disease and all other causes of death , so much
so that it shows regularly every year only about five per cent, of the
total mortality, although it constitutes one-quarter of the whole popu¬
lation.

SCHOOL CHILDREN MOST VITAL AND IMMUNE PART
OF THE POPULATION

To prove this most significant point, I herewith annex a diagram
from the annual report of our State Dept, of Health for 1912, show¬
ing the total deaths from all causes in the ten million population of
this state and the proportional deaths in each age class.

Death Rate and Per Cent of Deaths at Different
Age Periods

1912

State of New York


Age Period

No. of Deaths

Death rate per
1000 living
at all ages

Per cent of
total

mortality

Under 1 Year

24,681 BBi

2.6

17.3

1 year to 5 years

10,106 mm

1.1

7.1

5 ? 10 ?

2,707 ?

0.3

1.9

10 ? 20 ?

4,440 ?

0.46

3.1

to

o

o

22,544 UJMMM

2.35

15.8

40 ? 60 ?

31,371 BMIUMI

3.27

22.0

Ci

O

OO

O

36,110

3.7

25.3

Over 80

10,279 OH

1.07

7.2

Unknown

139 1

0.014

0.097


Total deaths at all ages 142,377 14.8 100.0-


It will be here noted that the vitality of the school age, 6 to 19,
is so extraordinary that its actual mortality from all causes of death is

32










only five per cent . of the total deaths, although this age-class consti¬
tutes one-quarter of the whole population, there being about two and
one-half million children of school age in New York State. This
astounding fact alone, when properly grasped, is absolutely overwhelm¬
ing and convincing in proving the absolute absurdity and needlessness
of compulsory vaccination on the school age and the invalidity of the
present law, because not only has this age the lowest natural suscepti¬
bility to death from smallpox, but also to all other causes of death,
which are one hundred times more fatal and frequent than smallpox;
and therefore this age should not be arbitrarily and needlessly oppressed
by any class law.

SCHOOL AGE MOST IMMUNE TO SMALLPOX

To show that the school age has the greatest relative immunity
from smallpox, as a particular disease, as it also has from all causes
of death, I will here give the list of total deaths from smallpox in our
last greatest epidemic year of 1901 in New York City, with the actual
number of deaths in each age-class as given in the report of the
Health Department for that year.


Total Deaths from smallpox, all ages, in New York
City in 1901, last greatest epidemic year.410


Deaths under five years. ..


... 197

Deaths

in school age, five

to fifteen. . 8% of total. .. ,

... 32

Deaths

over fifteen.


... 181



100%

410


It will thus be seen that in our last great epidemic in our largest
city infants and adults are shown to be most subject to smallpox while
the school age is least subject, not only relatively but absolutely and
to an extraordinary degree, as it shows only eight per cent, of the
total smallpox deaths while it constitutes one-quarter of the popula¬
tion, whereas the infant age under five forms only half this propor¬
tion, or about one-eighth of the population, and yet shows forty-eight
per cent, or nearly half of all the smallpox deaths!

We have heard a good deal of false nonsense from time to time
from the vaccination doctors about vaccination changing the ?age in¬
cidence? of this disease from the infant to the adult age; that, whereas
before the days of vaccination smallpox was almost purely an infant
disease, but in our times vaccination has so saved the infant age from

33










smallpox that it has now transferred the ?age incidence? from infants
to adults and made modern smallpox chiefly a disease of poorly vac-
cinated adults! We can now see how false and stupid this claim is
when in our very last epidemic year of 1901 in our greatest city nearly
one-half of all the smallpox deaths were among infants and the least
among children of school age, just as it was before the days of vaccin¬
ation, which has made no serious difference whatever in the ?age in¬
cidence? or the mortality of the disease.

In attempting to answer some of my press articles of last year
on the falsehoods and fatalities of vaccination, Dr. J. Dana Hubbard,
of the City Department of Health, undertook to use this false and stale
old argument of change of ?age incidence,? etc., in a special article in
the New York Sun of June 21, 1914, in defense of vaccination. I have
now shown what nonsense and fallacy this defense is and that Dr. Hub¬
bard seems to be grossly ignorant of the easily accessible records of
his own Department, which fully refute him and show that he has
been simply fooling himself and the public with old moss-covered
fallacies of the vaccination cult, which any up-to-date doctor familiar
with the real facts of this complex subject should be ashamed to any
longer repeat.

The false argument may just here be attempted by vaccinators
that the school age is relatively immune to smallpox because it is more
vaccinated than any other age, but this is false and absurd for the
reason that the school age shows even a higher immunity against all
other causes of death which are a hundred times more fatal and fre¬
quent than smallpox, and therefore the natural immunity and vitality
which protects it from these more frequent and fatal diseases also pro¬
tects it from smallpox, which is, perhaps the most insignificant of all our
causes of death, being usually exceeded by death from lightning! And
furthermore, we find in communities where little or no compulsory
vaccination is placed on the school child, such as in England, that this
age shows the same extraordinary relative immunity against smallpox
and all other causes of death.

To fix this striking point of the great vitality and immunity of
the school age firmly in the mind it may be here said, that, while the
school age forms one-quarter of the whole population and has only
five per cent, of the total deaths, the infant age under five years con¬
stitutes about one-eighth of the population and has about 30 per cent,
of the total deaths, whereas, the adult ages over 20 constitute about
five-eighths of the population and have about 65 per cent., or five-
eighths, of the total deaths. In other words, the mortality of the

34


adult age is normal, or directly proportional to its numbers in the popu¬
lation, while the mortality of the infant age is abnormal or far beyond
its proportion in the population , whereas the mortality of the school age
is most remarkably sub-normal or much less than its proportion in the
population.

RELATIVE DANGERS FROM SMALLPOX, LIGHTNING AND

LOCKJAW.

It may be worth while here to show the relative insignificance of
smallpox as a cause of death in this State by comparing it with deaths
from Lightning, Murder and Lockjaw, and I here give the actual fatal
figures on these four causes for the last four years, as reported in the
official State Reports:

Smallpox Lightning Homicide Lockjaw


1910

7 deaths

16 deaths

606 deaths

94 deaths

1911

3 ?

30

449

114

1912

4 ?

21

434

97

1913

1 ?

13

461

111


It will be readily seen from these figures that there is six times more
danger of being struck by lightning than of being killed by smallpox, and
one hundred times more danger of being killed by murder and over
twenty-five times more danger of being killed by lockjaw. Lockjaw is
therefore many times more dangerous than smallpox, and to this serious
danger every vaccinated person in this State is subjected, for, as a matter
of demonstrable fact, at least ten per cent of all lockjaw deaths are caused
by vaccination wounds. These facts and figures therefore clearly prove
that lockjaw is a much more serious danger and more frequent cause of
death in this State than smallpox, and that a person who remains
unvaccinated in this State of New York and province of Long Island,
where the lockjaw infection is so widely diffused, stands far less chance
of death than the person who foolishly allows himself or his child to be
scared into the greater danger of vaccination as an alleged protection
from the rare disease of smallpox of which there is six times less danger
of death than of being struck by lightning and twenty-five times less
danger of death than of being killed by lockjaw!

VACCINATION FOR VOTERS ^

In closing this point I will finally ask: What would any lawyer,
jurist or citizen think of a law which would make the ?right? or
?privilege? to register and vote to depend on a ?certificate? of ?suc¬
cessful vaccination? and which would take away the right of suffrage

35


unless the voter would consent to be vaccinated and produce such
doctor's certificate, at so much per head, to add to the profits of the
doctors and the vaccine makers? Yet if the theories of the vaccina¬
tors are correct such a law is needed five times more for voters and
adults than for school children, as voters and adults are at least five
times more susceptible to smallpox and all other diseases than the
school age, which is the most vital and immune age in the population
and the least in need of any vaccination, as already proved.

FOURTH POINT:-THE THEORY THAT VACCINATION PRE¬
VENTS SMALLPOX, WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG,
DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANY LAW WHICH FORCES VAC¬
CINATION ARBITRARILY AND UNREASONABLY ON
ONE CLASS ONLY OF THE POPULATION.

On this point it may be proper to quote the highest Court decision
so far rendered in this State on the law of school vaccination and
which has been much misunderstood, viz.: the decision of the Court of
Appeals in the case of Veimeister in 1904. This court did not con¬
strue the several points considered by the Appellate Court in this same
case, as before referred to, but gave its decision on practically one*
point only, which is expressed in its concluding paragraph as follows:

?While we do not decide and cannot decide that vaccination is a
preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is
the common belief of the people of the state, and with this fact as a
foundation, we hold that the Statute in question is a health law en¬
acted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power."

I do not intend to here criticise this decision in any way but will
only now call close attention to the remarkable legal doctrine therein
stated, viz.: that if a majority of the people of this state believe in a
certain medical theory, or doctrine of public health, they can force
that doctrine through the ?police power" of the state upon a minority
that does not believe it. Now assuming this doctrine to be true, in a
limited measure, surely it is not true, and was not intended by the
court to be held true, in an unlimited measure or to the extent of in¬
vading or denying essential rights guaranteed explicitly by constitu¬
tions and charters or distinctly implied in any of the great Declara¬
tions of the people? And furthermore, if such medical or health doc¬
trine or dogma can be legally forced by a majority of believers upon
a minority of unbelievers, it surely cannot be legally enforced on one
class only of these believers or unbelievers, but must be put on both

36


believers and unbelievers justly and evenly. I have already shown
that our vaccination law has never been placed on a majority of the
believers or unbelievers and yet the learned Court of Appeals has
assumed that the majority of the people of the state believe that vac¬
cination prevents smallpox and is necessary to prevent it. Now if they
really believe this, how is it that this ?majority? has never placed a law
of coercive vaccination on all the people of the state or even on a ma¬
jority of either believers or unbelievers, but have placed it only on one-
quarter section of the people?the school children?which actually
need this protection least of all; whereas the three-quarters of the pop¬
ulation which are most subject to smallpox?five times more so by
actual statistical record of all epidemics?are left entirely without this
alleged protection of coercive vaccination? If coercive vaccination is
therefore necessary to prevent smallpox, as alleged to be the actual
belief of the people of this state, this purpose will surely never be
accomplished by any absurd and partial law which puts this alleged
protection on the one-quarter of least susceptibles and leaves it off the
three-quarters of most susceptibles! There is therefore something radi¬
cally wrong with this whole legal and medical theory, which surely
does not fit the facts, so that notwithstanding the fact that coercive
vaccination?the only alleged remedy to prevent smallpox?has never
been placed in this state on the three-quarters of our population which
is most subject to smallpox, yet smallpox has steadily declined in this
State and has declined even more in other states and cities where no
coercive vaccination has been enforced on any part of the population.

Even if we admit freely that vaccination prevents smallpox, and
is necessary to prevent it, yet this would not justify any partial law
that puts coercive vaccination arbitrarily on one section of the popu¬
lation only and that section the very one that least needs it but this,
we submit, would be, per contra, a good reason for condemning and
invalidating that law as a matter of legal and constitutional propriety,
which point our courts have yet to pass upon.

It is, however, really irrelevant to the main issue?the validity of
coercive vaccination?whether vaccination is or is not a preventive of
smallpox, and we might admit that it is a preventive, to a certain
limited extent, or even more so, and yet coercive vaccination might be
absolutely illegal and non-enforceable on other grounds, and one of
these grounds is expressed in the next point.


37


FIFTH POINT: INFLICTING A WOUND AND DISEASE,
COERCIVELY, IS AN ILLEGAL ACT


This important point is: that vaccination consists in the bodily
infliction of a wound and disease which is per se, dangerous to
life and health and frequently kills and therefore can not be legally
forced on any person. As an historic and legal example of this
point we might cite the practice of smallpox inoculation, which
preceded vaccination, and which flourished over a century under the
approval of the highest medical authorities of the time, and which it
was freely admitted gave considerable protection against natural small¬
pox, like the bovine vaccination of to-day, yet this practice of inocula¬
tion was finally declared to be illegal and was prohibited by penal
law because it was found to be very dangerous to human health and
life and really more dangerous than natural smallpox, and actually in¬
creased smallpox, which declined rapidly as soon as this inoculation
was abandoned.

It will be noted that this point is fully supported by the decision
of the highest court in the country, the U. S. Supreme Court, in the
case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts in 1904, which clearly declared
that vaccination can not be forced on any person who can show that
it is dangerous to health or life, which it is, per se, in every case.

All Vaccination Potentially Dangerous or Deadly

Vaccination is nothing more or less than ?Purulent Infection and
Septicemia,? which is a regular cause of death in our yearly death lists
and shows about 300 deaths every year in this State. Under this head
and under the head of Lockjaw or ?Tetanus? and some other septic
diseases many deaths from vaccination are included and concealed every
year by our falsifying doctors, who so foully tell us that vaccination is
perfectly safe and harmless.

To show that vaccination is authoritatively recognized as essentially
equivalent to Pyaemia and Septicemia (which names mean general and
local blood poisoning), I will mention this most significant fact that in
the reports of the Registrar-General of England, which is the highest
statistical authority in the English speaking world, that many vaccination
deaths are regularly acknowledged every year, and these deaths are now
classified under a sub-head of Pyaemia-Septicemia which is numbered 20
in the International List of Causes of Death, and the deaths under this
general head are divided and classified as follows: Pyaemia No. 20A,

38


Septicemia No. 20B, Vaccinia No. 20C. And under this latter sub-head,
and other heads, more deaths of children are recorded from vaccina¬
tion almost every year than from smallpox itself! (See page 19 herein.)

SIXTH POINT: FALSE DOCTRINE OF ?POLICE POWER? TO
INFLICT DISEASE OR DEATH IN THE FALSE NAME OF
?PUBLC HEALTH.?

INHERENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
PEOPLE SUPERIOR TO ALL POLICE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATURE WHICH CANNOT INVADE THESE RIGHTS.

We have heard a good deal, both in and out of court, of the alleged
?Police Power? of the Legislature to inflict compulsory vaccination in
some form or other upon the people, but we have yet to find any decision
of any court?certainly not from our State courts or from the U. S.
Supreme Court?which declares that the Legislature has any ?police
power? to compel any one to be vaccinated, but the courts have decided
the very reverse, as already shown, and particularly if it can be proved
that vaccination is dangerous to health and life, which danger I have
already demonstrated potentially exists in every case beyond question.

Now it is obvious that true and legal ?Police Power? can only be
exercised to save the public from harm or danger, to keep disease or
harm from the people, to protect them in their undoubted rights, to pro¬
mote public health, safety and welfare and not to force disease, injury or
death upon the people or to invade any of their rights in any serious way;
and it needs no argument to show that to inflict a wound upon the
healthy human body and to inoculate a dangerous disease into this wound
which may infect the whole body and destroy health or life is the most
flagrant invasion of the most sacred and important public and personal
rights conceivable, which surely cannot be legally justified or sustained
in any way, no matter what is the alleged motive or purpose of this
wounding and diseasing. And, of course, this evil of compulsory vac¬
cination would never have had the least toleration in our courts were it
not that the minds of our courts have been grossly misled from the first
by medical falsifiers to regard vaccination as a purely beneficial and
entirely harmless operation which is absolutely necessary for public
health, both of which propositions are most stupid and dangerous fasle-
hoods, as I have already demonstrated. Modern Bovine Vaccination is,
in fact, not essentially different from Smallpox Inoculation which, as
already shown, was prohibited by penal law as being highly dangerous

39


to public health after over a century of use and approval by the highest
medical authorities of the past century, and it would perhaps not be
difficult to now prove that our modern vaccination is actually more
dangerous to man and beast than the old inoculation was, as it has never
been recorded that inoculation was responsible for great cattle plagues of
foot and mouth disease, which vaccination has already caused several
times in this country in 1902, 1908 and 1914, as before shown. See
Year Book, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, 1914, p. 20.

SEVENTH POINT: SEVERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRO¬
VISIONS INVADED BY THE LOYSTER LAW.

It may be proper in this point to briefly consider the several sec¬
tions of our national and state constitutions which are clearly violated
by this evil law of compulsory disease placed arbitrarily on one mere
section or class of the population, viz., on school children and other
inmates of schools.

Article IV. of the National Constitution states: ?The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated Surely to
search for and seize a healthy and harmless school child, who is unvaccin-
ated, and force him out of school and deny him his unalienable right to
education unless he will submit willingly or by force to this barbarous act
of compulsory wounding and diseasing of his body?surely this act or
law of forced or coercive vaccination is clearly forbidden by this Article
IV. of the U. S. Constitution.

In Article VIII. another distinct prohibition is given, which applies
clearly to compulsory vaccination as a condition for the exercise of this
inalienable right of education: ?Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.?
This same provision is repeated in Article I., Section 5 of the State Con¬
stitution, and has been already partly considered in our Second Point.

Now it will be noted that this evil school vaccination law punishes
the refusal to submit to vaccination?which all our courts have decided
the citizen has full right to refuse and which the state or legislature has
no power whatever to compel?by denial of the indispensable and inalien¬
able right of the child to his education, which is obviously his most
important and essential right and which cannot be legally or morally
taken away from him by any power whatever in this State, and the
attempt to take it away would obviously be the most flagrant and stupid
violation of sound public policy conceivable. Is it not therefore a most

40


cruel and unusual and stupid punishment?worthy only of the most
fanatical and barbarous ages of human slavery and compulsory religion
to punish refusal to vaccinate (which every citizen has the right to
refuse and no power in the state can compel), by denial of the right
of education to the child and the right of the parent to have his child edu¬
cated? Is there not, in fact, an inalienable and self-evident right in the
parent to educate his child and in the child to get an education and that
this right of parent and child cannot possibly, under our fundamental law,
be taken away from them by any medical dogmatism which strives to
force upon them any medical operation whatever as a condition for edu¬
cation, whether this operation be considered sometimes beneficial or
frequently doubtful, dangerous or fatal.

In this connection it is very significant that the Declaration of Inde¬
pendence refers to ?certain? unalienable rights ?among which? are life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness. This clearly intimates that there are
other individual rights inherent in the people besides those stated, which
are equally unalienable and cannot be violated by any power but must
be respected and protected by all governments; and this point is clearly
re-stated and emphasized in Articles IX. and X. of the U. S. Constitu¬
tion, which say:

?The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.?

?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.?

Surely, therefore, the right of the child to an education and the right
of the parent to educate his child is one of these inherent rights in parent
and child which cannot be taken away by any evil law which forces a
dangerous medical operation upon the school child or his teacher and
which is not forced on any other part of the population; and it is there¬
fore believed that, for the several reasons here stated, our courts, if
properly appealed to on the proper issues herein suggested, will have no
hesitation in invalidating this Loyster Law as a most flagrant violation of
inherent and constitutional rights which may be briefly expressed and
condensed into these two propositions:


PROPOSITION FIRST.

The right of every child to an education and the right of every
parent to have his child educated are inherent and unalienable rights

41


and cannot be legally made dependent on the acceptance of any medical
dogma or operation, even if beneficial, and particularly not when dang¬
erous to health and life and frequently a cause of death.

PROPOSITION SECOND

Any law which forces a compulsory wound and inoculable disease on
the human body against free will and consent or, as a condition for the
exercise of any right or privilege of any citizen, which is dangerous to
life, obviously violates clear constitutional provisions and is also clearly
criminal under common law and the Penal Code and is therefore abso¬
lutely against private right and public policy and consequently invalid
and non-enforceable on broad legal and equitable principles.

EIGHTH POINT: ILLEGAL MEDICAL GRAFT IN DOUBLE
COMPENSATION TO HEALTH OFFICERS

It will be noted on reading paragraph 3 in section 310 of the
Loyster law that an unblushing provision of illegal medical graft ap¬
pears boldly and stupidly in gross violation of the State Constitution,
in these words: ?The local boards of health * * may * *

provide for the payment of additional compensation to health officers
performing such vaccination/' In other words, the vaccinating doc¬
tors or health officers may, in addition to their regular salaries or
compensation, be paid extra for every public vaccination performed!
Medical graft is thus clearly streaked all through this bill for, in addi¬
tion to taking the enforcement of the vaccination law from the dis¬
cretionary hands of the school officers, who have no pecuniary interest
in enforcing vaccination, it is now turned over to the mandatory power
of the health officers, who can get up a smallpox scare and vac¬
cination raid at any time on the alleged appearance of one little case
of smallpox or pseudo-smallpox in any town or city, and thus reap
a rich reward of double pay for every vaccination performed! Was
there ever a more disgraceful, ?raw," or illegal form of medical graft
forced upon the people than in this clause, for which Mr. Loyster and
his bill drafting allies in the State Department of Health seem to be
wholly responsible? The suffering people of this State, still grieving
for the loss of their precious children killed in the last vaccination raid,
can rest easy, however, in the assurance that after this exposure they
probably need fear no further menace now from this stupid law which
we believe no Court will allow to be enforced in this State by reason
of its many illegal and unconstitutional features, already pointed out,
including this latter point of medical graft and double compensation,
which is clearly prohibited in Article 3, Section 28, of the State
Constitution. See also Article 10, Section 9.

42


NINTH POINT: OTHER POSSIBLE MEDICAL GRAFT IN
EXCLUSIVE USE OF SPECIAL VIRUS


Not only does the Loyster Law give the vaccinating doctors
double fees for every public vaccination performed, which means an
enormous sum for the doctors, with forced vaccination inflicted on all
school children in this State, but also gives the State Health Commis¬
sioner sole power to prescribe the particular brand or brands of virus
to be used in the State! See paragraph 2, section 311. He could
therefore, for example, allow only the Lederle brand of virus, which is
made in this State by, or under the name of, a former Health Com¬
missioner of New York City, Dr. Ernst J. Lederle, under whose
administration the present State Commissioner of Health, Dr. Biggs,
was a subordinate officer for many years in New York City. Com¬
missioner Biggs could therefore order that only the Lederle, or some
other favorite virus, could be used for vaccinating any one of our ten
millions in this State, and he could forbid the use of the Mulford or
Parke-Davis viruses, which are made in other States and are the viruses
now most used in this State and have been used, as testified by Mr.
Loyster, at the legislative hearing on his Bill, in most of the fatal cases
of vaccination in this State in 1914, and were also the viruses which
have caused some of the great epidemics of foot and mouth disease in
cattle throughout this and other states in 1908, as shown in U. S.
Government reports, Bureau of Animal Industry, of 1908. This is a
rather needless or dangerous power to give to any State Commissioner,
particularly after the U. S. Government has already passed upon each
brand of virus and inspected and approved it; and if this double inspec¬
tion and approval by the Nation and State is necessary, this fact will
only go to show how dangerous, indeed, these products are to the health
and life of man and beast. It will be readily seen, however, that this ex¬
clusive power to prescribe the use of any particular virus in this State,
notwithstanding the Government approval, might lead to great medical
graft, and, with a compulsory vaccination law in all schools in this
State, public and private, could make a fortune for a favorite brand
of virus, like the Lederle brand for instance, and for the doctors or
health officials who might be interested in the stock of such a com¬
pany. The possible graft, therefore, in this feature of the Loyster Law
is obvious and, we believe, needs no further comment, except to here
suggest that the people of this State have a right to know whether
any of our health officials are now, or have been, interested in any
vaccine companies, directly or indirectly.

TENTH POINT: ONLY ONE GOOD FEATURE OF THE
LOYSTER LAW?RECORD OF VACCINATIONS

We are glad that there is at least one feature of this law that is not
bad and can be approved, and this occurs in the third and last para-

43


graph in section 311, which provides for a record of all vaccinations
made and compels the doctors to record not only the name and address
of the child and its parents, but also the date of last and previous
vaccinations, the brand of virus used and its lot, mark or number, so
that it can be readily identified if trouble is afterwards caused by it in
the vaccination of the child. Like a vicious dog, therefore, this Loyster
Law seems to be harmless only at the tail end but very dangerous in
front. This provision at the tail end, however, for a record of the
virus used is itself of very little value, and does not go far enough,
as this record to be really valuable should provide for a true and full
report of the results of the vaccination on the child and the mention
of the fact of any sickness, injury or death following the vaccination
and particularly the mention in every death certificate of vaccination
as a primary or secondary cause of death whenever it actually or evi¬
dently exists as such in any instance, which at present is usually shame¬
fully denied and concealed by vaccinators. For example, it is a com¬
mon thing where children die of vaccination, either as a direct result
of the cowpox infection or by some secondary infection of lockjaw or
septicemia conveyed in the virus itself or from some external source
in the environs or habitat of the patient, that no mention whatever
is made in the death certificates of the infecting act of vaccination
itself as a primary or secondary cause of death, which of course it is
in every such case, but the cause of death will usually be attributed
solely to the secondary infection of ?Tetanus,? ?Septicemia,? etc.,
without any mention whatever of the primary disease or infection of
vaccination, without which the secondary infection and death would
never have occurred. This is, of course, in direct violation of stand¬
ard statistical rules governing death certificates and yet is commonly
practiced in this State and tolerated by our health officials, interested
in one way or another in vaccination, but this wrong should be rigidly
prohibited and penalized by the immediate passage of a special law.
Now, if the Loyster Law had provided for some such record as this
it would have been worth while, whereas the present record of the virus
only is of very little use without the record of the results produced by
the virus on the victim of the vaccination.

Our League had a special bill introduced in the Legislature a few
years ago to provide for this full record of virus and its results, but it
was defeated by the same dangerous medical and political power which
seems to control our medical legislation and has given us all our evil
compulsory medical laws and which we believe has misled Mr. Loyster
into supposing that he has made a great reform in the present law,
but which we think we have now shown to be a tissue of dangerous
medical illegalities and of medical craft and graft from beginning to
end, with which our courts will doubtless deal effectually in due time
to protect the most sacred rights of the people from such dangerous
medical domination and compulsion.

44


THE LOCKJAW LIE, AND DR. ANDERSON'S REPORT,
ANSWERED. FIVE CHILDREN KILLED IN ONE WEEK.


It will be noted that the present pamphlet is confined to the legal
aspects of compulsory vaccination and to the facts which clearly prove
its dangerous and deadly nature, per se, and therefore, the illegality
and criminality of its enforcement on any person. In supplementary
second and third pamphlets now in press, entitled respectively, ?The
Story of a Continental Lie," and, ?Vaccination Horrors and Lies," ex¬
tensively illustrated, we will treat other aspects of this great and com¬
plex subject.

In the second pamphlet we will refute the stupid medical falsehood
given great currency by some of our deluded daily newspapers that
?Those who are vaccinated do not get smallpox," and we will prove
that the majority of smallpox cases are among the well vaccinated and
the minority among the unvaccinated.

In the third pamphlet we will fully answer the more recent false¬
hoods which we term, ?The Lockjaw Lie," and, ?The Phillipine False¬
hood," to which some of our big deluded editors have so stupidly and
confidently committed themselves within the last two months, on the
basis of certain government reports which state that millions of persons
can be and are vaccinated, as alleged, in the Phillipine Islands, without
a single injury or death, and that fatal lockjaw infection is never con¬
veyed in vaccine virus itself or caused by vaccination. The latter
conclusion has been based on a recent report by Dr. J. F. Anderson,
of the U. S. Public Health Service, which the falsifying vaccinators
have made much use of in attempts to sustain their favorite and shock¬
ing falsehood that vaccination is perfectly safe and harmless and never
causes death by lockjaw directly or indirectly, but which report we
will show is most futile, and absurd as any defense of vaccination
against the impregnable proofs of its deadly effects through lockjaw
and many other septic infections caused both by the virus and the
vaccination wound.

As we now go to press the daily papers of the last week (Sep¬
tember 30 to October 7), as if in fateful reproof of these shocking
medical falsehoods, report the deaths of five children from lockjaw
following vaccination in the usual periods of incubation. These cases
are the two little boys, 5 and 7 years, of Charles Perks, of Burlington,
N. J.; Dorothy Klemm, 5 years, of 148 Smart Av., Flushing; Martha
Markusson, 5 years, of 766 41st St., Brooklyn, and Eleanor Fredericks,
6 years, of Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island. Thirty children were
killed by vaccination in New York State about this time last year, so
that this is now evidently the ?open season" for this medical slaughter
of the innocents by compulsory disease, which we believe will have to
be ultimately stopped by criminal proceedings against the men, high
or low, who can be convicted as responsible for these medical homi¬
cides before our courts and juries.

45


LETTER TO MR. LOYSTER FROM MR. HIGGINS EXPOSING
THE EVILS OF THE LOYSTER LAW

DEATH OF THE STILLWAGGON BOY FROM VACCINATION
CITED AS AN EXAMPLE OF MANY OTHERS. VACCINA¬
TORS WHO KILL CHILDREN COMPARED TO PRESIDENT
McKINLEY?S ASSASSIN. ABSURDITY AND WORTHLESS¬
NESS OF THEIR ?REPORTS? ON SUCH DEATHS DEMON¬
STRATED. WARNING AGAINST THIS CHILD SLAUGHTER
AS BEING A CRIME UNDER THE PENAL CODE.

Mr. James A. Loyster,

Cazenovia, N. Y.

Dear Mr. Loyster:

I herewith enclose a copy of an article from the Brooklyn Eagle
of March 7th, showing the death of another little victim of vaccination
on the thirteenth day after the operation, namely, Nathan H. Still-
waggon, son of John H. Stillwaggon, of 317 Ward Street, Richmond
Hill, Long Island, N. Y., aged six.

The doctors, as you will see, deny all responsibility of vaccination
for the death which is the usual medical falsehood in such cases, which
cries to Heaven for punishment and must make the angels weep while
the devils laugh; and this is another case to add to your collection in
the next edition of your pamphlet, which will now make 27 deaths of-
children from vaccination in this State in less than one year.

ENDANGERING LIFE OF CHILD A CRIME UNDER PENAL

CODE

As to the ?report? of the doctors in this case, you know what a
farce these ?reports? and ?investigations? usually are and what an ab¬
surdity they are from a legal and judicial aspect, that is, the offender
reporting on and trying himself and acting as judge and jury in his own
case! We might as well accept an exculpatory report from Czolgosz on
the killing of McKinley as accept a report from our vaccinating doctors
on a vaccination death. These doctors are all employes of the city
and the city also makes this virus which they use in their operations.
Now, does any man of common sense expect that any one of these city
employes will legally and publicly acknowledge, under his own signa¬
ture, that these coercive medical operations, which they perform on our
little frightened children against the wish or desire of their parents,
actually kill these children? And does any one expect that these men

46


will legally and publicly admit that this virus, made by the city, which
they put into the children?s bodies in this entirely unnecessary and
dangerous operation of vaccination, is actually, per se, a virulent, active
blood poison, a purulent infection and septicemia pure and simple, which
is capable of killing any child at any time within a few days or weeks,
faster than the worst smallpox ever kills them, depending almost alto¬
gether on the constitution and present condition of the child vaccinated?
If they made any such horrible but true admission as this it would
probably not be difficult to convict the doctor guilty of any such act in
about ten minutes before any jury in this vicinage, under Section 483 of
the Penal Code on "Endangering Life or Health of Child/? and under
Section 1050 on "Manslaughter.? In addition to such criminal prose¬
cution, the ground would be clearly laid for a civil suit for heavy dam¬
ages by the parents against the city for the loss of their child caused by
such dangerous acts of medical malpractice by its agents and employes
and by the use of its infecting manufactured product on the body of
such child, which they so falsely and foully represent as perfectly safe
and harmless.

We will, of course, never get these doctors to admit these facts
and stop their dangerous practices until we either put able and eminent
laymen at the head of our health departments, who will compel them
to tell the truth, or until we prosecute them under our civil and crim¬
inal laws for any dangerous and illegal acts of which they may be
guilty.

THE LOYSTER BILL ANALYZED AND CONDEMNED

I also enclose the latest copy of your amended Bill which, as you
probably know by this time, has already passed the Assembly. As you
look over this bill you will readily see what a fine piece of work it is
in favor of the vaccinators and against the life of school children in
this State and against the sacred rights of their parents to the sanctity
of the bodies, health and life of their children, who are the most sacred
possession of the parent.

In your address to the legislators, which you will see I have had
printed for public circulation under the title of "A Heart to Heart
Talk,? you ask them in a manly way, ?Do you want to stand up for this
old law? Are you going to sit here and let this law kill more children??
They have now virtually answered you in the amended bill which your
legislative friends in the Assembly have just passed as an evident honor
to you: "Yes. We are not only going to stand up for this old law, but
we will make this old law four times worse, so that it will apply to

47


every school, public or private, in this State, and leave no school which
any child can enter unvaccinated, so as to make the possible slaughter
of the children by this law and the possible profits of the vaccinators
and vaccine mongers four times more.?

I now therefore ask you to carefully look at this shocking piece of
legislation, which has been drawn by yourself and manipulated by your
coadjutors, the health officials of this State, into whose scheme you
have fallen (against all my warnings), and passed by your legislative
friends, who do not seem to know when they are made the victims of
medical craft and graft, and who have now perpetrated one of the most
shameful and dangerous pieces of legislation that has ever been inflicted
on the people of this State by our medical autocrats.

You can therefore see what a splendid monument this Bill will be
to your memory and to the memory of your precious boy, slaughtered
by coercive vaccination, if we should not be able to defeat it and it
should be passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor.

You will see that there are two laws in this bill, one for big cities
and one for the rest of the State, and that by this cowardly and illegal
division you have got a law for your own country districts which is a
little more favorable to the country children than for the city districts.
For the city districts the law gives no escape whatever for our city
children but forces this murderous practice of coercive vaccination on
every school child, public or private. It therefore now threatens to put
this evil on my own children, who go to private school. While I have
never yet been injured by vaccination, because I knew enough to know
that almost all the grounds upon which compulsory vaccination is based
are outrageous falsehoods, yet I have fought day and night for years,
exhausted my health, and have spent a fortune in money for the benefit
of others who are not rich enough to be able to send their children to
private school and escape this damnable doctor-made law; and yet you
and your friends now come in with a contemptible and cowardly bill
which will relieve their own children in the country districts to a cer¬
tain extent from the evils of vaccination, for the price of putting this
barbarous evil four-fold stronger on all the children of the big cities,
where the profits of the doctors will be four times more.

Now, all I have to say here is that, if you stand for this kind of
thing, you are an entirely different man from what I believed you to be.
And, of course, it is unnecessary for me to tell you that I shall oppose
this evil bill to the very end, with my last ounce of strength, last idea
of logic and my last dollar of money, until all this kind of legislation is
buried out of sight of every decent man in this State and a law passed

48


which will repeal the crime of compulsory medical disease on our school
children and make it as great a curiosity of a past barbarism as our
State and National constitutions now make the old barbarism of com¬
pulsory religion, from which barbarism the people suffered so much in a
past age, but not half as much as they now suffer from the much more
dangerous barbarism of compulsory disease, forced upon us by our
gigantic medical societies and interests, of which our health depart¬
ments, as now directed, are part and parcel.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) CHAS. M. HIGGINS,
Treasurer Anti-Vaccination League of America.

271 Ninth St., Brooklyn, N. Y.

March 10, 1915.

MR. LOYSTER'S ANSWER

It is not necessary that we here publish all of Mr. Loyster's
answer to this letter, which is very long and somewhat involved in his
effort to justify what cannot be justified, but I think it is proper to
publish the first paragraph of his letter to show that he takes full re¬
sponsibility for this law as his own special work and that I therefore
do him no injustice in putting the chief responsibility for the passage
of this evil law on the man who seems to take such pride in this
work and seems to be so sure that the organized coecrcive vaccinators
in our health departments and medical societies have not fooled him in
his advocacy of their pet profitable and illegal schemes, which they have
fully secured in this lawless law.

James A. Loyster,

Member Republican State Committee,

Madison County.

Cazenovia, N. Y., March 15, 1915.

Dear Mr. Higgins:

Your letter of March 10 is received. From its tenor it is apparent
that it is useless for us to discuss the Tallett Bill.

As I have repeatedly written you, this bill is in the nature of a
compromise, and is not exactly the bill I would place on the statute
books if I could have my own way. It is my creation, however, and
with one exception every item in it has had my approval. I do not

49


think you can expect me to listen to the flood of billingsgate that you
are pouring out against a bill that I am more largely responsible for
than any other person without a feeling of resentment. I do not feel at
all flattered at your assumption that I have not sufficient brains to
know whether or not I am being hoodwinked by any of the doctors
connected with the department of health. I have for many years flat¬
tered myself on the possession of an ordinary amount of intelligence,
and naturally it wounds my vanity to find out that I am * * *

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) James A. Loyster.


A FEW WORDS FOR MR. LOYSTER AND HIS COLLEAGUES

It will be seen from the above how Mr. Loyster ^resents the idea
that he or his colleagues, Mr. Tallett or Senator Jones, have been in
any way hoodwinked by the medical powers in this State in getting
measures enacted in the Loyster-Jones-Tallett Law which just suit the
vaccination doctors and which they have been trying to get through for
years past against our successful opposition. Does Mr. Loyster, there¬
fore, mean to coolly tell us that these sinister measures were and are his
own spontaneous ideas solely and purely? And does he mean to tell
us that to take compulsory vaccination off the school children in his own
little town of Cazenovia, of two thousand population, and in Mr.
Tallett's little town of De Ruyter, of six hundred population, and to put
this medical evil on every school, public and private, in the ten leading
cities of the state, with a population of six millions, and with double
pay to the doctors for every public vaccination performed, is his own
particular idea of a proper law to be passed in this State in the interest
of the people? And does he really think that this is good and noble
and proper political work for him to do in this State as a Republican
politician or Statesman, whichever he may regard himself? If he does
think so, then I am very sorry for Mr. Loyster; and I thought I had
done him an honor in supposing that this was not really his own work
but was the work of the dangerous organized medical powers which
commonly fool and tool our legislators and also control our medical
legislation and our Departments of Health and Vital Statistics in this
State, but which system must be soon driven out of power by the people
of the State by a radical reform which will place able laymen at the
heads of these departments as they now have in Democratic England, and

50


not the pompous doctors and members of great medical societies, as we
now have here, who are professionally interested in many dangerous
and profitable medical practices and in denying and concealing deaths
and disasters from such practices and not in giving the ten millions of
people in this great state either Medical Freedom or Medical Truth.

GIGANTIC MEDICAL INTERESTS BEHIND OUR VACCINA¬
TION LAWS MOST DANGEROUS POWER IN BODY
POLITIC

To show what a gigantic medical interest is behind all our vaccina¬
tion laws and is constantly exerting both an open and concealed influence
on our Legislature and our State and City Departments and on public
opinion, it will be sufficient to give a few facts on this head to make
this point obvious.

There are nine concerns licensed by the U. S. Government to manu¬
facture vaccine virus in this country, with a combined capital of about
twenty millions! The largest of these concerns is the Parke-Davis Co.
of Detroit, with a capital of about ten millions, and the next largest is
the H. K. Mulford Co. of Philadelphia, with a capital of about two
millions. These nine licensed manufacturers include the Health De¬
partment of the City of New York, which is actually engaged in the
commercial business of making and selling vaccine virus, not only to
doctors here for private use, but to other cities in the country for public
use, in addition to its use for public vaccination in New York City and
State. This list of licensed manufacturers also includes an ex-Health
Commissioner of New York City, Dr. Ernest J. Lederle, or his company,
the Lederle Co., of 170 William Street, New York City, which makes
vaccine virus and anti-toxins.

It will thus be seen that the vaccine interest is very close to our
department officials, and that they actually have a positive official bias
or interest in denying and concealing injuries and deaths occurring,
directly or indirectly, from the medical products made by their own
departments and actually put into the body and blood of our children
in operations performed by their own subordinates or doctors, all em¬
ployes of the City or State!

Now, in addition to this gigantic manufacturing interest of nine
vaccine mongers, with nearly twenty millions of capital, there are the
gigantic medical societies, both state and national, with tens of thou¬
sands of members, which are in practical alliance with these vaccine
manufacturers as purchasers and users of their products and also as

51


the originators, advocates and maintainers of all our compulsory vac¬
cination laws, which are obviously worth millions of dollars every
year to these vaccine mongers and the vaccinating doctors who use their
products, which are constantly being forced upon the people under our
evil and illegal vaccination laws. It will be sufficient to give the names
and numbers of these medical societies to show what a dangerous
power we have in the body politic, which is solely responsible for
placing upon the people this most dangerous and illegal oppression of
compulsory medicine, an oppression much more evil than compulsory
religion ever was, and which is now represented in the evil practice of
compulsory vaccination and other schemes of medical compulsion,
such as compulsory medical examinations, etc., now improperly forced
upon the people.

There is a national association of doctors, known as the ?Ameri¬
can Medical Association,? which has a membership of 40,000 doctors!
The head office of this society is in Chicago but it has a large mem¬
bership in the City and State of New York. In this State we have the
following medical societies: ?Medical Society of the State of New
York,? 7,390 members; ?Medical Society of the County of New York,?
2,515 members; ?Medical Society of the County of Kings,? 950 mem¬
bers ; ?Associated Physicians of Long Island,? 503 members. There are,
of course, many other medical societies, but these are the chief ones,
more directly influencing our own City and State; and any one can
see at a glance what a menace these societies are and what a dangerous
power they are in our body politic when they are in fact united as one
body in the advocacy of compulsory medicine in its various danger¬
ous and illegal forms and particularly in the evil form of com¬
pulsory vaccination, and it may be set down as a fact that to these
medical societies, in connection with the great vaccine mongers, we
owe all our compulsory vaccination laws. Experienced legislators have
informed me that this gigantic medical power has the most complete
organization and lobbying system for influencing legislation of any in¬
terest in the State, as we have seen partly illustrated in the passage of
the evil Loyster Law.

The history of our compulsory vaccination law shows that this
was first passed in 1860 and has ever since been on our statute books
with some slight changes until it was superseded by the present Loyster
Law, and it was originally passed simply on petition from the Medical
Society of the State of New York and was rushed through the Legis¬
lature and signed by the Governor in a few days without any public
consideration or hearing whatever. Numerous efforts have been made
by the people of this State at different times during the last ten or more
years to have this evil law repealed, but it has been constantly opposed
by this same gigantic medical power, which profits immensely by such
laws, and which power has been generally able to continue such evil
laws by hoodwinking not only our legislators, but also our courts and a
large part of our people with its three great falsehoods:

(1) That compulsory vaccination is absolutely necessary for the

52


prevention of smallpox epidemics and is the only known remedy
therefor.

(2) That Sanitation, Isolation and Hygiene have no influence what¬
ever in preventing or controlling smallpox.

(3) That vaccination is perfectly safe and harmless and never
causes any injury or death.

I have already demonstrated what dangerous and criminal false¬
hoods all of these propositions are and need say nothing further on that
point here, but any person of common sense can see that when we have
the same set of men in full control of our health departments and vital
statistics who are also engaged in the practice and profit of vaccination,
and when these men have thus full power and a direct interest to deny
and conceal injuries and deaths from vaccination and other medical
operations in death certificates and yearly reports we obviously cannot
expect much reform in this great medical evil and menace until we put
able laymen at the heads of these departments, who will have no interest
in these medical denials and concealments, and who will administer
these departments purely in the interest of the people and not in the
interest of medical manufacturers, medical societies and medical theories,
as I have already suggested.

To show what a gigantic interest the doctors and medical societies
have in our own city government it will be sufficient to consider these
figures, which have been given by the President of the Board of Aider-
men in a medical journal. There are 8,100 registered doctors in this
city of New York, and out of this number nearly one-quarter or 1,632
are in the employment or service of the city which pays a million dollars
a year for this service!

It is therefore obvious from all the figures already given what a
powerful medical control the people are under unconsciously to them¬
selves, and what a powerfully intrenched and organized medical force
we actually have in public office in our body politic in City and State
which, under the forms and appearances of looking after the public in¬
terest only, is in the strongest possible position to look after the in¬
terests of its own profession first and to be safely able to deny and con¬
ceal any of the injurious or fatal effects of any of the medical prac¬
tices, theories, experiments or fads, which it may be regularly prac¬
ticing or favoring for the time being. This allegation is, of course, the
obvious fact because this organized medical force controls all our health
departments, vital statistics, death certificates, autopsies, medical re¬
ports, etc., etc., and can, of course, make any of these records or reports
to suit their medical dogmas, theories or interests and conceal their mis¬
takes; and there is no element now in our City or State governments
to adequately check this dangerous, evil and one-sided power, and will
not be until we put able laymen in office over this gigantic medical
interest, with honest doctors under them of whom plenty can be found
in this great profession who can quickly relieve the profession from
the disgrace which the oppressions, falsehoods and malpractices of
medical compulsion and domination have already brought upon it all
over this State and Nation.


53


LETTER TO GOVERNOR WHITMAN ASKING VETO OF
LOYSTER-TALLETT BILL


SINISTER FACTS IN CANVASS AND PASSAGE OF THIS
BILL EXPOSED AND CONDEMNED

Subject :?Final appeal to veto the scandalous and dangerous Jones-

Tallett Vaccination Bill.

Hon. Charles S. Whitman, Governor ,

Albany, N. Y.

I again solemnly urge upon you the veto of the Jones-Tallett Vac¬
cination Bill, as being a most shameful and dangerous piece of medical
legislation, full of medical craft and graft in the interest of vaccinators
and vaccine dealers operating in this State, and worth millions of dollars
to this big medical interest.

This bill puts compulsory vaccination on every school child in this
State, whether in big cities or country districts, and whether in public,
private or parochial schools, whereas the present law applies to public
schools only. It has been falsely and foully represented from the first
as applying only in case of actual epidemics and as not applying to the
City of New York at all! Many members of the Senate and Assembly
from New York City seem to have voted for the bill on this false
representation, into which they have been misled by some person or
persons. Such fraud, and deceit, I believe to be a crime under Section
1327 of the Penal Code, and whoever may be guilty of such a crime
should be convicted and punished, if possible, under due process of
law. Some evidence on this head has already been placed before you,
and I believe that this fact alone of gross deception in the canvass and
passage of this bill should cause you to veto the bill as a legal outrage
and scandal in our legislation.

In addition to this evidence of probable fraud or deceit in the
passage of this bill, its enforcement, if it is made a law, on our little
school children would be most dangerous to health and life and would
result in many deaths every year. I have already clearly proved to you
that the school age is most immune to smallpox and has the highest
vitality and lowest death-rate from all causes of any age-class in the
population, and therefore needs alleged protection from smallpox less
than any other class, and that men of voting age, legislators and voters,
are five times more subject to smallpox and five times more in need of
vaccination than school children, yet no one has attempted to put com¬
pulsory vaccination on this manful age, able to bear it with less danger

54


than children; but, with shameful medical and legislative ignorance and
cowardice, this evil has been put only on our little school children,
under the false teachings and urgings of our medical societies, health
officials, vaccinating doctors and vaccine mongers, who profit immensely
by the enforcement of such evil laws.

I have also shown you that vaccination is simply the infliction of
a dangerous disease which, for children, is more dangerous to health and
life than natural smallpox and now actually kills more children than
smallpox, which fact is shamefully concealed in our vital statistics,
but is clearly proved in every yearly Report of the highest statistical
authority in the world, the Registrar-General of England.

This shameful bill also pretends to make the enforcement of vac¬
cination less rigid in our country districts than in our big cities, under
the false idea that cities are more subject to smallpox than country
districts as a whole. But this is another shameful falsehood of the men
?some of whom are in our State Department of Health?who are
responsible for the drafting of this false and evil bill. On the contrary,
the country districts, which contain less than half the population of
this State have almost always many more cases of smallpox than the
City of New York, which contains more than half the population of the
State. So much is this the fact that the cases of smallpox in the
country districts outside of New York City are usually five or ten
times more every year than in New York City. Furthermore, small¬
pox is, in fact, more of a country disease than a city disease, occurring
most where there are paper and rag mills and industries dealing with
animal textures, wool, hair, and hides, and with farm filth and domestic
animals, etc., and where there are lumber camps and ?bunk houses? of
railroad and other laborers, with great human overcrowding and gross
unsanitary conditions which are absent in the cities; and in fact, most of
the cases of smallpox found in the cities come from the country. The
shameful falsehood here refuted is therefore only one of many similar
falsehoods constantly forced by the ignorant and reckless vaccinators
in our health departments and medical societies on the Legislature and
the People of this State; and on such falsehoods all vaccination legis¬
lation like that in this evil Tallett Bill has been based.

Under these facts and circumstances I therefore submit to the
Governor of this State, as a last appeal for Right and Truth and Justice
in this matter, that the enactment of this false and evil Jones-Tallett
Bill into Law would be a medical crime on the people of this State;
and I shall therefore hope that the Governor will be in no way respons¬
ible for this crime by signing or approving this scandalous piece of
legislation.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAS. M. HIGGINS,

Treasurer Anti-Vaccination League of America.

271 Ninth Street, Brooklyn, N. Y.,

March 31, 1915.


55


THE HEARING BEFORE THE GOVERNOR


(March 29th, 1915)

To show how this evil Tallett Bill has been falsely represented
from the outset so as to win votes on this false basis to rush it through
the legislature, as referred to in the above letter and at the hearing
before the Governor, it may suffice to state that from the first it has
been boldly represented as providing for enforced vaccination only in
case of actual epidemics and only in such epidemic districts, and that
the law did not apply at all to big cities like New York, whereas it
was not at all limited to epidemics and applied constantly in -all big cities.
To prove how well this gross deception has worked, I here give a
verbatim copy of a letter written by my own local Assemblyman, Hon.
William T. Simpson, of the Twelfth Assembly District in Brooklyn,
where I reside, to a neighbor in the same district.


ASSEMBLY CHAMBER
State of New York


Albany


Mr. Stephen McNamee,
225 14th Street,


March 8th, 1915.


Brooklyn, N. Y.

Dear Sir:

Your favor of the 4th instant at hand and was received my me on
my return to Albany to-day. In reply thereto beg to say that the
Tallett Bill, to which you refer, did not affect the City of New York in
any manner and for that reason was not opposed by City members.

I thank you for your favor and will place the same in my file.
Yours very truly,

(Signed) Wm. T. Simpson,
Assemblyman .


From this shocking letter it is plain that Mr. Simpson and many
other members from the city, in both Senate and Assembly, voted for
this bill with the idea that it had no reference to the City whatever
and that they did this evidently on the mere statement and request of
somebody to vote for the bill without ever having read or studied the
bill or the letters sent from constituents warning them of the real
nature of the bill. Now surely the making of law is the highest and

56


most sacred function that can be exercised by any man or official,
much more sacred and important even than the work of the Judiciary
in the interpretation of law or the work of the Executive in the enforce¬
ment of law, and surely here is a shocking sample of how some laws
are passed and how the most sacred of all official functions is some¬
times exercised under political ?deals,? ?combinations,? or sinister in¬
fluences, and particularly through gross neglect of legislators to clearly
know what they are voting for before they vote, as seems to have
existed in the case of Mr. Simpson and others.

MR. TALLETTS SHOCKING LETTER

A more shocking example yet of blind or deceptive legislation is
found in this letter from Mr. Tallett himself to a voter in Brooklyn, in
which he shows complete ignorance of the real nature and scope of his
own bill, or rather Mr. Loyster?s bill, which he introduced in the
Assembly, and in which it will be seen he states in a postscript, written
in by his own hand, that the bill does not apply to New York City at
all, whereas it, of course, applied, as any tyro in legislation could see at
a glance, positively and particularly to New York and other big cities.

ASSEMBLY CHAMBER
State, of New York
Albany

January 29th, 1915.

Mr. Percy Gianella,

608 Fifth Street,

Brooklyn, N. Y.

My Dear Mr. Gianella:

I have your favor of the 28th instant and enclose copy of Assem¬
bly Bill No. 125, which will explain itself. This bill is introduced for
the purpose of modifying the present vaccination law relative to chil¬
dren in public schools.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) Morrell E. Tallett.

MET'EFG

Enclosure (Written in by hand)

This law does not apply in Greater New York. New York City
has its own Public Health and Public Education laws.


57


When Mr. Tallett was confronted with this letter at the hearing
before the Governor this is what he said, according to the record of
the Hearing:

?When it (his Bill) was introduced I was told that New York
City had its own law in regard to the education business and that this
wouldn't affect it.?

Now, who it was that misled Mr. Tallett and other legislators with
this stupid and dangerous falsehood does not yet appear, but I think
it is evident from the disgraceful facts above shown how easy it may
be for the highly organized medical powers in this State not only to
fool but to tool some of our legislators into possibly getting most any
kind of a bill through to suit these medical interests, without the actual
knowledge or consciousness of these legislators as to what they are
really doing, as seems to have been actually the case with the Loyster-
Tallett Bill.

To add to this shocking exhibit, I now give an extract from the
manly letter of the Senator from my own local district, Hon. William
B. Carswell, of Brooklyn, which shows another evil feature in the pas¬
sage of the Loyster Bill, in that his own vote was actually recorded for
this bill while absent without his knowledge or consent and positively
against his intentions and orders, and I have reason to think that this
is not the only example of such false record in the vote on this Bill.


William B. Carswell,

6th District.

THE SENATE OF
The State of New York
Albany

61 Broadway, New York City, N. Y., June 10th, 1915.

Mr. Charles M. Higgins,

271 9th Street,

Brooklyn, New York.

Dear Mr. Higgins:

I am in receipt of your favor of the 8th inst., in regard to my
vote on the Tallett Bill. From it I learn for the first time, that I am
recorded in favor of that measure. I am and was opposed to the
measure and my views underwent no change. I not only advised you
and several others that I was against the v bill, but Senator Jones, who
handled the matter in the Senate, was informed by me on the several

58


occasions he solicited my vote for the bill, that I was against it. I am
erroneously recorded in favor of the measure through some mistake of
the clerk at the desk, or the copy of the roll call has been incorrectly
made out.

**********

Trusting I make myself clear in the foregoing, I am, with best
wishes,

Very truly yours,

WBC/D (Signed) Wm. B. Carswell.

All these facts as given above surely make a most disgraceful
record of improper legislative methods under which the Loyster Bill
was passed which speak loudly for themselves and need no further com¬
ment here, and I now submit these facts for the information, criticism
and judgment of the people of this State as a public duty under the
circumstances.


GOVERNOR WHITMAN'S MISTAKE

I now have to add, with regret, how I believe the Governor neg¬
lected or shirked his clear duty to consider all the facts we placed before
him at the hearing on this evil Loyster Bill, and how he failed to use
his own judgment on these facts but deferred judgment on the whole
subject to the Commissioners of Health, who, of course, are profes¬
sionally interested in and committed to the whole subject of vaccination
and cannot possibly be considered impartial or proper judges in the
matter. We will now let the Governor's own words speak for him, as
taken from the official records of the Hearing, in answer to our counsel,
Hon. Charles F. Murphy, of Brooklyn.

THE GOVERNOR: Don't you think the Governor is obliged, or
rather justified in looking to the Health Department of State and City
in a matter that is so peculiarly within its jurisdiction as this matter?
I am not in a position myself to decide as to whether vaccination is a
good thing or not. It didn?t work very well with me.

MR. MURPHY: And that is just why I agree with you. It didn't
work well with me, either, Governor.

THE GOVERNOR: Here is the Health Department of the City,
at the head of which is a man of national reputation, and whose opinion
on questions like this ought to carry great weight anywhere; and the
Health Department of the State, whose Commissioner is a man of

59


standing and a man who has done a great work there, and is doing
great work there now. I do not feel as though I ought to pass on that
question. The Health Department should do it.


This illustrates clearly how the average legislator and the average
executive treats the whole subject of vaccination whenever it is brought
officially before them. Instead of considering the actual facts of
the matter as the highest possible authority, and considering the
whole subject carefully on their own account from these basic facts, they
will usually, in a thoughtless, cowardly or shirking way, defer to so-called
medical authorities which have a professional interest and bias of the
strongest kind on one side only of this subject. Now, how an eminent
lawyer like Governor Whitman could make such a logical and judicial
mistake as this would be very strange did we not know by long experi¬
ence that it is so very common with Governors and Legislators who
are good lawyers to act like very bad lawyers and poor judges when this
complex subject of vaccination comes up, which they will persist in
failing to study for themselves and get the real facts of the matter on
both sides into their ?lay? and unprejudiced minds, as should be the
case with every true ?juryman? sitting on any contested matter of facts.
And surely Governor Whitman is enough of a lawyer to know that,
under our fundamental laws, our whole legal system is based on the
proposition that the common layman or juryman is perfectly competent
to consider facts and give his legal decision on them and that the ordin¬
ary intelligent layman having no personal, selfish, business or profes¬
sional interest in the subject at hand is, as a matter of law, supreme in
his judgment on these contested facts , and that, on the contrary, the
man who has a business or professional interest in a subject like vac¬
cination (as our doctors and health officials have) is just the very man
who should not be asked to judicially or legally decide any such subject;
and yet that is the very mistake that the eminent lawyer, Governor
Whitman, made in this case, which is contrary to all the legal logic and
equity on which all our great jury and court system is based. To there¬
fore defer the question of the propriety of any vaccination law to the men
directly interested in forcing vaccination on the people is just about as
logical and judicial as if an ordinary trial judge and jury should con¬
clude they were ?incompetent? to pass on the ?law? and ?facts? in¬
volved in the case before them and should abdicate and turn over the
whole case to the lawyer for the defendant to settle as he thought bestl
If Thomas Jefferson had submitted his great Declaration of Liberty to
the lords and aristrocrats of England for approval before he submitted

60


it to the people of this country, or if Abraham Lincoln had first sub¬
mitted his Emancipation Proclamation to Jefferson Davis and the
slave-holders of the South for their approval, it would have been just
about as reasonable, logical, judicial and lawyer-like as for Governor
Whitman to defer any question of compulsory-vaccination-law for final
decision to Commissioner Biggs or Commissioner Goldwater, or any
other vaccinating doctor in this State.

We have great hope and faith, however, that the Governor will
never again make the mistake that was made in this case, if he once
studies and absorbs the medical, statistical and legal facts now given
to the public in this little pamphlet on this great and complex subject
of vaccination.

NEW LAW SUGGESTED FOR REPEAL AND PROHIBITION
OF ALL COMPULSORY VACCINATION

The next Legislature should make a full repeal of the present evil
Loyster Law by passing some such law as that suggested below, which
prohibits all compulsory vaccination, and the parents of the two and
a quarter millions of school children in this State should strongly urge
the passage of this law by their representatives in the next Legislature.

PROPOSED LAW PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING COM¬
PULSORY, COERCIVE OR FORCED VACCINATION OR
INOCULATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK

No form of vaccination or inoculation shall be imposed upon any
person by any form of force, intimidation, or coercion, against free will
and consent, and no child or minor shall be subjected to any form of
vaccination or inoculation without the free consent of parents or guard¬
ians. All doctors, health officers or other persons, in attempting or
offering to vaccinate or inoculate any child or other person, must first
carefully explain to such person, or to the parents or guardians of such
child or minor, that the proposed vaccination or inoculation is in no
way compulsory, and will not be performed if objected to by such
person, parent or guardian.

No form of vaccination or inoculation shall be made a condition
for admission to any public or private school or college in the State or
for the exercise of any other right or privilege of any citizen, tax¬
payer or other person in the State.


61


A violation of any of these provisions shall be punishable by a
fine of from five hundred to one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for
from one to two years, or by both fine and imprisonment at the discre¬
tion of the Court.

All existing laws or parts of laws inconsistent with these provisions
are hereby repealed.

This Act shall take effect immediately.

OTHER REFORMS SUGGESTED
FOR ATTENTION OF PARENTS AND SCHOOL OFFICERS

The parents of the two or more millions of school children in this
State who pay the taxes for the support of the most extensive and most
expensive function of our State and City governments, viz., Public Edu¬
cation, should now unite in making a general demand upon or remon¬
strance to our educational officials of State and City for a proper
protection of the most sacred rights of our most precious possession, the
children of school age, who form one-quarter of our whole population,
which remonstrance should take some such form as stated in the fol¬
lowing propositions:

First: To give expression to some proper criticism of our State De¬
partment of Education for its mistake in blindly accepting gross and
dangerous medical and statistical falsehoods issued by the State De¬
partment of Health in its bulletin of February, 1914, on the subjects
of smallpox and vaccination and adopted in the vaccination order of
Deputy Commissioner Finegan, sent to all school districts, dated
March 20, 1914, and for the failure of this great Department of Edu¬
cation to properly protect the two millions of school children in this
State from this great medical superstition and danger of compulsory
disease as an alleged mode of producing public health, but which is
far more dangerous to school children than natural smallpox, and has
killed 30 or more children in this State in 1914.

Second: To express a proper censure of Deputy Commissioner Fine¬
gan for his apparently illegal and intimidating order of March 20, 1914,
to the local trustees throughout the State, forcing them to compel
vaccination of school children, contrary to their own legal discretion
in this matter and in violation of the decision of Commissoner Draper
recognizing this discretion in the local school officers in the case of
the town of Olean in 1912, which order has resulted in the deaths of
many children all over the State from this forced vaccination.

Third: To carefully consider the legal question whether the De-

62


partment of Education or the State government is not liable to parents
for the deaths of their children killed by vaccination thus coercively
forced upon them; and

Fourth: To consider whether doctors and health officials perform¬
ing these fatal vaccinations?under the false representation that the
operation is safe and harmless, instead of being actually, in all cases, the
infliction on the healthy human body of a potentially dangerous disease
of blood poisoning known as purulent infection and septicemia?are
not liable for both civil and criminal prosecutions.

Fifth: To secure a public investigation of our health departments
to expose their constant denial and concealments of deaths from vac¬
cination and consequent falsification of our vital statistics.

Sixth: To consider the passage of a special Act of the Legislature
to indemnify parents for the destruction of health or loss of life of
their children caused by^ compulsory disease illegally forced on them by
agents of the State or City under the false representation and criminal
malpractice that such act of compulsory disease was necessary for their
health, or the health of the State, and that it was entirely safe and
harmless, or, as expressed in the actual words of the State Department
of Health in its Bulletin of February, 1914, that ?There is not the
slightest risk in the process of vaccination/' etc., which false and
dangerous statement we believe to be actually a crime on the people
of this State and would justify a public request for the removal of
its authors from office.

Seventh: To urge a proper public investigation of the medical graft
in the practice of vaccination and sale of virus in this State, to show
how much is paid for vaccination and for virus by the State or by
towns and cities or school districts, and who get this pay.

Eighth: To secure the passage of a new law which will remove
all vaccinating doctors and members of medical societies from the
heads of our departments of health and vital statistics and put in their
places able and eminent laymen having no interest in medical practices
or concealments, same as now exists in England, where the Registrar-
General and Minister of Health are both eminent laymen, and where the
vital statistics are known to be the most full and reliable in the world
and where deaths from vaccination are not concealed but are reported
regularly every year, showing in many years greater mortality than from
smallpox.


63


I


PROTEST OF PARENTS TO BOARD OF REGENTS AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


All parents of school children in the State who are opposed to
compulsory vaccination, and particularly all parents whose children
have been injured or killed by vaccination forced upon them within the
last two years, should write a strong personal letter of remonstrance
to the Board of Regents, or to the State Department of Education, at
Albany, protesting against the longer continuance of this barbarous
medical evil of compulsory disease on our State schools as a condition
for education therein, and particularly for the failure of our high
school officials to protect the children from this evil long ago and for
supinely accepting the dangerous and stupid medical falsehoods on
which this evil has been based. The blind acceptance of such false¬
hoods is an actual disgrace to the mental acumen of men capable of any
independent judgment or of investigating facts for themselves, by which
they could soon be convinced of the needlessness of compulsory vaccin¬
ation for school children and of its awful danger to their health and life.
This great danger is clearly shown when at least ten times more children
are killed every year, directly or indirectly, by vaccination than by
smallpox, against which the vaccination is directed and to which dis¬
ease children of school age are naturally more immune than any other
element in the population.

These parental letters of protest should be addressed, ?To the
Board of Regents, Albany, N. Y.,? or, ?To the State Department ol
Education, Albany, N. Y.?

It should be remembered that the Board of Regents (twelve in
number) control the entire Public School System of the State and ap¬
point the Commissioner of Education, the chief officer of the Depart¬
ment of Education, who serves at the pleasure of the said Board ol
Regents.

PAMPHLETS FOR SALE


We have bought several thousand of Mr. Loyster?s valuable pam¬
phlet entitled ?Vaccination Results In New York State in 1914? for
circulation at cost. This pamphlet shows the deaths of nearly thirty
children from vaccination in 1914, including Mr. Loyster?s own son,
with portraits and detailed description. These deaths were the result
of the illegal vaccination crusade forced on the schools of the State by
the ill-advised and untenable order of Dr. Finegan, Deputy Com¬
missioner of Education, dated March 20, 1914, issued under the
illegal dictation of the State Department of Health, and upon its false
and dangerous advices that such forced vaccination was necessary for
the health of children and was perfectly safe and harmless, which
dangerous orders and false advices, with their fatal effects, should
become the subject for public investigation and rebuke of all the
State officials responsible for them.

Price of the Loyster pamphlet by mail, ten cents each
Copies of the present pamphlet, ?The Crime Against The School
Child,? will be mailed upon request. Price, ten cents each.

64


P. J. COLLISON & CO
Brooklyn, N. Y.


THE CRIME AGAINST
THE SCHOOL CHILD


Compulsory Vaccination
Illegal and Criminal and
Non-enforceable Upon the
People

How to Legally Defeat this Medical Evil
Which Now Kills More Children
than Smallpox

Advice to Parents and School Officers With
Legal Defenses Against All
Compulsory Vaccination

By

CHAS* M* HIGGINS
Brooklyn, N. Y*

1915