Hagler v. Larner

• Decision Date: 21 October 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12167.,12167.
• Citation: Hagler v. Larner, 284 Ill. 547, 120 N.E. 575 (Ill. 1918)
• Parties: HAGLER et al. v. LARNER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

284 Ill. 547

120 N.E. 575

HAGLER et al.

v.LARNER et al.

No. 12167.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1918.

Appeal from City Court of Granite City; H. J. Browning, Judge.

Suit by Clifton Hagler and others against R. H. Larner and others.From decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.Affirmed.A. R. Johnson, of Granite City, for appellants.

R. W. Griffith and Mrak Meyerstein, both of Granite City, for appellees.

DUNCAN, C. J.

Appellants, Clifton Hagler and 12 other infant complainants, by William Hagler, their next friend, filed a bill in the city court of Granite City, to the March term, 1918, against appellees, R. H. Larner and others, as members of the board of education, principals of schools, and of the local board of health of the city of Granite City.The relief sought by the bill was the enjoining of appellees from preventing appellants from attending the public schools unless they were first vaccinated, according to a resolution adopted by the local board of health.The cause was heard on the bill and stipulations, the hearing being in the nature of an oral demurrer to the bill.The court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and appellants have brought the case by appeal to this court, contending that their constitutional rights are involved.

From the bill and the stipulations it appears that appellants are actual residents of Granite City, between the ages of 6 and 21 years, and are pupils of the Granite City public schools; that the board of health on March 4, 1918, passed a resolution that all children be excluded from the public schools for a period of two weeks unless recently vaccinated, or unless they produced a certificate that they had been successfully vaccinated within the past five years or had had smallpox; that appellees are endeavoring to enforce said resolution; that appellants have refused to submit to vaccination; that they are normally healthy and have not been exposed to smallpox, so far as known; that there is no ordinance of the city requiring vaccination as a prerequisite to attending the public schools of Granite City; that the disease of smallpox is prevalent and epidemic in said city, there being about 40 cases in the city, which has a population of approximately 12,000; and that the resolution of the board of health was for the purpose of preventing the spread of the disease of smallpox and of preserving the health of the citizens of the city.It also appears from the stipulations that section 183 of chapter 9 of the revised ordinances of the city contains, among other things, the following provisions as to the duties of the local board of health:

‘The board of health, or a majority of said board, shall have power, upon the appearance in epidemic form of smallpox, etc., and other contagious and infectious disease within the city limits, for the purpose of preventing the spread of said disease, to make such rules and regulations and such sanitary investigation as they may from time to time deem necessary for the preserving and improvement of the public health, to provide for gratuitous vaccination and disinfection, and to do all acts, make all regulations which may be necessary or expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease.’

Appellants contend that the local board of health had no legal authority to pass the aforesaid resolution, that it is void, and that the injunction should have been granted restraining the board and the school officers from enforcing the same.It is also insisted that the resolution and the enforcement of the same violate section 1 of article 8 of the Constitution of 1870, which provides:

‘The General Assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient system of free schools, whereby all children of this state may receive a good common school education.’

The question of the right to require school children to be vaccinated as a prerequisite to their admission to the public schools has met with frequent discussion in the various jurisdictions in this country.There is a manifest lack of uniformity in the decisions of the courts.In this state the rule is firmly established that school directors and boards of education have no authority to exclude children from the public schools on the ground, simply, that they refuse to be vaccinated, unless in cases of emergency, in the exercise of the police power, it is necessary or reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the contagion of smallpox.Potts v. Breen, 167 Ill. 67, 47 N. E. 81,39 L. R. A. 152, 59 Am. St. Rep. 262;Lawbaugh v. Board of Education, 177 Ill. 572, 52 N. E. 850;People v. Board of Education, 234 Ill. 422, 84 N. E. 1046,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 709,14 Ann. Cas. 943.In all of the foregoing cases it appears that there was no epidemic or prevalence of smallpox and that the pupils were in a healthy condition and had not been exposed to smallpox, and this court held it to be unreasonable to require vaccination as a prerequisite to admission to the publicschools in such cases and that there was no law of this state authorizing such action.In the instant case it appears from the stipulations that smallpox was epidemic and prevalent in Granite City, and that there actually existed a large number of cases of smallpox when the resolution was passed and enforced, and that the board of health, acting under the authority conferred by the ordinance above set out, passed the resolution for the purpose of preventing the spread of the disease and of preserving the health of the citizens.

The exact question here raised seems never to have been passed on directly by this court, but it is not a new one in other jurisdictions having similar health laws.The courts are practically a unit in holding that in the event of a present or threatened epidemic such rules and regulations as are now under consideration are reasonable and should be upheld; and such has been the rule in states where there has been no express authority requiring vaccination.Where smallpox is epidemic, it is not a necessary prerequisite to require vaccination that pupils have been personally exposed.State v. Cole, 220 Mo. 697, 119 S. W. 424,22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 986;Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 121, 56 N. E. 89,50 L. R. A....