Mathews v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 10 July 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 1036,127 Mich. 530
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MATHEWS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO.

86 N.W. 1036

127 Mich. 530

MATHEWS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 10, 1901

Certiorari to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; John W. Adams, Judge.

Mandamus by George R. Mathews against the board of education of school district No. 1 of the city and township of Kalamazoo to compel defendant to allow relator's children to attend school without vaccination. From an order granting the writ defendants bring the case to the supreme court by certiorari. Order affirmed.

Long and Grant, JJ., dissenting.

Walter R. Taylor, for relator.

Alfred J. Mills, for respondent.

LONG J.

The relator is a taxpayer and resident of the city of Kalamazoo and school district No. 1, above named. He has three children, aged, respectively, 11, 9, and 7 years; being all within the school age, and entitled to attend the public schools of said district. It appears that in 1894 the school-district board enacted the following rule: 'No pupil shall be admitted into any public school who cannot furnish satisfactory evidence that he or she has been vaccinated or otherwise secured against smallpox, and no pupil affected with any contagious disease, or coming from a house where such a disease exists, shall be allowed to remain in any public school.' This rule has been in force since its adoption, and is still in force. The relator's three children have never been vaccinated. He sent them to school at the opening of the term in January last, but admission was refused by the respondent because they had not been vaccinated or otherwise protected against smallpox in accordance with the above rule. Upon such refusal the relator petitioned the circuit court for mandamus to compel the board to permit his said children to attend said school notwithstanding such rule. The court below granted the prayer of the petition. The case comes into this court by certiorari.

Counsel for relator contends that the rule is unreasonable and unconstitutional; that the relator, being a Christian Scientist, cannot conscientiously consent to have his children vaccinated, because to do so would infringe upon his religious beliefs and scruples; that his children could not be vaccinated without his consent, and therefore without any act of their own would be concluded from the enjoyment of the public schools, secured to them by the constitution; that the statute is mandatory that they shall attend the public schools during a certain portion of the year; and that the parents, as well as the children, are liable to punishment under the truancy laws of this state for failure of the children to attend school. It is also contended that there is no statute of the state providing for compulsory vaccination, and no statute giving any school district authority or power to require children to be vaccinated, as a condition precedent to attending school. It is admitted that there has been no smallpox in the city of Kalamazoo or in such school district No. 1, but it is known that the disease has been and is prevalent in several parts of the United States and in this state. We do not feel called upon to enter upon or discuss the question of the religious scruples of the relator. The only question is whether the respondent had lawful authority to adopt and enforce the rule complained of. It is not a rule compelling vaccination, but one adopted for the safety of the children in attendance upon the school, and for the safety of the whole community; and providing that those who do not submit to such protection such as science and experience have shown it to be, against smallpox, cannot be permitted to endanger the lives of those who do comply therewith. The respondent district was organized under Act No. 335, Loc. Acts 1891. The general management and conduct of the affairs of the district are vested in a body of six trustees. By section 8 the board is given power to hire any and all necessary teachers for the several schools of the district, and fix the amount of their compensation and of all teachers employed by the board, and to determine the ages and qualifications for admission therein. By the same section the board is given authority to enact such rules and by-laws as may be necessary for the preservation of all the property belonging to the district and for the government of the schools, and in reference to all business connected therewith, and to regulate the conduct of all persons in the schools and on the grounds belonging to said district. Section 11 of the act provides: 'It shall be the duty of the board of education to * * * generally do all things needful and desirable for the maintenance, prosperity and success of the schools and the library in the district.' Section 34 of the act provides 'School district No. 1 of the city and township of Kalamazoo shall in all things not herein otherwise provided be governed by its powers and duties defined by the general laws of this state regulating school districts and district libraries therein, and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.' The general school law provides: 'The district board shall have the general care of the school, and shall make and enforce suitable rules and regulations for its government and management.' We think, under these provisions, that the board of trustees had the power to make the rule now sought to be set aside, and that such rule is a reasonable regulation. A case similar in principle was before the supreme court of Pennsylvania in 1894. Duffield v. School Dist., 162 Pa. 476, 29 A. 742, 25 L. R. A. 152. It appeared there that the school board adopted a resolution providing that 'no pupils shall attend the schools of this city, except they be vaccinated, or furnish a certificate from a physician that such vaccination has been performed.' The child who was excluded from attendance was within the school age and in good health, and was excluded solely on the ground of noncompliance with the rule of the board. Mandamus was sought to compel the board to permit the child to attend without complying with the rule. The writ was denied in the court below, and that order affirmed in the supreme court. It was there said: 'We are not required to determine judicially whether the public belief in the efficacy of vaccination is absolutely right or not. We are to consider what is reasonable in view of the present state of medical knowledge, and the concurring opinions of the various boards and officers charged with the care of the public health. The answers of the city and the school board show the belief of the proper authorities to be that a proper regard for the public health and for the children in the public schools requires the adoption of the regulation complained of. They are doing in the utmost good faith what they believe it is their duty to do; and, though the plaintiff might be able to demonstrate by the highest scientific tests that they are mistaken in this respect, that would not be enough. It is not an error of judgment or a mistake upon some abstruse question of medical science, but an abuse of discretionary power that justifies the courts in interfering with the conduct of the school board, or setting aside its action. It is conceded that the board might rightfully exclude the plaintiff's son if he was actually sick with, or just recovering from, the smallpox. Though he might not be affected by it, yet, if another member of the same family was, the right to exclude him, notwithstanding he might be in perfect health, would be conceded. How far shall this right to exclude one for the good of many be carried? That is a question addressed to the official discretion of the proper officers, and when the discretion is honestly and impartially exercised the courts will not interfere.' In that case it appeared that by no legislative act had school districts been given express power to prescribe vaccination as a necessary qualification for admission into the common schools, or to suspend or expel pupils for failure to comply with the rule requiring vaccination. It was found that there was smallpox within the city, and we think that court very properly held that it was within the discretionary power of the board to adopt such a rule. See, also, Blue v. Beach (Ind. Sup.) ...