the ratio of such immune children is of sufficient importance to justify the exercise of such power if possessed; and whether such regulation would be undesirable as affording opportunity for the evasion of the statute. The latter, however, are medical and administrative rather than judicial questions.

Lastly, it is argued that construing section 12 as we have done it authorizes a trespass upon the reserved rights of the individual which are beyond the reach of even the police power. Vaccination, it is said, is the infliction of a disease, cow-pox, on the subject and if that can be done irrespective of his consent then the next step may be to require submission to inoculation with antitoxin or serum for diphtheria, tuberculosis, cancer, etc., and we have rather a dismal picture of the possible consequences. It will be time enough to consider such matters when they arise. At present the vast preponderance of opinion among intelligent and educated people, under the guidance of the best medical authority is that vaccination is a highly useful ameliorative if not always a preventive of one of the greatest scourges that have in past times afflicted humanity, and that the regulation of it by statute is not only a justifiable but a wise and beneficent exertion of the police power over the public health. When the legislature goes beyond that into new or more debatable fields, it will be time enough to consider the limits of its power.

One expression in the opinion of the court below, and in some of the cases cited in the argument requires a passing note. The act is not a penal statute. It is a broad, general act relating to the health of the whole population of the Commonwealth. It is not therefore to be construed or administered by the rigid technical rules applicable to penal laws, but fairly according to its intent, neither narrowing it to the letter, to the exclusion of cases clearly within such intent, nor stretching it beyond its legitimate scope to cover matters not clearly meant to be included. It is an act touching very closely common rights and privileges, and therefore specially requiring a common sense administration.

Decree affirmed. 13

Township school boards to exercise the power of board of health. Power to make rules and regulations.

623. The school directors in each township of the state of Pennsylvania shall, in addition to the powers vested in them by existing laws, have full power and authority to make and enforce all needful rules and regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of contagions or infectious diseases, by the regulation of intercourse with infected places, by prohibiting from attending any public school any child or other person belonging to or residing with the family of any person, or residing in the same house, in which any person may be suffering from cholera, small-pox (variola, varioloid), scarlet fever, typhus fever, yellow fever, relapsing fever, diphtheria, diphtheritic croup or membraneous croup, or any other contagious disease; and it shall be the duty of all physicians practicing within the several townships to report to the secretary of such school board the names and residences of all persons coming under their professional care, afflicted with any of the aforesaid contagious or infectious diseases, within twenty-four hours after the development of any such disease. '4

Abatement of nuisances.

624. In the case of the prevalence of any contagious or infectious disease in any township of this Commonwealth, the board of school directors of such township shall have power by themselves, or by a sanitary agent to be by them appointed, to enter at any time upon any premises in the said township in which there is suspected to be any conta gious or infectious disease, or nuisance productive of such disease or detrimental to the public health, for the purpose of examining the said premises and abating any nuisance found thereon detrimental to the public health. 15

Sanitary agent.

625. Before appointing any sanitary agent to aid in enforcing the rules and regulations of the board, as aforesaid, 13. Still vs. Reber 63 Jan. Term, Supreme Court, 1906.

14. Act April 11, 1899, Sec. 1, P. L. 38.

15. Act April 11, 1899, Sec. 2, P. L. 38.

the board shall make application to the court of common pleas of the county in which the township is located, or to a law judge thereof, setting forth particularly the reasons which, in their judgment, make the appointment of such agent necessary, setting forth also the compensation which the board deems proper to pay for the services of such sanitary agent, and if the said court, or judge thereof, shall approve the reasons given by the said board for the appointment of such sanitary agent, and shall also approve the compensation deemed proper therefor, said board shall have the authority to appoint such sanitary agent for such term as may be designated by the said court or judge thereof, the said compensation to be paid out of the school fund of the respective townships.16

Duties of school directors.

626. Judge O'Connor said: "We regard the act of April II, 1899, as mandatory in its terms, and when it gives power and authority to the school boards in townships of the state to make and enforce all needful ruies and regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of contagious or infectious diseases by the regulation of intercourse with infected places, by prohibiting from attending any public school any child or person belonging to or residing with the family of any person, or residing in the same house in which any person may be suffering from the maladies named, among which is the disease known as the "small-pox" it means that the school board shall exercise the power and authority so given and not that the board can ignore the presence of such diseases in the school district when the matter has once been brought to the directors' notice.

There is no means provided by the act for the raising of any specific fund out of which extraordinary expenses could be met, but a fair construction of this act of assembly required the school board to formally adopt rules and regulations much after the practice followed by boards of health. After they have adopted such rules and regulations, as adopted by the board after the manner that health officers in various

16. Act April 11, 1899, Sec. 3, P. L. 38.

boroughs and cities enforce the provisions of the rules and regulations of the boards of health appointing them.'7

School directors may be compelled to organize as a board of health. 627. A writ of mandamus will lie at the relation of the district attorney to compel the directors to organize as a board of health and perform the duties imposed on them. The more convenient and efficient and effective way for a school board to proceed in a case requiring action, is to organize a local board of health and proceed in regular and legal course, doing nothing in the premises on consultation. not had together at a regular convened meeting, nor as individuals. All must be done by action of the board, assembled according to legal requirements. Individual acts, or acts of one or more members of the board, or advice and persuasion, are not what the law requires; but deliberative and rigorous action of the board legally convened for the purpose, after their making the needful rules and regulations for the prevention of the spread of the contagion, is imperative 18

Right of school directors to exclude pupils for failure to be vaccinated.

628. The facts of the case are given in the opinion of the Supreme Court, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Williams, as follows:

The plaintiff seeks to compel by a writ of mandamus the admission of his minor son to the common school of the city of Williamsport. The board of school directors admits that the child is of proper age, is in good health, and possesses the qualifications that are enumerated in the general school laws as those that entitle him to admission. They allege, however, that he is excluded because of noncompliance with a regulation adopted in the exercise of a proper measure of care for the public health. The facts appearing in the answer are substantially as follows:

First. That the city of Williamsport provided by an ordinance adopted in 1872 and still in full force that no

17. Croyle Twp. School District, 29 Pa. C. C. 93, 1904.

18.

Commonwealth vs. Cone wago School District, 18 York 125, 1904.

pupil "shall be permitted to attend any public or private school in said city without a certificate of a practicing physician that such pupil has been subjected to the process of vaccination." Second. That small-pox now exists in Williamsport and "is and has been epidemic in many near-by cities and towns." Third. That in view of this situation the attention of the school board was drawn to the subject by a communication from the board of health requesting them to take action "to the effect that no pupil shall attend the schools of this city except they be vaccinated or furnish a certificate from a physician that such vaccination has been performed." Fourth. That upon considering this communication "and from the general aların prevailing in the city over the report that a case of smallpox was in the city" they adopted a resolution in conformity with the recommendation of the board of health. Fifth. That this resolution is not enforced against those not at present in a condition to undergo vaccination; and as to those unable to bear the expense, the board provide vaccination without charge.

The plaintiff demurred to this answer, and the questions thus raised are over the power of the school board to adopt reasonable health regulations for the benefit of their pupils and the general public, and over the reasonableness of the particular regulation complained of in this case. It should be borne in mind that there is no effort to compel vaccination. The school board do not claim that they can compel the plaintiff to vaccinate his son. They claim only the right to exclude from the schools those who do not comply with such regulations of the city and the board of directors as have been thought necessary to preserve the public health. It would not be doubted that the directors would have the right to close the schools temporarily during the prevalence of any serious disease of an infectious or contagious character. This would be a refusal of admission to all the children of the district. They might limit the exclusion to children from infected neighborhoods, or families in which one or more of the members was suffering from the disease. For the same reason they may exclude such children as decline to comply