Jacobson Vs Massachussets

U.S.
Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
No. 70
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
Syllabus
The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the
Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless,
apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some
express delegation in the instrument.
While the spirit of the Constitution is to be respected not less than its letter, the spirit is to be
collected chiefly from its words.
While the exclusion of evidence in the state court in a case involving the constitutionality of a
state statute may not strictly present a Federal question, this court may consider the rejection of
such evidence upon the ground of incompetency or immateriality under the statute as showing
its scope and meaning in the opinion of the state court.
The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations relating to matters
completely within its territory, and not affecting the people of other States, established directly
by legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and safety.
While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must
always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it
possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly
within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not
contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such
an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong
and oppression.
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in
each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an
element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and
enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when
supported in their action by the authority of the State.
It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the
legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is
not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.
There being obvious reasons for such exception, the fact that children, under certain
circumstances, are excepted from the operation of the law does not deny the equal protection of
the laws to adults if the statute is applicable equally to all adults in like condition.
The highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that
State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit
subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this
court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the
statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions
in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.
The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, 137, provide that
"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or
safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof
and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one
years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement
shall forfeit five dollars."
An exception is made in favor of "children who present a certificate, signed by a registered
physician that they are unfit subjects for vaccination." 139.
Proceeding under the above statutes, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1902, adopted the following regulation:
"Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge and still
continues to increase; and whereas it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease
that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated, and whereas, in the opinion
of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the
inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that all the inhabitants of the city who have not been
successfully vaccinated since March 1, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated."
Subsequently, the Board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician to
enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the Board at its special meeting of February
27.
The above regulations being in force, the plaintiff in error, Jacobson, was proceeded against by
a criminal complaint in one of the inferior courts of Massachusetts. The complaint charged that,
on the seventeenth day of July, 1902, the Board of Health of Cambridge, being of the opinion
that it was necessary for the public health and safety, required the vaccination and revaccination
of all the inhabitants thereof who had not been successfully vaccinated since the first day of
March, 1897, and provided them with the means of free vaccination, and that the defendant,
being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refused and neglected to
comply with such requirement.
The defendant, having been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The government put in evidence the
above regulations adopted by the Board of Health, and made proof tending to show that its
chairman informed the defendant that, by refusing to be vaccinated, he would incur the penalty
provided by the statute, and would be prosecuted there for; that he offered to vaccinate the
defendant without expense to him, and that the offer was declined, and defendant refused to be
vaccinated.
The prosecution having introduced no other evidence, the defendant made numerous offers of
proof. But the trial court ruled that each and all of the facts offered to be proved by the
defendant were immaterial, and excluded all proof of them.
The defendant, standing upon his offers of proof and introducing no evidence, asked numerous
instructions to the jury, among which were the following:
That section 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts was in derogation of the
rights secured to the defendant by the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, and
tended to subvert and defeat the purposes of the Constitution as declared in its Preamble;
That the section referred to was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and especially of the clauses of
that amendment providing that no State shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws; and That said section was opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.
Each of the defendant's prayers for instructions was rejected, and he duly excepted. The
defendant requested the court, but the court refused, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not
guilty. And the court instructed the jury, in substance, that, if they believed the evidence
introduced by the Commonwealth and were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was guilty of the offense charged in the complaint, they would be warranted in finding
a verdict of guilty. A verdict of guilty was thereupon returned.
The case was then continued for the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
That court overruled all the defendant's exceptions, sustained the action of the trial court, and
thereafter, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of five
dollars. And the court ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid.

Jacobson Vs Massachussets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacobson Vs Massachussets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacobson Vs Massachussets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

You might also like