quite untrained to weigh evidence for or against the
advisability of the carrying out of a particular form of
national immunization against a horrid disease, is qualified to
form any opinion. He might as well be consulted on the
advisability of making the channel tunnel or on the safest type
of aeroplane or on any other subject involving the technical
training of the engineer. To permit the so-called "man in the
street" to say whether he shall or shall not permit the
carrying out of some important piece of civic hygiene is to
introduce a principle subversive of all system and obstructive
of all progress in the science of public health. It is absurd
that in a case like this the pronouncements of the judges are
to be submitted to the criticisms of the jury. England has
already had one or two pretty severe lessons through allowing
such places as Gloucester and Leicester to exercise their right
of private judgment on the question of vaccination. In
Gloucester where there was at one time a vigorous
anti-vaccination movement, a serious epidemic overtook the city
a few years ago (1896). What science pronounces to be
beneficial, the layman must submit to. What we want in these
days is less superstition and more faith--in science. I am
informed that there are more than 2,000 unvaccinated children
in the schools of this city at the present moment, and all
because a piece of legislation allows any unintelligent,
prejudiced or credulous parent to decide on the momentous
question of the vaccination of his children.

Our quarantine regulations are extremely strict, and rightly
so, on the subject of smallpox; but is it not a farce to take
so much trouble about the health of our immigrants when inside