Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T11:49:25.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The Least Vaccinated of Any Civilized Country”: Personal Liberty and Public Health in the Progressive Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Michael Willrich
Michael Willrich
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Epidemic disease, like war, is the health of the state. Since the dawn of the American Republic, state and local governments have wielded powers both plenary and plentiful to defend the people against smallpox, yellow fever, cholera, and other pestilences. Individual liberty and property rights melted away before the state's power—indeed its inherent legal duty—to protect the population from peril. Under the broad authority of the police power, state and local governments in the nineteenth century confined suspected disease-carriers against their will, established armed quarantines on land and at sea, seized private homes for smallpox pest houses, and enacted, in the approving words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “health laws of every description.”

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 76 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (U.S., 1824); Tobey, James A., Public Health Law: A Manual of Law for Sanitarians (Baltimore, 1926)Google Scholar. See Novak, William J., The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996), 191–233Google Scholar.

2. See Darling, Eugene A., M.D., “Vaccination: The Technique,” Massachusetts Medical Society, Medical Communications, 1 01 1902, 117–124Google Scholar; Fenner, F. et al. , Smallpox and Its Eradication (Geneva, 1988)Google Scholar.

3. See, e.g., “Doctors Make a Raid: Many Persons in Little Italy Are Forcibly Vaccinated,” New York Times, 2 February 1901, 10. For a rare physician's account of forcible vaccination, see Rosenberg, Charles E., “Making It in Urban Medicine: A Career in the Age of Scientific Medicine,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 64 (1990), 176Google ScholarPubMed.

4. The first appellate case was Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 (1890).

5. “Vaccination—A Phase of Medical Oppression,” in Harry Weinberger Papers, Yale University Manuscripts and Archives, Box 48, Folder 12.

6. Macdonald, George E., “The ‘Vaccination’ Outrage,” Liberty, 19 05 1894, 10Google Scholar.

7. In re Jacobs, 98 N.Y. 98 (1885). Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 106 (1893). Forbath, William E., Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1989)Google Scholar.

8. Willrich, Michael, City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago (New York, 2003), 96–115Google Scholar.

9. Urofsky, Melvin I., “State Courts and Protective Legislation during the Progressive Era: A Reevaluation,” Journal of American History 72 (1985): 63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Novak, William J., “The Legal Origins of the Modern American State,” American Bar Foundation Working Paper no. 9925 (1999)Google Scholar. Willrich, Michael, “The Case for Courts: Law and Political Development in the Progressive Era,” in The Democratic Experiment: New Directions in American Political History, ed. Jacobs, Meg et al. (Princeton, 2003), 198–221Google Scholar.

11. An outstanding exception is Rabban, David M., Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years (New York, 1997)Google Scholar.

12. The literature on American antivaccinationism is small, but it is no longer easy to dismiss the movement, as Duffy, John once did, as “filled with cranks, extremists, and charlatans.” A History of Public Health in New York City, 1866–1966 (New York, 1974), 152Google Scholar. See esp. Colgrove, James, “‘Science in a Democracy’: The Contested Status of Vaccination in the Progressive Era and the 1920s,” Isis 96 (2005): 167–191Google Scholar; Davidovitch, Nadav, “Negotiating Dissent: Homeopathy and Antivaccinationism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” in The Politics of Healing: Histories of Alternative Medicine in Twentieth-Century North America, ed. Johnston, Robert D. (New York, 2004), 11–28Google Scholar; Johnston, Robert D., The Radical Middle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland, Oregon (Princeton, 2003), 177–220Google Scholar; Kaufman, Martin, “The American Anti-Vaccinationists and Their Arguments,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 50 (1976): 553–568Google Scholar; Leavitt, Judith Walzer, The Healthiest City: Milwaukee and the Politics of Health Reform (Princeton, 1982), 76–121Google Scholar. See also Durbach, Nadja, Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England, 1853–1907 (Durham, 2005)Google Scholar.

13. See, e.g., “Anti-Vaccinationist Savages,” New York Times, 18 February 1911, 10.

14. “Supply of Coffins Is Short,” Atlanta Constitution, 8 March 1900, 8.

15. “Will Not Ask for Increase,” Atlanta Constitution, 11 December 1901, 4. Thomas Macauley quoted in Hopkins, Donald R., Princes and Peasants: Smallpox in History (Chicago, 1983), 38Google Scholar.

16. Fourth Annual Message of Samuel H. Ashbridge, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, with Annual Reports of the Director of the Department of Public Safety and Bureau of Health, For the Year Ending December 31, 1902 (Philadelphia, 1903), 38Google Scholar. Albert, Michael R. et al. , “The Last Smallpox Epidemic in Boston and the Vaccination Controversy, 1901–1903,” New England Journal of Medicine 344 (2001): 375Google Scholar.

17. Duffy, History of Public Health, 563–65.

18. See, e.g., “2,000 Persons Vaccinated,” New York Times, 11 March 1901, 3.

19. Commonwealth v. Pear, 183 Mass., 242, 245 (1902).

20. Durbach, Nadja, “Class, Gender, and the Conscientious Objector to Vaccination, 1898–1907,” Journal of British Studies 41 (2002): 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. United States Marine-Hospital Service, Public Health Reports 14 (15 12 1899): 2230Google ScholarPubMed.

22. “Orders 300,000 Vaccinated,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 14 February 1903.

23. Chapin, Charles V., “Variation in Type of Infectious Disease as Shown by the History of Smallpox in the United States, 1895–1912,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 13 (1913): 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. “Led Scarless Kids to School,” Atlanta Constitution, 5 December 1902, 2.

25. Antivaccinationism generated a large transatlantic literature. See, e.g., Milnes, Alfred, What About Vaccination? The Vaccination Question Plainly Put and Plainly Answered (London, 1893)Google Scholar; DrClymer, R. Swinburne, Vaccination Brought Home to You (Terre Haute, Ind., 1904)Google Scholar.

26. Quoted in Davidovitch, “Negotiating Dissent,” 25.

27. Spencer, Herbert, “Vaccination,” reprint of 1902 essay, Theosophy 25 (1937): 514–516 n. 2Google ScholarPubMed.

28. Public Law No. 57–243, 32 Stat. 728 (1 July 1902).

29. McFarland, Joseph, M.D., “Tetanus and Vaccination: An Analytical Study of 95 Cases of the Complication,” Lancet 13 (09 1902): 730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. “Doctors Roughly Treated,” Atlanta Constitution, 15 February 1901, 7.

31. See, e.g., Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 (1890).

32. See, e.g., Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424 (1907).

33. State v. Hay, 126 N.C. 999 (1900).

34. State Board of Health v. Trustees of Watsonville School District, 13 Cal. App. 514 (1910).

35. Tiedeman, Christopher G., A Treatise on the Limitations of Police Power in the United States (St. Louis, 1886), 31Google Scholar.

36. Levin v. Town of Burlington, 129 N.C. 184 (1901).

37. Wyatt v. Rome, 105 Ga. 312 (1898). Howard v. Philadelphia, 250 Pa. 184 (1915).

38. Cooley, Thomas M., A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union (Boston, 1868)Google Scholar. Tiedeman, Limitations of Police Power.

39. Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378 (1856). Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). In re Jacobs, 98 N.Y. 98 (1885).

40. Duffield v. Williamsport School District, 162 Pa. 476 (1894). Tiedeman's own libertarianism diminished when he contemplated police control of the working class, and he concluded that compulsory vaccination was defensible. Tiedeman, Limitations, 32.

41. Duffield v. Williamsport School District, 162 Pa. 476, 483, 484 (1894).

42. Viemeister v. White, 179 N.Y. 235 (1904). “Public Schools: Conditions of Attendance,” Yale Law Journal 13 (1904): 261Google Scholar.

43. See Mathews v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 127 Mich. 530 (1901).

44. Potts v. Breen, 167 Ill. 67, 76 (1897). See also State ex rel. Adams v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390 (1897); State ex rel. Freeman v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353 (1902).

45. Freund, Ernst, The Police Power: Public Policy and Constitutional Rights (Chicago, 1904), 116Google Scholar.

46. “Vaccination Not Compulsory,” New York Times, 6 May 1894, 16.

47. Gostin, Lawrence O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2000), 69Google Scholar.

48. State v. Hay, 126 N.C. 999, 1001, 1003, 1005 (1900).

49. Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 F. 1, 7, 10 (1900). McClain, Charles J., In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994), 234–276Google Scholar.

50. Commonwealth v. Pear, Ma. 242, 248 (emphasis mine).

51. “Virus Squad Out,” Boston Globe, 18 November 1901, 7, quoted in Albert et al., “Last Smallpox Epidemic,” 376. See Thirtieth Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Boston For the Year 1901 (Boston, 1902), 45Google Scholar.

52. Parmet, Wendy E. et al. , “Individual Rights versus the Public's Health: 100 Years after Jacobson v. Massachusetts,” New England Journal of Medicine 352 (2005): 652–654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Commonwealth v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242 (1902).

53. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 14–18 (1905).

54. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 27, 26 (1905).

55. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 39 (1905). Although Jacobson raised precisely this issue, the police court judge refused to let him enter that claim into evidence before the jury; so Harlan's language did not help him.

56. New York v. Ekerold, 211 N.Y. 386 (1914), 394.

57. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gillen, 65 Pa. Super. 31 (1916).

58. Holmes to Hand, 24 June 1918, in Gunther, Gerald, “Learned Hand and the Origins of Modern First Amendment Doctrine: Some Fragments of History,” Stanford Law Review 27 (1975): appendix, 757CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

60. See Annas, George J., “Bioterrorism, Public Health, and Civil Liberties,” New England Journal of Medicine 346 (2002): 1337–1342Google Scholar; Gostin, Lawrence O., “Jacobson v. Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Powers and Civil Liberties in Tension,” American Journal of Public Health 95 (2005): 576–581Google Scholar.