Arado Ar 197 right view

Arado Ar 197 right view



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Arado Ar 197 right view

Here we see a right hand view of the Arado Ar 196 patrol aircraft and attack bomber.

The Arado Ar 196 was a patrol aircraft and attack bomber that was used from larger German warships and from land based units, with nearly 600 built by Arado, SNCA and Fokker.

This image is taken from US FM 30-35 Indentification of German Aircraft of 11 March 1942.


Track changes in Word

Turning on Track Changes gives you and your coworkers a way to make changes that are easy to spot. The changes are like suggestions that you can review, and then remove them or make them permanent.

Turn Track Changes on and off

On the Review tab, go to Tracking and select Track Changes.

When Track Changes is on, deletions are marked with a strikethrough, and additions are marked with an underline. Different authors' changes are indicated with different colors.

When Track Changes is off, Word stops marking changes, but the colored underlines and strikethrough from your changes remain in the document until they're accepted or rejected.

Note: If the Track Changes feature is unavailable, you might need to turn off document protection. Go to Review > Restrict Editing, and then select Stop Protection. (You might need to provide the document password.)

Show or hide comments or tracked changes

Display all changes inline

The default in Word is to display deletions and comments in balloons in the margins of the document. However, you can change the display to show comments inline and all deletions with strikethroughs instead of inside balloons.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

Point to Balloons and select Show All Revisions Inline.

View inline comments as ScreenTips.

Rest the pointer on a comment in the document. The comment appears in a ScreenTip.

Display changes by type of edit or by reviewer

On the Review tab, go to Tracking and select Show Markup.

Select the type of change that you want to display.

For example, select Comments, Insertions and Deletions, or Formatting. The check mark next to the item indicates that the item is selected.

Important: Even if you hide a type of markup by clearing it on the Show Markup menu, the markup automatically appears each time the document is opened by you or a reviewer.

Point to Specific People, and then clear all check boxes except the ones next to the names of the reviewers whose changes and comments you want to show.

Note: To select or clear all check boxes for all reviewers in the list, select All Reviewers.

Display changes and comments for specific reviewers

An editor or reviewer usually wants to view a document as it will appear after their changes are incorporated. This procedure gives an editor or reviewer the opportunity to see how the document will look with the changes.

Go to Review > Tracking > Display for Review.

Choose the option you want:

To review the changes, indicated by a red line in the margin, choose Simple Markup.

For a detailed view of the changes, choose All Markup.

For a preview of how the document will look if you make all the suggested changes permanent, choose No Markup.

To view the original document as if all the suggested changes were removed, choose Original.

Hide tracked changes and comments when printing

Hiding changes does not remove changes from the document. To remove markup from your document, use the Accept and Reject commands in the Changes group.

Go to File > Print > Settings > Print All Pages.

Under Document Info, select Print Markup to clear the check mark.

Review, accept, reject, and hide tracked changes

Review a summary of tracked changes

Using the Reviewing Pane you can quickly ensure that all tracked changes have been removed from your document. The summary section at the top of the Reviewing Pane displays the exact number of tracked changes and comments that remain in your document.

The Reviewing Pane also allows you to read long comments that don't fit within a comment bubble.

Note: The Reviewing Pane, unlike the document or the comment bubbles, is not the best tool for making changes to your document. Instead of deleting text or comments or making other changes in the Reviewing Pane, make all editorial changes in the document. The changes will then be visible in the Reviewing Pane.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking and select Reviewing Pane.

To view the summary at the side of your screen, select Reviewing Pane Vertical.

To view the summary across the bottom of your screen, select Reviewing Pane Horizontal.

By default, the Reviewing Pane shows at the top how many total revisions are in the document. To see the number and type of the changes, select the carat next to the number of revisions.

Review each tracked change in sequence

Click or tap at the beginning of the document.

On the Review tab, go to Changes.

Select Accept or Reject. As you accept or reject changes, Word will move to the next change.

Repeat until there are no more tracked changes or comments in your document.

Tip: To review changes in the document without accepting or rejecting them, select Next or Previous.

Accept or reject a single change

Rather than move through changes in sequence, you can accept or reject a single change. When you accept or reject the change, Word will not move to the next change in the document.

Right-click the change and select the option to accept or reject it.

​​​​

Review changes by type of edit or by a specific reviewer

Click or tap at the beginning of the document.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

In the Show Markup list, do one of the following:

Clear all check boxes except for those next to the types of changes that you want to review.

Point to Specific People, and then clear all check boxes except those next to the names of the reviewers whose changes you want to see or choose All Reviewers to select or clear the check boxes for all reviewers in the list.

On the Review tab, go to Changes.

Select Accept or Reject. As you accept or reject changes, Word will move to the next change.

Repeat until you've reviewed all of the changes in your document.

Accept all changes at the same time

Go to Review > Changes.

In the Accept list, select Accept All Changes or Accept All Changes and Stop Tracking.

Accept or reject all changes at the same time

On the Review tab, go to Changes.

In the Accept drop-down list, select Accept All Changes.

In the Reject drop-down list, select Reject All Changes.

Delete comments

On the Review tab, go to Comments, and select Delete.

Click Next or Previous to move to another comment.

Delete all comments

On the Review tab, go to Comments.

In the Delete drop-down list, select Delete All Comments in Document.


When tracked changes are turned on, Word marks any changes made by any authors of the document. This is useful when you're collaborating with other authors because you can see which authors made a particular change.

Turn Track Changes on

On the Review tab, turn on Track Changes.

​​​

Word shows changes in the document by displaying a line in the margin. If you switch to All Markup view, you'll see changes inline and in balloons.

Anytime someone adds a comment, it'll show up in a balloon.

Show changes inline

To see changes inline instead of in balloons, do the following:

On the Review Tab, select Markup Options

Point to Balloons and select Show All Revisions Inline.

Keep Track Changes on

To prevent others from turning off Track Changes, lock Track Changes on with a password.

Important: Be sure to remember the password so you can turn Track Changes off when you’re ready to accept or reject the changes.

Lock Track Changes with a password

On the Tools menu, select Protect Document.

Under Protection, select Protect document for, and then select Tracked changes

In the Password box, enter a password and select OK.

Re-enter your password and select OK.

While tracked changes are locked, you can’t turn off change tracking, and you can’t accept or reject changes.

On the Tools menu, select Protect Document.

Under Protection, uncheck Protect document for.

Enter your password and select OK.

Track Changes will still be on, but you'll be able to accept and reject changes.

Turn off Track Changes

On the Review tab, turn off Track Changes.

Word stops marking up new changes—but all of the changes that were already tracked will still be in the document. For more info, see remove the tracked changes and comments.

Turn tracked changes on or off

When tracked changes are turned on, Word marks any changes made by any authors of the document. This is useful when you're collaborating with other authors because you can see which authors made a particular change.

Open the document that you want to edit.

On the Review tab, under Tracking, select the Track Changes switch to turn on track changes.

Each reviewer's changes are displayed in a different color. If there are more than eight reviewers, Word will reuses colors.

To assign a specific color to your own tracked changes, on the Word menu, select Preferences, and then under Output and Sharing, select Track Changes . In the Color boxes, select the color that you want.

The reviewer's name, the date and time that the change was made, and the kind of change that was made (for example, Deleted) also appear in the markup balloons for each change. If you're not displaying markup balloons, this information appears when you hover over a change.

The Highlight Changes options on the Tools > Track Changes menu (Highlight changes on screen, Highlight changes in printed document) and the options on the Review tab pop-up menu (Final Showing Markup, Final, Original Showing Markup, Original) are not saved settings. If you don't want tracked changes to display when you re-open the document, you need to accept or reject the changes. If you want a record of the revisions, save a copy of the document before accepting or rejecting changes.

Show tracked changes or comments by type or by reviewer

You can show or hide a document's comments, formatting, insertions, and deletions or view comments for only the reviewers that you select.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking,

In the Show Markup drop-down list, select the option that you want.

Tip: To display a shaded background behind the area where tracked changes or comments appear in the right margin, on the Show Markup pop-up menu, select Markup Area Highlight. This shaded area also prints with your document to help separate the document text from the tracked changes or comments.

Turn off tracked changes in balloons

By default, insertions, deletions, comments, the reviewer's name, and a time stamp are displayed in balloons that appear in the margins of your document. You can change your settings to display tracked changes in the body of the document.

Go to Review > Tracking, on the Show Markup pop-up menu, select Preferences.

Display tracked changes in the body of the document instead of in balloons

Clear the Use balloons to display changes check box.

Hide the reviewer's name and the time and date stamp in balloons

Clear the Include reviewer, time stamp, and action buttons check box.

Note: With balloons turned off, commented text is enclosed in brackets, highlighted by a color, and identified by the reviewer's initials. Comments appear in a small pop-up window when you rest the pointer over commented text, except when your document is in publishing layout view.

Change the formatting of tracked changes

You can customize how revision mark appear and work in Word.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

In the Show Markup drop-down list, select Preferences.

Select the options you want. The following table lists some frequently used formatting options.

Change the color and other formatting that Word uses to identify changes

Under Markup, select the formatting options that you want on the pop-up menus.

Indicate deletions without displaying the text that was deleted

Under Markup, on the Deletions pop-up menu, select # or ^.

Deleted text will be replaced with the character # or ^.

Alter the appearance of changed lines

Under Markup, on the Changed lines and Colors pop-up menus, select the options that you want.

Under Moves, select Track moves, and then on the Moved from, Moved to, and Color pop-up menus, select the options that you want.

Change the color that Word uses to mark changes that are made to table cells

Under Table cell highlighting, on the Inserted cells, Deleted cells, Merged cells, and Split cells pop-up menus, select the options that you want.

Review tracked changes and comments

You can review and accept or reject each tracked change in sequence, accept or reject all changes at one time, delete all comments at one time, or review the items that are created by a specific reviewer.

If revision marks don't appear in the document, on the Tools menu, point to Track Changes, select Highlight Changes, and then select the Highlight changes on screen check box.

On the Review tab, do this

Under Changes, select Next

Select Accept or Reject.

Review the previous change

Under Changes, select Previous

Select Accept or Reject.

Accept all changes at one time

Under Changes, select the arrow next to Accept

Select Accept All Changes in Document.

Reject all changes at one time

Under Changes, select the arrow next to Reject

Select Reject All Changes in Document.

Delete all comments at one time

Under Comments, select the arrow next to Delete

Select Delete All Comments in Document.

Review items created by a specific reviewer

Under Tracking, select Show Markup

Point to Reviewers, and then clear all check marks except the one next to the name of the reviewer whose changes you want to review.

To select or clear the check boxes for all reviewers in the list, select All Reviewers.

Note: When you rest the pointer on a tracked change, a ScreenTip appears that displays the author's name, the date and time of the change, and the kind of change that was made.

Print tracked changes

Tracked changes can be useful to include in a printed version of a document.

Open the document that contains the tracked changes that you want to print.

On the File menu, select Print.

On the Copies & Pages pop-up menu, select Microsoft Word.

Tip: If you don't see the Copies & Pages pop-up menu, select the blue downward facing arrow to the right of the Printer pop-up menu.

On the Print What pop-up menu, select Document showing markup.

Turn on Track Changes

You can set Word for the Web to track changes for all users who are collaborating on the document or to track just your changes.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

In the Track Changes drop-down list, do one of the following:

To track only the changes you make to the document, select Just Mine.

To track changes to the document made by all users, select For Everyone.

Turn off Track Changes

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

In the Track Changes drop-down list, select Off.


Review, accept, or reject changes

You can review each tracked change in sequence and decide whether to accept or reject the change.

Click or tap at the beginning of the document.

On the Review tab, go to Tracking.

Select Accept or Reject. As you accept or reject changes, Word will move to the next change.

Tip: To review changes in the document without accepting or rejecting them, select Next or Previous.

Repeat until you've reviewed all of the changes in your document.

Accept or reject a single change

Rather than move through changes in sequence, you can accept or reject a single change. When you accept or reject the change, Word will not move to the next change in the document.

Right-click the change and select the option to accept or reject it.

Turn Track Changes on or off (Word for iPad)

Tap the control next to Track Changes to turn Track Changes on or off.

Show or hide markup (Word for iPad)

On the Review tab, tap the Display for Review icon.

In the Display for Review list, tap the option you want:

All Markup (inline) shows the final document with tracked changes visible inline

No markup shows the final document without tracked changed

Original shows the original document with no tracked changes

Show tracked changes by type (Word for iPad)

On the Review tab, tap the Display for Review icon.

In the Display for Review list, tap Show Markup.

In the Show Markup list, tap the option you want:

Ink shows or hides any marks made by digital inking in the document.

Insertions & Deletions shows or hides inserted or deleted text.

Formatting shows or hides formatting changes.

Show Revisions in Balloons shows changes in balloons in the right margin.

Show Only Formatting in Balloons shows only formatting changes in balloons and keeps the other changes as inline tracking.

Show tracked changes by reviewer (Word for iPad)

If there are multiple reviewers for the document, Word will show all changes by default. However, you can choose to show only changes made by specific viewers.

On the Review tab, tap the Display for Review icon.

In the Display for Review list, tap Show Markup.

In the Show Markup list, tap Reviewers.

In the Other Authors list, tap the names of the reviewers whose changes you want to see or tap All Reviewers.

Accept changes (Word for iPad)

Tap twice on a change in the document to select it.

On the Review tab, tap the Accept icon.

Tap Accept & Move to Next to accept the change and move to the next change in the document.

Tap Accept Deletion, Accept Insertion, or Accept Change to accept the selected change, identified contextually by type, and not move to the next change in the document.

Tap Accept All Shown to accept all changes that are visible, but not changes that are hidden. For example, if you're viewing only changes made by a specific reviewer, tapping Accept All Shown accepts only the changes made by that reviewer.

Tap Accept All to accept all changes in the document.

Tap Accept All & Stop Tracking to accept all changes in the document and turn off Track Changes.

To move to another change without accepting or rejecting it, tap the Previous or Next icon.

Reject changes (Word for iPad)

Tap twice on a change in the document to select it.

On the Review tab, tap the Reject icon.

Tap Reject & Move to Next to reject the change and move to the next change in the document.

Tap Reject Deletion, Reject Insertion, or Reject Change to reject the selected change, identified contextually by type, and not move to the next change in the document.

Tap Reject All Shown to reject all changes that are visible, but not changes that are hidden. For example, if you're viewing only changes made by a specific reviewer, tapping Reject All Shown rejects only the changes made by that reviewer.

Tap Reject All to reject all changes in the document.

Tap Rejects All & Stop Tracking to reject all changes in the document and turn off Track Changes.

To move to another change without accepting or rejecting it, tap the Previous or Next icon.

Delete comments (Word for iPad)

Tap twice on a comment in the document to select it.

Tap the Delete icon to delete the comment or press and hold the Delete icon until the Delete list appears, and then do one of the following:

Tap Delete to delete only the selected comment.

Tap Delete All to delete all comments in the document.

To move to another comment without deleting it, tap the Previous or Next icon.

Turn Track Changes on or off (Word for iPhone)

Tap the pen icon at the top to open the ribbon.

Tap the control next to Track Changes to turn Track Changes on or off.

Show or hide markup (Word for iPhone)

On the Review tab, tap Display for Review.

All Markup (inline) shows the final document with tracked changes visible inline

No markup shows the final document without tracked changed

Original shows the original document with no tracked changes

Show tracked changes by type (Word for iPhone)

On the Review tab, tap Display for Review.

In the Show Markup list, tap the option you want:

Ink shows or hides any marks made by digital inking in the document.

Insertions & Deletions shows or hides inserted or deleted text.

Formatting shows or hides formatting changes.

Show tracked changes by reviewer (Word for iPhone)

If there are multiple reviewers for the document, Word will show all changes by default. However, you can choose to show only changes made by specific viewers.

On the Review tab, tap Display for Review.

In the Other Authors list, tap the names of the reviewers whose changes you want to see or tap All Reviewers.

Accept changes (Word for iPhone)

Tap twice on a change in the document to select it.

On the Review tab, tap Accept.

Tap Accept & Move to Next to accept the change and move to the next change in the document.

Tap Accept Deletion, Accept Insertion, or Accept Change to accept the selected change, identified contextually by type, and not move to the next change in the document.

Tap Accept All Shown to accept all changes that are visible, but not changes that are hidden. For example, if you're viewing only changes made by a specific reviewer, tapping Accept All Shown accepts only the changes made by that reviewer.

Tap Accept All to accept all changes in the document.

Tap Accept All & Stop Tracking to accept all changes in the document and turn off Track Changes.

Reject changes (Word for iPhone)

Tap twice on a change in the document to select it.

On the Review tab, tap Reject.

Tap Reject & Move to Next to reject the change and move to the next change in the document.

Tap Reject Deletion, Reject Insertion, or Reject Change to reject the selected change, identified contextually by type, and not move to the next change in the document.

Tap Reject All Shown to reject all changes that are visible, but not changes that are hidden. For example, if you're viewing only changes made by a specific reviewer, tapping Reject All Shown rejects only the changes made by that reviewer.

Tap Reject All to reject all changes in the document.

Tap Reject All & Stop Tracking to reject all changes in the document and turn off Track Changes.

Delete comments (Word for iPhone)

Tap twice on a comment in the document to select it.

One the Review tab, tap Delete, and then do one of the following:

Tap Delete to delete only the selected comment.

Tap Delete All to delete all comments in the document.

To move to another comment without deleting it, tap the Previous or Next icon.


Hammurabi

Hammurabi was the sixth king in the Babylonian dynasty, which ruled in central Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) from c. 1894 to 1595 B.C.

His family was descended from the Amorites, a semi-nomadic tribe in western Syria, and his name reflects a mix of cultures: Hammu, which means �mily” in Amorite, combined with rapi, meaning “great” in Akkadian, the everyday language of Babylon.

In the 30th year of his reign, Hammurabi began to expand his kingdom up and down the Tigris and Euphrates river valley, overthrowing the kingdoms of Assyria, Larsa, Eshunna and Mari until all of Mesopotamia was under his sway.

Hammurabi combined his military and political advances with irrigation projects and the construction of fortifications and temples celebrating Babylon’s patron deity, Marduk. The Babylon of Hammurabi’s era is now buried below the area’s groundwater table, and whatever archives he kept are long dissolved, but clay tablets discovered at other ancient sites reveal glimpses of the king’s personality and statecraft.

One letter records his complaint of being forced to provide dinner attire for ambassadors from Mari just because he𠆝 done the same for some other delegates: 𠇍o you imagine you can control my palace in the matter of formal wear?”


Узнайте, куда отправится съемочная машина или трекер Google в следующий раз

Покажите свой район, поделитесь панорамами родного города, отметьте дороги или добавьте сведения о местных компаниях в Google Карты с помощью сервиса "Просмотр улиц". Есть несколько способов публикации контента в Google Картах – выберите тот, который подходит именно вам.

Становитесь сертифицированным партнером

Сертифицированные фотографы создают качественные снимки экстерьеров и интерьеров для публикации в Просмотре улиц. Обратитесь к этим специалистам, чтобы пользователи Google Карт знали, как выглядит ваша компания.

Публикуйте серии фотографий

В приложении "Просмотр улиц" появилась бета-версия функции, с помощью которой вы можете создавать новые материалы на смартфоне Android


Talk to a Redfin Agent

Start your search with an expert local agent—there’s no pressure or obligation.

United States

Updated January 2020: By searching, you agree to the Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Copyright: © 2021 Redfin. All rights reserved. Patent pending.

REDFIN and all REDFIN variants, TITLE FORWARD, WALK SCORE, and the R logos, are trademarks of Redfin Corporation, registered or pending in the USPTO.

If you are using a screen reader, or having trouble reading this website, please call Redfin Customer Support for help at 1-844-759-7732.


U.S. Supreme Court

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Argued December 6, 1904

Decided February 20, 1905

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

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 therefor 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.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.

We also pass without discussion the suggestion that the above section of the statute is opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court in Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 17 U. S. 202 ,

"the spirit of an instrument, especially of a constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words."

We have no need in this case to go beyond the plain, obvious meaning of the words in those provisions of the Constitution which, it is contended, must control our decision.

What, according to the judgment of the state court, is the

scope and effect of the statute? What results were intended to be accomplished by it? These questions must be answered.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said in the present case:

"Let us consider the offer of evidence which was made by the defendant Jacobson. The ninth of the propositions which he offered to prove, as to what vaccination consists of, is nothing more than a fact of common knowledge, upon which the statute is founded, and proof of it was unnecessary and immaterial. The thirteenth and fourteenth involved matters depending upon his personal opinion, which could not be taken as correct, or given effect, merely because he made it a ground of refusal to comply with the requirement. Moreover, his views could not affect the validity of the statute, nor entitle him to be excepted from its provisions. Commonwealth v. Connelly, 163 Massachusetts 539 Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Massachusetts 40 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 Regina v. Downes, 13 Cox C.C. 111. The other eleven propositions all relate to alleged injurious or dangerous effects of vaccination. The defendant 'offered to prove and show by competent evidence' these so-called facts. Each of them, in its nature, is such that it cannot be stated as a truth, otherwise than as a matter of opinion. The only 'competent evidence' that could be presented to the court to prove these propositions was the testimony of experts, giving their opinions. It would not have been competent to introduce the medical history of individual cases. Assuming that medical experts could have been found who would have testified in support of these propositions, and that it had become the duty of the judge, in accordance with the law as stated in Commonwealth v. Anthes, 5 Gray 185, to instruct the jury as to whether or not the statute is constitutional, he would have been obliged to consider the evidence in connection with facts of common knowledge, which the court will always regard in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute. He would have considered this testimony of experts in connection with the facts, that for nearly a century, most of the members of the medical profession

have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox that, while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even, in a conceivable case, without carelessness, they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive, and that not only the medical profession and the people generally have for a long time entertained these opinions, but legislatures and courts have acted upon them with general unanimity. If the defendant had been permitted to introduce such expert testimony as he had in support of these several propositions, it could not have changed the result. It would not have justified the court in holding that the legislature had transcended its power in enacting this statute on their judgment of what the welfare of the people demands."

Commonwealth v. Jacobson, 183 Massachusetts 242.

While the mere rejection of defendant's offers of proof does not strictly present a federal question, we may properly regard the exclusion of evidence upon the ground of its incompetency or immateriality under the statute as showing what, in the opinion of the state court, is the scope and meaning of the statute. Taking the above observations of the state court as indicating the scope of the statute -- and such is our duty, Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black 599, 67 U. S. 603 , Morley v. Lake Shore Railway Co., 146 U. S. 162 , 146 U. S. 167 , Tullis v. L. E. & W. R.R. Co., 175 U. S. 348 , W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452 , 180 U. S. 466 -- we assume for the purposes of the present inquiry that its provisions require, at least as a general rule, that adults not under guardianship and remaining within the limits of the city of Cambridge must submit to the regulation adopted by the Board of Health. Is the statute, so construed, therefore, inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?

The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be

referred to what is commonly called the police power -- a power which the State did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and "health laws of every description" indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not, by their necessary operation, affect the people of other States. According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 203 Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 , 95 U. S. 470 Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650 , 115 U. S. 661 Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 . It is equally true that the State may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the State, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a State, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers 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, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 210 Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 63 U. S. 243 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613 , 169 U. S. 626 .

We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted

by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that

"persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."

Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 , 95 U. S. 471 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613 , 169 U. S. 628 , 169 U. S. 629 Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86 , 137 U. S. 89 , we said:

"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty

itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law."

In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780, it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for "the common good," and that government is instituted

"for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of anyone man, family or class of men."

The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.

Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body, and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a Board of Health, composed of persons residing in the locality affected and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual nor an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that, when the regulation in question was adopted, smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the Board of Health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and the disease was increasing. If such was

the situation -- and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary -- if we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. Wisconsin &c. R.R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 27 , 179 U. S. 301 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., 4th ed.,§§ 319 to 325, and authorities in notes Freund's Police Power, § 63 et seq. In Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 , 95 U. S. 471 -473, this court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, heath or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders. But as the laws there involved went beyond the necessity of the case and under the guise of exerting a police power invaded the domain of Federal authority, and violated rights secured by the Constitution, this court deemed it to be its duty to hold such laws invalid. If the mode adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some -- if nothing more could be reasonably

affirmed of the statute in question -- the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few. There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that, in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand. An American citizen, arriving at an American port on a vessel in which, during the voyage, there had been cases of yellow fever or Asiatic cholera, although apparently free from disease himself, may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will on board of such vessel or in a quarantine station until it be ascertained by inspection, conducted with due diligence, that the danger of the spread of the disease among the community at large has disappeared. The liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, this court has said, consists, in part, in the right of a person "to live and work where he will," Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 , and yet he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities, under the

sanction of the State, for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger.

It is said, however, that the statute, as interpreted by the state court, although making an exception in favor of children certified by a registered physician to be unfit subjects for vaccination, makes no exception in the case of adults in like condition. But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults, for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.

Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant's rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers, in the main, seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows, the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority. We must assume that, when the statute in question was passed, the legislature of Massachusetts was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. It was not compelled to commit a matter involving the public health and safety to the final decision of a court or jury. It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease. That was for the legislative department to determine in the light of all the information it had or could obtain. It could not properly abdicate its function to guard the public health and safety. The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective, if not the best, known way in which to meet and suppress the

evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population. Upon what sound principles as to the relations existing between the different departments of government can the court review this action of the legislature? If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that,

"if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."

Whatever may be thought of the expediency of this statute, it cannot be affirmed to be, beyond question, in palpable conflict with the Constitution. Nor, in view of the methods employed to stamp out the disease of smallpox, can anyone confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety. Such an assertion would not be consistent with the experience of this and other countries whose authorities have dealt with the disease of smallpox. * And the principle of vaccination as a means to

prevent the spread of smallpox has been enforced in many States by statutes making the vaccination of children a condition of their right to enter or remain in public schools. Blue v. Beach, 155 Indiana 121 Morris v. City of Columbus, 102

Georgia 792 State v. Hay, 126 N.Car. 999 Abeel v. Clark, 84 California 226 Bissell v. Davidson, 65 Connecticut 18 Hazen v. Strong, 2 Vermont 427 Duffield v. Williamsport School District, 162 Pa.St. 476.

The latest case upon the subject of which we are aware is Viemeister v. White, President &c., decided very recently by the Court of Appeals of New York, and the opinion in which has not yet appeared in the regular reports. That case involved the validity of a statute excluding from the public schools all children who had not been vaccinated. One contention was that the statute and the regulation adopted in exercise of its provisions was inconsistent with the rights, privileges and liberties of the citizen. The contention was overruled, the court saying, among other things:

"Smallpox is known of all to be a dangerous and contagious disease. If vaccination strongly tends to prevent the transmission or spread of this disease, it logically follows that children may be refused admission to the public schools until they have been vaccinated. The appellant claims that vaccination does not tend to prevent smallpox, but tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm, with no good."

"It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. It has been general in our State and in most civilized nations for generations. It is

generally accepted in theory and generally applied in practice, both by the voluntary action of the people and in obedience to the command of law. Nearly every State of the Union has statutes to encourage, or directly or indirectly to require, vaccination, and this is true of most nations of Europe."

"A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts."

"The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive, for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does, in fact, or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a republican form of government. While we do not decide and cannot decide that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the State, and, with this fact as a foundation, we hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power."

Since, then, vaccination, as a means of protecting a community against smallpox, finds strong support in the experience of this and other countries, no court, much less a jury, is justified in disregarding the action of the legislature simply because, in its or their opinion, that particular method was -- perhaps or possibly -- not the best either for children or adults.

Did the offers of proof made by the defendant present a case which entitled him, while remaining in Cambridge, to

claim exemption from the operation of the statute and of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health? We have already said that his rejected offers, in the main, only set forth the theory of those who had no faith in vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who thought that vaccination, without benefiting the public, put in peril the health of the person vaccinated. But there were some offers which it is contended embodied distinct facts that might properly have been considered. Let us see how this is.

The defendant offered to prove that vaccination " quite often" caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated that the operation "occasionally" resulted in death that it was "impossible" to tell "in any particular case" what the results of vaccination would be or whether it would injure the health or result in death that "quite often," one's blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him that there is no practical test by which to determine "with any degree of certainty" whether one's blood is in such condition of impurity as to render vaccination necessarily unsafe or dangerous that vaccine matter is "quite often" impure and dangerous to be used, but whether impure or not cannot be ascertained by any known practical test that the defendant refused to submit to vaccination for the reason that he had, "when a child," been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination, and that he had witnessed a similar result of vaccination not only in the case of his son, but in the cases of others.

These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. The legislature assumed that some children, by reason of their condition at the time, might not be fit subjects of vaccination, and it is suggested -- and we will not say without reason -- that such is the case with some adults. But the defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in fact, not a fit subject of vaccination

at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health. It is entirely consistent with his offer of proof that, after reaching full age, he had become, so far as medical skill could discover, and, when informed of the regulation of the Board of Health, was, a fit subject of vaccination, and that the vaccine matter to be used in his case was such as any medical practitioner of good standing would regard as proper to be used. The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe. Was defendant exempted from the operation of the statute simply because of his dread of the same evil results experienced by him when a child and had observed in the cases of his son and other children? Could he reasonably claim such an exemption because, "quite often" or "occasionally," injury had resulted from vaccination, or because it was impossible, in the opinion of some, by any practical test, to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person could be safely vaccinated?

It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers, that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the State. If such be the privilege of a minority,

then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take, and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.

Before closing this opinion, we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe -- perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely -- that the police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression. Extreme cases can be readily suggested. Ordinarily such cases are not safe guides in the administration of the law. It is easy, for instance, to suppose the case of an adult who is embraced by the mere words of the act, but yet to subject whom to vaccination in a particular condition of his health

or body, would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree. We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or, if it as so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. "All laws," this court has said,

"should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of that character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter."

United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47 , 144 U. S. 58 . Until otherwise informed by the highest court of Massachusetts, we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death. No such case is here presented. It is the case of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation adopted in execution of its provisions for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease

We now decide only that the statute covers the present case, and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff in error.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissent.

"State supported facilities for vaccination began in England in 1808 with the National Vaccine Establishment. In 1840, vaccination fees were made payable out of the rates. The first compulsory act was passed in 1853, the guardians of the poor being entrusted with the carrying out of the law in 1854, the public vaccinations under one year of age were 408,825 as against an average of 180,960 for several years before. In 1867, a new Act was passed, rather to remove some technical difficulties than to enlarge the scope of the former Act, and in 1871, the Act was passed which compelled the boards of guardians to appoint vaccination officers. The guardians also appoint a public vaccinator, who must be duly qualified to practice medicine and whose duty it is to vaccinate (for a fee of one shilling and sixpence) any child resident within his district brought to him for that purpose, to examine the same a week after, to give a certificate, and to certify to the vaccination officer the fact of vaccination or of insusceptibility. . . . Vaccination was made compulsory in Bavaria in 1807, and subsequently in the following countries: Denmark (1810), Sweden (1814), Wurtemburg, Hesse, and other German states (1818), Prussia (1835), Roumania (1874), Hungary (1876), and Servia (1881). It is compulsory by cantonal law in ten out of the twenty-two Swiss cantons an attempt to pass a federal compulsory law was defeated by a plebiscite in 1881. In the following countries, there is no compulsory law, but Government facilities and compulsion on various classes more or less directly under Government control, such as soldiers, state employes, apprentices, school pupils, etc.: France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Austria, Turkey. . . . Vaccination has been compulsory in South Australia since 1872, in Victoria since 1874, and in Western Australia since 1878. In Tasmania, a compulsory Act was passed in 1882. In New South Wales, there is no compulsion, but free facilities for vaccination. Compulsion was adopted at Calcutta in 1880, and since then at eighty other towns of Bengal, at Madras in 1884, and at Bombay and elsewhere in the presidency a few years earlier. Revaccination was made compulsory in Denmark in 1871, and in Roumania in 1874 in Holland it was enacted for all school pupils in 1872. The various laws and administrative orders which had been for many years in force as to vaccination and revaccination in the several German states were consolidated in an imperial statute of 1874."

24 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1894), Vaccination.

"In 1857, the British Parliament received answers from 552 physicians to questions which were asked them in reference to the utility of vaccination, and only two of these spoke against it. Nothing proves this utility more clearly than the statistics obtained. Especially instructive are those which Flinzer compiled respecting the epidemic in Chemitz which prevailed in 1870-71. At this time in the town, there were 64,255 inhabitants, of whom 53,891, or 83.87 percent., were vaccinated, 5,712, or 8.89 percent. were unvaccinated, and 4,652, or 7.24 percent., had had the smallpox before. Of those vaccinated, 953, or 1.77 percent., became affected with smallpox, and of the uninocculated, 2,643, or 46.3 percent., had the disease. In the vaccinated, the mortality from the disease was O.73 percent., and in the unprotected it was 9.16 percent. In general, the danger of infection is six times as great, and the mortality 68 times as great, in the unvaccinated as in the vaccinated. Statistics derived from the civil population are in general not so instructive as those derived from armies, where vaccination is usually more carefully performed and where statistics can be more accurately collected. During the Franco-German war (1870-71) there was in France a widespread epidemic of smallpox, but the German army lost during the campaign only 450 cases, or 58 men to the 100,000 in the French army, however, where vaccination was not carefully carried out, the number of deaths from smallpox was 23,400."

8 Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia (1897), Vaccination.

"The degree of protection afforded by vaccination thus became a question of great interest. Its extreme value was easily demonstrated by statistical researches. In England, in the last half of the eighteenth century, out of every 1,000 deaths, 96 occurred from smallpox in the first half of the present century, out of every 1,000 deaths, but 35 were caused by that disease. The amount of mortality in a country by smallpox seems to bear a fixed relation to the extent to which vaccination is carried out. In all England and Wales, for some years previous to 1853, the proportional mortality by smallpox was 21.9 to 1,000 deaths from causes in London, it was but 16 to 1,000 in Ireland, where vaccination was much less general, it was 49 to 1,000, while in Connaught it was 60 to 1,000. On the other hand, in a number of European countries where vaccination was more or less compulsory, the proportionate number of deaths from smallpox about the same time varied from 2 per 1,000 of causes in Bohemia, Lombardy, Venice, and Sweden, to 8.33 per 1,000 in Saxony. Although in many instances persons who had been vaccinated were attacked with smallpox in a more or less modified form, it was noticed that the persons so attacked had been commonly vaccinated many years previously."

16 American Cyclopedia, Vaccination (1883).

"'Dr. Buchanan, the medical officer of the London Government Board, reported [1881] as the result of statistics that the smallpox death rate among adult persons vaccinated was 90 to a million, whereas, among those unvaccinated, it was 3,350 to a million whereas among vaccinated children under 5 years of age, 42 per million whereas among unvaccinated children of the same age it was 5,950 per million.' Hardway's Essentials of Vaccination (1881). The same author reports that among other conclusions reached by the Academie de Medicine of France, was one that, 'without vaccination, hygienic measures (isolation, disinfection, etc.) are of themselves insufficient for preservation from smallpox.'"

"The Belgian Academy of Medicine appointed a committee to make an exhaustive examination of the whole subject, and among the conclusions reported by them were:"

"1. Without vaccination, hygienic measures and means, whether public or private, are powerless in preserving mankind from smallpox. . . . 3. Vaccination is always an inoffensive operation when practiced with proper care on healthy subjects. . . . 4. It is highly desirable, in the interests of the health and lives of our countrymen, that vaccination should be rendered compulsory."

The English Royal Commission, appointed with Lord Herschell, the Lord Chancellor of England, at its head, to inquire, among other things, as to the effect of vaccination in reducing the prevalence of, and mortality from, smallpox, reported, after several years of investigation:

"We think that it diminishes the liability to be attacked by the disease that it modifies the character of the disease and renders it less fatal, of a milder and less severe type that the protection it affords against attacks of the disease is greatest during the years immediately succeeding the operation of vaccination."

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.


Marvel’s Runaways

Focusing on the origins of the Marvel teenage superhero group Runaways, Marvel’s Runaways is set on the fringes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. No Iron Man or Thor here — just six extraordinary Los Angeles teens uniting to defeat their evil, criminal parents, collectively known as the Pride. After stumbling across a terrible secret and discovering their parents have been lying to them their entire lives, the Runaways investigate what their guardians are after and what else they might be hiding. From teen show expert EP Josh Schwartz (The O.C., Gossip Girl), Runaways walks a fine line between superhero glam and teen angst.

Created by: Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage
Cast: Rhenzy Feliz, Lyrica Okano, Virginia Gardner, Ariela Barer
Number of seasons: 3


Life in the trenches

The filmmakers shot the film in southwestern England, where they dug about 2,500 feet of trenches &mdash a defining characteristic of the war’s Western Front &mdash for the set.

Paul Biddiss, the British Army veteran who served as the film’s military technical advisor and happens to have three relatives who served in World War I, taught the actors about proper techniques for salutes and handling weapons. He also used military instruction manuals from the era to create boot camps meant to give soldiers the real feeling of what it was like to serve, and read about life in the trenches in books like Max Arthur’s Lest We Forget: Forgotten Voices from 1914-1945, Richard van Emden’s The Last Fighting Tommy: The Life of Harry Patch, Last Veteran of the Trenches, 1898-2009 (written with Patch) and The Soldier’s War: The Great War through Veterans’ Eyes.

He put the extras to work, giving each one of about three dozen tasks that were part of soldiers’ daily routines. Some attended to health issues, such as foot inspections and using a candle to kill lice, while some did trench maintenance, such as filling sandbags. Leisure activities included playing checkers or chess, using buttons as game pieces. There was a lot of waiting around, and Biddiss wanted the extras to capture the looks of “complete boredom.”


The "Moon Trees"

Apollo 14 launched in the late afternoon of January 31, 1971 on what was to be our third trip to the lunar surface. Five days later Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell walked on the Moon while Stuart Roosa, a former U.S. Forest Service smoke jumper, orbited above in the command module. Packed in small containers in Roosa's personal kit were hundreds of tree seeds, part of a joint NASA/USFS project. Upon return to Earth, the seeds were germinated by the Forest Service. Known as the "Moon Trees", the resulting seedlings were planted throughout the United States (often as part of the nation's bicentennial in 1976) and the world. They stand as a tribute to astronaut Roosa and the Apollo program.

The project began after Roosa was chosen for the Apollo 14 mission. Ed Cliff, Chief of the Forest Service, knew of Stuart Roosa from his days as a smoke jumper and contacted him about bringing seeds into space. Stan Krugman of the Forest Service was put in charge of the project and selected the seeds for the experiment. Seeds were chosen from five different types of trees: loblolly pine, sycamore, sweetgum, redwood, and Douglas fir. The seeds were classified and sorted, and sealed in small plastic bags that were stored in a metal cannister. Control seeds were kept on Earth for later comparison. Roosa carried possibly 2000 or more seeds in the cannister in his personal kit, a small canvas pouch that stayed with him as he orbited the Moon in the command module "Kitty Hawk" in February, 1971. Unfortunately, the seed bags burst open during the decontamination procedures after their return to Earth, and the seeds were scattered about the chamber and exposed to vacuum, and it was thought they might not be viable.

Stan Krugman collected the seeds and an attempt at germinating some of the seeds was made in Houston. Somewhat surprisingly, it proved successful and the seeds started growing, but they did not survive long because the facilities there were inadequate. A year later the remaining seeds were sent to the southern Forest Service station in Gulfport, Mississippi (sycamore, loblolly pine, and sweetgum) and to the western station in Placerville, California (redwood and Douglas fir) to attempt germination. Many of the seeds, and later cuttings, were successful and grew into viable seedlings. Some of these were planted with their Earth-bound counterparts as controls, (as might be expected, after over forty years there is no discernable difference) but most were given away in 1975 and 1976 to many state forestry organizations to be planted as part of the nation's bicentennial celebration. These trees were southern and western species, so not all states received trees. A loblolly pine was planted at the White House, and trees were planted in Brazil, Switzerland, and presented to the Emperor of Japan, among others. Trees have also been planted in Washington Square in Philadelphia, at Valley Forge, in the International Forest of Friendship, and at various universities and NASA centers. The Moon Tree shown at top left is a sycamore growing at Koch Girl Scout Camp in Cannelton, Indiana and at top right at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. A list of Moon Tree locations can be found at the bottom of the page.

Stuart Roosa was born on 16 August 1933, in Durango, Colorado. He worked for the Forest Service in the early 1950's as a smoke jumper fighting fires and later joined the Air Force and became a test pilot. He was one of 19 people selected for the astronaut class of 1966 and was part of the astronaut support crew for Apollo 9. Following Apollo 14, Roosa was backup command module pilot for Apollo's 16 and 17. He then worked on the Space Shuttle program until his retirement as a Colonel in the Air Force in 1976, the time when many of his trees were being planted.


Get A Subscription Now

It appears that you have exhausted your credits for this month. That's ok, we'll spot you a few until your monthly subscription turns over. To get more credits before then, you might want to consider bumping your subscription to the next level. Otherwise, just wait until when you'll receive a new allotment for the month. If you still aren't satisfied, we would be happy to discuss your situation. Just call us during business hours at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

Unfortunately you have spent your quota of credits for the month. To get more credits before then, you might want to consider bumping your subscription to the next level. Otherwise, just wait until when you'll receive a new allotment for the month. If you still aren't satisfied, we would be happy to discuss your situation. Just call us during business hours at (480) 967-6752.

As a subscriber you are allocated a set number of credits each month. By downloading imagery you will use one or more of your monthly credits. Topo downloads are included with your subscription and will not be subtracted from your credit allocation. To continue, simply click Ok, otherwise click Cancel.

Viewer Guide

We admit it, websites can be confusing. Especially sites as unique as Historic Aerials. If you haven't worked any mapping websites, operation might not be obvious to you. To help you scale this short (we hope) learning curve, we have compiled this list of common tasks. We also encourage you to explore. Move the mouse around and try clicking on things. Don't worry, you won't break anything.

Note that this is an interactive guide. You can keep it on the screen while you try our suggestions. To move this guide to the side of the screen, just click and drag the heading of the popup window to wherever you want it.

Navigation

Chances are, you aren't interested in the area we present to you by default. If you chose not to block your location, the default area will be your current location, or more specifically, the location of your Internet provider. Otherwise, you will be dropped off in Tempe, Arizona where our headquarters is located.

To move the map, drag it by clicking and holding down the left mouse button (or only mouse button if on a Mac.) With the mouse button pressed over the map, move the mouse and the map will pan. Go ahead and try it now.

That's all well and good you say, but the world is a big place. Panning to Fargo, North Dakota from Yuma, Arizona might take awhile. There's an easier way. see that text box in the upper left of the viewer with the text 'geo coordinates or street address'? Click on that text box and type Fargo, North Dakota, then click the 'go' button to the right, or press the [Enter] key. Your map should now display with a center location in Fargo, North Dakota.

The text search box works for street addresses, cities, and even landmarks. Try searching for Mount Rushmore.

On the upper left side of the viewer content area are the zoom controls, indicated by the plus (+) and minus (-) sign. To zoom in, click on the plus, to zoom out, click on the minus.

Aerials

Maps are used for orientation, and we don't deviate from their utility. However, you likely came here to view some historic aerial imagery, not to view maps, right?

To view the aerial view of the current map location, you need to select an aerial year to display. Click on the aerials button in the top left of the viewer. You should see a list of years pop out to the right. These are the years of aerial coverage that we currently have for the area indicated by center point of the map. To select a year, just click on the year you want to see. The current year will now display under the aerials button and within a couple seconds, the imagery for that year will replace the map.

To select another year, click on the aerials button again and select a different year. Note that you can pan around, or zoom like we did with the map.

Topographic Maps

Ready for this? You already know how to view topographic maps. That's right, it works just like the aerial selection. Just click on the topos button and select the year you wish to view.

Atlases

Like the aerials and topos selectors, the atlases will let you view additional historical representations of the viewing area. We have geo-referenced digitized versions of historic maps and property boundary documents. This is also where you can select the map layer if you so desire. Note that our atlas selection is rather scarce as we are currently working on this arduous task.

Compare

You may have noticed that only one 'layer' (whether that be an aerial, topo, or atlas) can be displayed at one time. To provide you with the ability to compare two different years (or layers,) you can use one of the compare utilities. To activate, click on the compare button.

view specific area in circle

compare two layers side by side

set transparency between layers

Try clicking on the slider. Click on the compare button followed by the side-by-side option. On the right side of the screen a selector will appear similar to the left side. When you are comparing two layers, think right and left side.

The map is the default layer for both sides. Go ahead and select an aerial year on the right side that is different from the left. The slider on top of the viewing area allows you to move the demarcation line between the two layers.

To turn the compare tool off, click on the compare button on the left, and click on the X icon. Poof! The right layer and associated selectors disappear.

Overlays

Unfortunately, photography from the sky doesn't come with labels. In other words, counties, cities and roads are rarely obvious. To help you identify these man-made labels, we provide overlays. You have the option to view major roads, all roads, counties, and cities. Just click on the overlay button and select which overlays you want to view. To turn overlays off, click on the X icon at the top of the compare tools.

Measure Distance

Often times distance isn't obvious when you're looking at some particular layer. The measure tool lets you measure real distance between points, and even calculate the area of a polygon.

Click on the measure button on the left. A flyout dialog appears on the lower left of the viewer. Click on the icon left of the option to Create a new measurement. Further instruction will prompt you to add points on the layer by clicking. When you are finished adding points, click the finish option. Another dialog will appear with your measurement. You can leave the object on the screen or remove it by clicking on the delete option on the result dialog.

Like the other buttons on the left, clicking the measure button will toggle the measurement dialog on or off.

Ordering Digital Imagery and Prints

Looking at historical photos is certainly interesting, but what if you want a snapshot of an area unencumbered by watermarks? You can purchase imagery in the form of digital images (jpeg, png, or GeoTiff). Or you can purchase a printout of a selected area.

See that text at the top of your viewer area that reads, 'purchase image and/or print'? An arrow to the left of that text points to yet another button. If you have selected a layer other than 'map' you can click that button to make a selection within the viewable space.

After you click that button with the square, you'll see the center area of the viewer remain lighter while the outside area becomes darker. This lighter area is the selected area you want to purchase. To change the size of the selected square, click and drag on one of the four corner handles indicated by a small white square.

After you have positioned the viewer and selected the area you want, click on the 'Purchase Selection button now displayed at the top of the viewer. If you are a registered user, your selection will be added to your shopping cart where you can select your purchase options.

Did you get a 'Guest Order' page? That's because you aren't logged in as a registered user. That's okay, we'll save your work and direct you to the registration page. Registration is easy, and free!

What's next?

Hopefully you're feeling like a pro by now, effortlessly navigating our historic aerial imagery from coast to coast. As you continue using Historic Aerials we hope that confidence grows. Our only advice is to try stuff. By now hopefully you've discovered that action buttons have hints by just hovering your mouse over it. You may also notice advantages of a mouse wheel in changing the zoom level. These, along with other tips will become apparent as you use our product. When in doubt, give it a click, and see what happens!


Watch the video: World of Warplanes. Arado Ar 197. So I started blastin..