Page:Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927 (1964).pdf/2

928 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—POLICE POWER OF STATE.—It is within the police power of the State to require that school children be vaccinated against smallpox and such requirement does not violate the constitutional rights of anyone on religious grounds or otherwise.
 * 1) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—PERSONAL PROPERTY.—A State law requiring compulsory vaccination does not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.
 * 2) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—JUDICIARY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS—JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT.—State Constitution, Art. 7, Sec. 34, gives probate courts jurisdiction in matters relative to guardians and provides that the probate court shall try all issues of law and facts in causes within the jurisdiction of the court and pending therein.
 * 3) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.—While Art. 2, Sec. 24 of the State Constitution means that anyone has the right to worship God in the manner of his choice, it does not mean that he can engage in religious practices inconsistent with the peace, safety and health of the inhabitants of the State, and it does not mean that parents, on religious grounds, have the right to deny their children an education.
 * 4) PARENT AND CHILD—RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES.—While parents may become martyrs themselves in practicing their religion, it does not follow they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children before the children have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice themselves.
 * 5) PARENT AND CHILD—WELFARE OF CHILD—WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.—Evidence that parents would not permit three of their children to be vaccinated thereby enabling them to attend school held sufficient on which to base a finding of neglect.
 * 6) PARENT AND CHILD—WELFARE OF CHILD.—Parents of school age children held not exempt from the law and the regulation requiring that the children be vaccinated so they can attend school.
 * 7) PARENT AND CHILD—WELFARE OF CHILD.—Appellant's argument that because the father had been fined three times for not sending his children to school the State had no other remedy held without merit where the action was instituted to enable the children to obtain a reasonable education rather than for the purpose of punishing the father.

Appeal form Polk Chancery and Probate Courts, Wesley Howard, Judge; affirmed.

Shaw & Shaw, for appellant.

Ivan H. Smith, for appellee.