
    Field, Appellant, v. Robinson.
    
      School law—Discretion of principal—Vaccination..
    
    A principal of a public school in the exercise of a sound discretion may exclude pupils who have not been vaccinated.
    
      Constitutional law—School law—Vaccination — Public health—Act of June 18, 1895.
    The Act of June 18, 1895, P. L. 203, entitled “ An act to provide for the more effectual protection of the public health in the several municipalities in this commonwealth,” and providing that children not vaccinated may be refused admission to public schools, is constitutional.
    Argued Jan. 30, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 335, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1900, No. 1423, refusing peremptory mandamus, in case of Charles J. Field v. Martha L. Robinson, Principal of Keystone Public Schools.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Petition for mandamus against Martha L. Robinson, principal of the Keystone Public School in the city of Philadelphia, to compel her to admit into the school a child of plaintiff, a girl eight years of age, without being first vaccinated as required by the act of June 18,1895. The court refused the mandamus.
    
      jError assigned was in refusing the mandamus.
    
      G. Oscar Beasley, for appellant.
    
      James Alcorn, assistant city solicitor, and John L. Kinsey, city solicitor, for appellees, were not heard.
    April 1, 1901:
   Per Curiam,

We think the court below did not err in the ruling referred to in the assignments. In Duffield v. Williamsport School District, 162 Pa. 476, we held that school directors, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may exclude from the public schools pupils who have not been vaccinated. “ Whether a resolution excluding from the school pupils who have not been vaccinated, is a reasonable one, is to be judged of in the first instance by the school directors. In the present state of medical knowledge and of convincing opinion of those having charge of the public health, the courts will not say that such a resolution is an abuse of official discretion.” It has not been shown to our satisfaction that the Act of June 18, 1895, P. L. 208, is unconstitutional. For the reasons above stated we dismiss the assignments and sustain the conclusions of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.  