and those public-health officials who believe in the practise, and on the other side the taxpayers and the people represented by the government. The findings of such a court would be of great service to lawmakers and other courts of the land. For the virus makers and the physicians are not the only interests which are interested in vaccinating the people for something. The laws which have been passed are countless in number. If all laws could be declared void which were based on implied scientific knowledge which is false or not proven, a vast number of undesirable laws could be economically erased. Most laws passed for grafting purposes would fail in a court of science.
When we consider how many are the issues which disturb the country and which cause the expenditure of millions of dollars in agitation to no good result, and, at the same time, the ease with which many of the disputed scientific issues could be settled, the desirability of a court of science with proper rules of procedure is apparent. It is amazing to consider the struggles which occur, the endless substantiations of a position for or against an "ism" by arrays of opinions, the violent charge and counter charge of factions and parties, all of which might be settled by a court of science. All that is required is a relatively small expenditure for the collection and the presentation of the evidence.
When the costly agitations of the past are analyzed, such as a tariff on any commodity for the purpose of "protection," "silver sixteen to one," "vaccination compulsory," "vaccination voluntary without quarantine," as in Minnesota, "conservation"—in short, the countless "isms," why should they not be settled in a court? When such "isms" become popular enough to become the basis or the cause of legislation which means that the "isms" are to be forced on others than on believers, then it would seem that those who favor the "ism" should be placed on trial before a scientific jury in the supreme court of science. Many issues may be narrowed down to the determination of a few simple questions which may be answered by a jury of intelligent men. In what degree is the "ism" efficacious and does the degree of truth found justify the application? On the side of the conditions to be remedied, are the facts grievous enough to justify a general remedy? Is there no other remedy more efficacious?
Should the supreme court of science decide after a fair trial that compulsory vaccination was indefensible on the evidence, and that the practise of vivisection was defensible and desirable within proper limits, two costly "movements" would be ended with these findings. We may rest assured, if the supreme court of science impartially decided on the evidence in accordance with a regular procedure, that the truth would prevail with far greater dispatch than under the present system of countless "movements." Many of these associations have an
