398 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 
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 agi- 
tation 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 substantia- 
tions 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 rela- 
tively 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, “ eonservation ”—in short, the count- 
less “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 inthe 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 intelli- 
gent men. In what degree is the “ism” efficacious and does the de- 
gree of truth found justify the application? On the side of the con- 
ditions 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 de- 
cided 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 
