I ANTI*VACCINATION ARGUMENTS -HHEN it comes to arguing against execution of sanitary laws or laws for the protection of society, Lora C. Little, of Portland, should be awarded the palm, the “laurel crown” is hers by right of bravery;1 by right of claiming that to be so which is not; b’v the right of pure and unadulterated nerve.| Mrs. Little says: “Believers in vaccination' claim that it prevents smallpox. We have been ' on earth some time and never heard that one ' who had been vaccinated was immune, but we : have heard it said that the chances were reduc-' ed against infection and that in case of infee-' tion the disease would be practically harmelss.”I The examples quoted against it prove nothin ing except incompetence of administering phy-D sicians. This has been shown so frequently as j to need no repetition.i) Mrs. Little proposes that one class shall doD as they please and others may come under the D law if they choose. This is a fine law for thugs I) and pickpockets; white slavers and murderers. ij It is class legislation if there is any such.I Mrs. Little argues that because doctors dis-l agree on the efficacy of vaccination it should j) not be used to prevent smallpox epidemics.I Doctors disagree on anything; everywhere;f) all the time; everything; and men and women i disagree on everything else: For instance,!) there are over a million people who believe we are not here at all; that we only imagine it.S Mrs. Little is as much entitled to her opin-} ion about vaccination; punishment for murder and changing criminals as W. S. U’Ren is to S) his opinion on Single Tax; primary laws; ini-tiative and referendum and destruction general ally; or as C. E. S. Wood is entitled to his opin-ion that nursine mothers will destroy their off-i) spring unless they can feed it alcohol through their breasts; but it is nevertheless unfortun-i) ate that they all three live in Oregon. It’s too ) heavy a load for a state two thirds under con-^ trol of a commission at Washington as forestf reserve.