Now it seems that the defendant Jacobson did not properly plead that vaccination was dangerous to health and life, in his own case, or offer to prove this, in his own case, and hence the decision was technically given against him, but really, in principle, for him; which decision, as we have shown, was rendered by a divided Court with two judges dissenting who evidently held that compulsory vaccination by fine, as called for in the law of Massachusetts, was unconstitutional. We therefore believe that this decision, when properly applied, will invalidate all forms of coercive vaccination, whether by inflicted fine, or by denial of some civic right, such as public education, whenever the prosecuted case is properly tried on the correct legal pleas and issues and carried up through our highest Courts on the principles laid down in this great decision and outlined in this analysis. UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL _VERSUS_ RIGHTS OF MAJORITIES. FALSE IDEA OF THE SUPREMACY OF MAJORITIES SCORED We often hear it stated that this is a government essentially of majorities and that any majority can legally and properly force its opinion or will upon any minority, no matter how objectionable to the minority this law or will of the majority might be; and that it is the clear right of the majority thus to oppress itself upon the minority and the loyal duty of the minority to yield to this oppression, however odious. This rank idea of the supremacy of majorities is, I believe, a great legal and moral and cowardly mistake and a gross misconception of our Democratic American Government, because it entirely loses sight of the great basic principle of _inherent_ and _unalienable human rights_ which seems to have been first, or best, expressed in our immortal Declaration of Rights. Therefore, under this basic principle of “unalienable” right, no majorities, however powerful, can legally or morally invade or set aside any of the “unalienable” or inseparable rights of the People, as this is obviously the clear significance and meaning of the terms “unalienable rights,” as I have already shown. Hence this fundamental American principle of “unalienable rights” calls in trumpet tones from the lines of the Declaration and Constitution and gives this warning to all majorities, however powerful: “Thus far shalt thou go but no farther, and here must thy power be stayed”--that is, stayed at the approach to every sacred inherent and unalienable right of the individual necessary to the life, liberty, health and happiness of the individual.