The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-06-13


in this matter if 1 had seen any way out of il
without having guilty conscience. L drew up
the petition L am about to present because
believed that Dr. Files had been unjustly used
in the matter (He then read the petition
signed by u members of the association
throughout the state asking that DR.. Files be
restored to membership Speaking will be
useless believe for the members have made
up their minds how to vote on this subject. In
regard to the legal bearing OF the case have
given it some attention, Soon after Files was
expelled looked into the matter with the as
sistance of legal gentlemen. was surprised
that he should he expelled for SO small an of.
fence. 1t would seem as though three mem
bsrs, the majority Of the censors, were too
small o number to expell man from an tncer-
thorty they have exercised is lawful. 1t is
granted by the constitution and bylaws, but
our rules were not drawn up by lawyers; they
authorize our censors to do what the laws OF
corporations forbid. The charter Of the asso-
citation is silent concerning the power of expul-
sion. and 1t follows that such power can only
be exercised by the association itself.
have the following opinion on that subject
from Hon. J. H. Drummond.
1. When the charter of corporation gives
ercise this power through tribunal appointed
for that purpose.
2. But when the power of expulsion is not
expressly given in the charter, it can be exer-
cised only by the corporation itself, by vote OF
the members.
8. Courts will inquire into the regularity of
the proceedings of corporation in expelling
member, and whether the charges were suffi-
Gent to justify expulsion, but will not inquire
into the question whether the charges were
proved by the evidence.
4, When the power of expulsion is not given
by the charter, expulsion may be inflicted for
crime of which the accused has been duly con-
victed in court, or for any act which tends to
injure or destroy the society, but not for breach
of minor bylaws.
I find by these opinions that the charter
grants us no power to expel at all aud ii this
opinion is right DR.. Files has not been expelled
and cannot be. As our laws are now our CEN
sors are authorized to do what the law says
cannot be done. Thus we are liable to suits at
law for expellng when we have no power to do
So Let US have our constitution fixed at once
so as to prevent further trouble. We believe
that Dr. Files has been sufi GENTLY punished
and should now be restored to membership if
he has been expelled.
PEELED.
DR.. Foster-Yes, but the constitution is
wrong.
Dr.. f. a. Gerrish-I do not agree with DR..
Foster that there is no need of any discussion.
The Censors want every man in the association
impeached at present. In order that Dr.. Fosters
points may be met, 1 ask permission to read
the opinion Of as able lawyers as there are in
the state off the bench. The Censors asked
two NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. the power of removal
exists without an express grant in the charter;
and whether, if it does exist. the association
may delegate it to a board or committee.
These questions the Hon. Nathan Webb, with
the concurrence of the Hon. w. L. Putnam,
answered as follows:
1. No statute nor any unwritten law forbids the
removal of members OF the association, for sufficient
norIo hur innG
q As the charter prescribes no method for the ex-
ercse of the power of removal general considerations
would indicate that the Judgment of the same CEN
sors who could absolutely exclude applicants should
be sufficient after notice and hearing for the removal
of delinquents Kent says this power may be dele
gated select body Of the corporation, and it is
delegated to the censors by the constitu ton Of this
corporation, with an appeal to the association sub
ject to the approval Of the president and vice pres
dent.
President Jewett-When this case came up
consulted the chief justice of one of the
states, an eminent jurist, and was assured that
discipline of a body like this The charter
gives us the right to frame constitution and
bylaws, and members who agree to be bound
by these rules must abide by them. This prin-
cple was affirmed in the case of member of
the Massachusetts society. expelled for prac-
ticing homeopathy. In the case of church
member, the usage of the church is the govern
ing principle 1t must be so 10 all voluntary
associations, or they cannot be maintained.
DIR. Dana-It is plain to me that all are try
ing to do what is right in this matter, but
there is wide difference of opinion. From
the decisions read it would seem that lawyers
as we'll as doctors disagree. Here one says
that the board of censors did wrong, aud two
say they did not do wrong, and the censors
have two to one in their favor. I do not be-
lieve that, as has already been stated, the gen.
tlemen have their minds made up. If they
have it is wrong. The friends of DR.. Files
claim three things for him. First, that he did
not have fair trial; second, that the punish
ment was not in proportion to the oHense, and
third, that it was illegal to expel him, and for
all this he is to be taken back into fellowship.
should think that it would be well to uphold
the right and dignity of our constitution in
this matter. As to the first ground of the de-
fence that he did not have fair trial, that can
not be true. The verdict of the censors and
also of the president and sice presidents was
unanimous. 1t would be necessary to suppose
that all these eight men had been corrupt in
this matter in order to support the allegation.
Also that there was a conspiracy between the
two boards which heard his case. 1 hope the
association is not ready to believe such thing
of its officers. 1t is claimed that the punish
ment is disproportionate to the offence; but the
offence, as reported by the censors, is publish
ing false statement of malpractice against
board had pronounced the charge false, reiter-
Grating it in the public papers. Is that slight
offence?
DR.. Sanger-I think see way out of the
trouble with no injury to any one The report
of the board of censors is not yet recorded and
let it not be- but let this case be referred to the
board of censors of next year.
DR.. Gordon-Can that be done?
DR.. Observation-Disclosures, it makes no differ
ence how this matter comes up. but it should
to impute any base motives to the officers. They
did what they thought was right In regard to
the legal opinions quoted, 1 do not consider
they amount to ANYTHING. We have a right
to make our own laws. As to the fair trial
statements, if was arrested for stealing
horse and on the jury that was to try me was
a brother of the man who lost the horse, also
brother to the owners wife, do you suppose
should get fair and impartial trial? should
want, as this man does, right to appeal and l
should think it hard if refused. We have
right to 60 beyond the returns in this case.
and say that the censors have done wrong if
we think so. What is it that he has done that
he should be SO severely punished? Why is he
made cats paw or scape goat when dozen
old men in Portland, Bangor and elsewhere are
allowed to go about and libel their brothers in
the public press without a word? These men,
and can point them out now if wished, say
things that are disgrace to, we'll at least
church members, but they are not expelled.
Why does the Maine General Hospital prose-
DR.. Gilman (interrupting)-Th Maine Gen.
eral Hospital has had nothing to do with this
matter whatever. setsh
DR.. Tewksbury-The officers made the
charges against this man. q
DR.. Gilmau-Not in the name of the Hos
pital.
DR.. Tewksbury-Drs. Weeks, Hunt and
Dana made the charges
DR.. Gilman-They did so on their own &C.
count. DR.. Weeks felt as though be had been
personally assaulted.
DR.. Brickett (proceedine) Here is the article
which this young man published in the Argus,
and for which he was expelled from this asso-
citation. 1.-THE article was read He says that
if it was wrong to publish this statement he is
sorry, but he still insists that it was then and
is now correct. Young men here now should
take warning from this instance or they too
will be kicked out of the association as he was.
For all this man has done so much he is will
ing to be forgiven. think he has been har-
pooned enough. The old fellows who escape
could stand his punishment we'll enough, but
he cannot and should be relieved. We have no
doubt but that the hospital is noble thing,
but we are not prepared to say that the article
in question was not correct. Suppose you sus.
pend man for drinking rum, which is not
right, or for borrowing money which he does
not pay, where would some Of our best physi-
clans be. loud applause.)
DR.. S. 81. Weeks-I stand charged with an
outraoa hacausa enrafarrad charpaa in this