The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-01-31
THIS is FOR the DOCTORS
District Judge Buck Passes Upon
the Case Of q Castle
Physician.
Ho was Refused a Certificate by
the State Medical
Board.
The Court says the Doctor Merits Unqusl-
fled Censurs for His d ON
@ Examination.

fled Censurs for His Conduct ON
Examination.
Dr., William E. Tryon, Of Castle, in reply
to 1 question Of the state medical board
concerning the treatment OF hemorrholda
answered, "Set on q hot potato The
doctor got into a controversy with the
board and went to court. Yesterday Judge
Buck rendered HIS opinion in tho case. He
says: .In this proceeding, an appeal from
tbs action OF the state board of Medical
Examiners denying William L. Tryon, OF
Castle, Msaehsr county, Montsna, . osrtiti-
cate TO p~ractios medicine in this state, the
record and plsadings disclose the following
state Of facts: The appellant Tryon is a
graduate of the Bennett Eclectic College OF
Medicine and Surgery, OF Chicago, ILLINOIS,
The board. SO far as this proceeding is con-
csrnod. raises no objection to the standing
of this school of medicine and does not
question the validity of its diploma. the
fact that appellant is the holder thereon.
and that az to his moral character ne Is a
proper person to practice. In March, 1891,
subsequent to the passage OF the Mediosl
Examiners law of Montana, appellant ar
rived in this state. He obtained a tempo
rary certificate to practice medicine, ana
On tho 9th day Of October, 1891. appeared
before the board at the date sst for one OF
its regular meetings. The appellant claims
that on this last aforesaid date no legal
oeorum of the board was present, and this
fact ia virtually admitted by respondent.
~ three members Of the board who were
present appellant was required and did
submit to an examination SIS to his ptotes-
sienal knowledge. He claims that he suf-
fered himself to be examined undo protest
and against his will. which allegation re,
spondent dcnies. Aquorum OF the bcard
afterward, with dsfsndant's written an
swers to the questions propounded him
before it, refused to grant him a certificate,
on the ground that he had failed to pass
the examination. A motion for udgment
on the proceedings ls to be decided oy tnls
court.
The law requires that certain applicants
for certificates shall bs examined "at the
time ard plaoe designated by said board"
If the appellant belongs to tho GLASS subject
to examination can he under the issues
herein framed take advantage OF a failure
on the part of the board to give him notice
of the time and place of examination, or OF
tho fact that no quorum OF the board was
present on October 6, 1891? In deciding this
motion for Judgment on the pleadlngs, tho
uyerment OF respondent that appellant vol
unfairly submitted to examination, II ma"
torial, must prevail, even though contro-
vorted. Now if the law required appellant
to submit to an examination, he could GER
tainly have waived the notice of time and
place, and (as . quorum OF tho ooard
finally passed upon the question OF whether
or not he had passed Satisfactorily the
faot that only three members of the board
present at the first stage Of the e7amlna-
ton is immaterial.
Therefore, without further delay, the
court proceeds to the consideration Of the
main subject for decision involved IN thls
motion, namely: Undsr the Medical tx
aminer act of 1889 docs the mere fact o:
holding Z diploma (the gsnuinsness Of
which, the moral character to the holdeI
etc. being conoeded) entitle to a Certificate
for practice 4 physician coming here ate
tho date of ths passage OF this act! Can
the board of medical examiners compe
such an applicant to submit to an oxamln
alton as to his professional knowledge, re,
CARELESS of the fact that he docs or doe
not possess q diploma?
All reasonable must Recognize ths wis
dom of legislation to obtain the result
which were contemplated at the dats OF the
passage of this bill. In no profession Ii
the public obliged to rspose more trustfn
eonfideFce than in that of medicine. 1t il
mere truism to say that physicians shoul'
be educated, skilled and honorable to a de
k4S0G w w oAhSSCN VI AS" S"ASA A~S"~
men. The public unquestionably shoult
bs environsd by every possible Safeguard
against victimization by the lgnoran
quacks and charlatans who SO constantly
attempt to grasp the mere name of thu
honorable profession for the debased pur
pose of rcbbing and plundering withou
restraint or punishment their PHYSICAL.
lnfrm fellow-beings. So, any criticism o
this Medical Examiners act OF Montan
must be confined to she technical defect
in its frame, not to its object. In its pres
snt form. however, all the lawyers an
judges of the state probably agree that i
tho tedious litigation this act has sntaile
in it's construction ls to cease, it should b
amendsd and it's numerous lncoherent IN
eonsistencies and many defects eliminate
and remediod.
All the trouble presented in the solutio
of tho question here presented, results fro
phraseology in this act SO loose and carale
az almost to defy She established rules
statutory construction. Section 3 Of tx
act provides: '"Ihat every person wlshir
to practice medicine or surgery in any
their departments within this terrltol
shall do go only upon complying with II
requirements of this act" 1t then pr
prescrlbcs In sub9tance that Il grAIua
shall present his diploma to the board, al
that if certaln mattets, the character of b!
college. the identity of the holder, Ste, q
satisfactory, D certificate. shall issue wit
out an examination. The nams action TIL,
provides for d temporary certificate bell
issued to - graduate coming TO the teri
tori. A~fterwarda 1T usGs the follow
phraseology: III not a graduate, the De
son practiclng medicine or surgery with
this territory" in requiring such a class
pass an examination. section 4, howav
declares that all persona hereafter COZ
mencing the practice of medicine and 81
gerry in the territory shall submit to
examination.
Can these two sections be reconcile
Section 4 being subsequent to section
must prevail, according to the rule
statutory construction, if it is reconcllat
with the latter, after the application Of t
other rules that thu two sections must
construed together with the contract, II
so that both may stand if they can do
without vlolencs to a responsible interp
tatlon. This court. consequently, IL of
opinion that III section J grounds for Il C,
formity of the two sections must ba foul
if st all. This language FIRST above quo
from section 3 Ii az broad as that contain
In section 4 as to the necessity of n ST
mission to en- examination on the part
persons commencing to practice in M
aana after the passage of the act. But
this very section 3 the language used
above referred to, concerning temper
certificates being issued to persons com
to the territory and the necessity Of IA y
mission to examination by q person no
graduate practiciuR in the territory. Ct
q clue to 81 Interpretation of sec,