The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1894-06-05
KELLOGG IS A WINNER
The Supreme Court Decides tho Doctor
Didn't Get a Fair SHOW.
WHY THE JUDGES THINK so
In the First Place It's Held the Com
plant Was Poor Affair and
Not According to Legal
Requirements,

Special Dispatch 70 the Standard
HELENA, June 4.-The supreme court to.
day handed down the following opinions:
In the case of S. C. Baldwin, on behalf
of the state medical board, respondent,
We. Edwin S. Kellogg, appellant. The
Judgment Of the lower court is reversed,
the case remanded with directions to sus.
tain the demurrer. The opinion 10 by
Chief Justice Pemberton and Justice De-
Witt, Justice Harwood dissenting.
The opinion by Justice Dewitt recites
that "Tho trial and argument Of this case
have taken wide scope, but upon the
threshold Of the inquiry we meet perhaps
the most important question involved.
The complaint before the medical board
was the original pleading in the proceed.
ing, corresponding to tho complaint or
declaration in a civil case, or indictment
or information in o criminal case. The
medical board is a special tribunal, created
by the medical law, and having jurisdic.
ton over limited subject matter (16th
sess. laws, p. 175). The tribunal is COM
posed of physicians and not Of any per.
sons who are required to be learned In the
law. We are OF the opinion that before
such tribunal, pleadinRs should not be
too strictly construed, nor should a too
close observance of the science of plead.
ing be required.
"But it cannot for one moment be
doubted that the complaint must set
forth facts which must constitute an Of.
fense. A defendant in such proceeding is
to answer charge OF unprofessonal, dis
honorable and immoral conduct. IL the
judgment Is against him he 10 deprived OF
the right to practice his profession. TO
which, perhaps, he has devoted . life OF
learning and labor. In situation OF this
gravity, defendant has the right, within
the spirit OF the constitution TO de-
mand the nature and cause of the
accusation. Constitution act Ill, sec.
| 16). That 10, q defendant must be notified
of what he is charged and he must be
charged with something. The complaint
professional, dishonorable or immoral
conduct. This defendant has constantly
insisted that the complaint in this pro.
ceeding does not set out such facts and
SO urges in this court"
| The court then proceeds 10 review the
nature OF the charges against DR.. Kellogg
seriatm, and finds that while it is not
| denied that he threw into furnace o
headless fetus that it does not appear
that the act involves a criminal proceed
ing under the form Of the complaint.
in the course OF his services" the
opinion goes on, "the physician must be-
como possessed of fstuses. It Is profes.
sional that he should. It is not criminal
nor dishonorable that he should. No argu.
ment to this effect can say more than the
simple statement. 1t Is q postulate of
which every intelligence assents. Nor can
1t be contended that the simple fact Of
destroying such thing 10 unprofessional,
immoral or dishouorable. In fact It must
be destroyed. Sanitary rules demand its
destruction, and incineration Is as proper
as inhumation or any other method OF
destruction. But the weight, II any there
be, Of this specification OF the complaint,
is that the defendant destroyed this
fetus with the intent to conceal Its birth.
II defendant wcro charged with criminal
abortion the concealmont Of the product
of the abortion might be presented as evi.
dence tending to provo his guilt. But the
fact must not be lost sight Of that In this
case the complaint does not pretend to
charge DIR. Kellogg with committing an
abortion"
1t must be clearly kept In mind that the
court has treated only the charge and
specification Of the complaint and could
not 60 beyond the pleading. In conclud-
ing, the language of the court is as fol.
lows: ITO be sure, a member Of an hon.
orable profession, as that OF medicine,
should raise his conduct above suspicion.
But IL circumstances arise which may,
under one construction, cast o suspicion
upon q physician, and II the circum-
stances are susceptible also OF construc-
ton consistent with his innocence; then,
II the construction Of guilt 10 to be
adopted. the guilt should be charged, and
not left to inference.
"The plain fact is that the complaint in
this case is curious. 1t seems as II the
pleader hcsitates at making . spscifca-
tion Of immoral, dishonorable or unpro.
fessional conduct. and contented himself
by narrating circumstances of suspicion
with the intention of seeing what
the defendant might say. It was
q process of throwing suspicion upon
the defendant and leaving him TO prove
himself innocent. Such is not the Amer,
ican system Of judicial procedure. The
complaint is foscicle of infercnces, In
nuendoes and gossip, with the wrath o.
an abortion lowering over all. The de
fendant was found guilty upon the trial
Whether the evidence was sufficient to es
tabish immoral, dishonorable or unpro
fessional conduct, we do not know. as I
is not before us. But IL 1t were, and tn,
defendant were clearly proved guilty, W,