Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-26
HASBROUCK'S CASE.
Judge Smith D.CIdus 10 Favor Of the
Medical Board.
GIsr OF Ills noSows OPINION.
The Board Of Medical Examiner. lie
Says, Was Properly Appointed
by tho Go,crnor.

!
m the Third Dleltict Court, IN which
the doctor appealed usainsttlo decision
Of United States Commissioner Pali
on prosecution Instituted against
him Ivy the board OF medical Uxamiu.
CTS Of Utah Territory. The olcusc ~.
legged was pfacticing medicine without
u llcunBo having been frt obtained
from tbs board, ani the fine imposed
was $50 aud costs.
Whom the arguments were through
Judge Cochran ami Attorney J ~
Hamilton representing DR.. nas.
Lrouck, and County Attorney MUrphy
and Judge Judd tue prosecutiUn-an.
other cssc, Ia somV respects similar 10
the Hasbrouek matter. was called up.
II was that Of DR.. U. II. Doggo vs. the
same B0nfd Vt Mv4icn Examiner.
Suit IL brought 10 compel the board t.
issue Do. DOgge a license 20 practice as
a physlolan anJ surgeon Ia Utsh Tern.
tory. An orler TO show cause was -
sued by Judge Zane NJ Tar back ~
August 10, ls9S, and on this this case
now came up.
The complaint sets forth that the
/ plhiutin was a graduate u tbs Nils.
roufi medical college vi 81. Louis, AMI
received "a dipl0ms there on March q.
1898, cntitling MIN 10 practice nrII.
cine and surgery, that ever since he
has been ipraoticing physician aud
surgeon; that thc Missouri me ilcal
| 0uIluufs - an luaflluNIuV. ~ ll.u. .Ha..N
Ing and has tho topuie OF Ueing a
rcr0guizsd school OF medicine; that
plalntin made application to the BOARD
Of examiners u this Territory for n
| license aud prusuAtei his diploma, but
that mat b0Iy wrongfulIy refused aud
stil refuses 10 Issue the same.
In answer, tue board states that at
the time d.. Dogge filed his applica.
ton " had CONS 10 their knowledge
that lac was guilty Of unptoiea,iOnal
anu diAhOnOfaUle conduct and for that
reason postponed action upon the mat.
ter OF granting or refusing the license.
Tie act OF conduct referred 90 II thus
apvcined; That on W about Dec. g. 1892,
Df. DOsge was called ia consultation
with DE-. Beef, - reputable and competent
| physician,in the case OF a Mrs.. Zimmur-
mAu, who was suffering with pofitonitis,
aud who had been Professionally At
tended by Dt. Beer; that DR.. DOggs
approved OF tho treatment which DR..
beer had given the patient, that Dr..
Beer continued tue treatment anu Mrs.
Zimmerman tap.dly olnvalesced under
the SAINT; that afterwards DR.. D3gge
visited the lazy without being invited
or employed to do 40, anu that he
malioiOusly anu cOrfuptly denounced
aud condemned 10 the patient aud her
husband Dr.. Bspr AMI his caufse Of
treatment, (which treatment saAi
D0gge had previously Approveu,n at,i
lk swiao that ho oOffupily ana mali.
| clOusly accused DIR. Beer VI making
oKOrbitant charges, by reason OF when
Dr. Beer was diumissed from the case
aud DR.. Dpggu employed; that under
the lattot'a treatment the patient hut-
feTod n rulapae, her recovery was great
ly retarded, aud Hhe and her husband
were put 10 great anu unnecessary
expense.
THE WHIT ALLOWED.
When Altjrney Dpy (Dey & slreetj
had presented nis case 10 the court this
morning on behalf Of DIR. DOgge,
Judge Smith granted the writ OF
cortiorAu applied for and made tho
same returnablo five days hence.
the IAsBRouCK CASE.
In giving his decision on the Has.
brounk appeal Judge Smith said tho
objection made by the deiendant's
| counsel that the statute was invalid Tor
tho reason that II deprived the dc.
fondRnt Of his liberty la the practice OF
his profession, without due process OF
law, was not well taken. Due process
OF law did not necessarily mean
judicial professor procedure; while too
citizen was protected By the olns,iIu-
ton IN the possession Of life aud
liberty and the Right to acquire
property by any Lawful means, IL liI
not follow, asa matter OF course, that
he could not DO deprived Of them. All |
these were limited In the acquiro,nout |
OF property by other than judicial pro
cess. Due process Of law simply meant |
that the citizen should not be deprived |
OF his life, liberty, or property, or OF
his right 10 acquire property, by any
| other than uniform rule, appliua0lu
alike 10 oil persons similarly slutgd-
that he hal the right TO be testei OF tried
| by uniform standard anu IN tho
| came tiluuAal AhNA hll bkNNl tlklauun ~ /
| the same luslnus', under the same |
/ couditiola, were entitled 20. Tho law |
did not 20 further than TIE Legislature |
might lawfully declare was a. ceHsnfy |
10 ascertain tho hlAess OtpersOns 10 |
| practice Ia the mBllcs. profession. The |
right 10 practice any profession Or call
lug which required special Learning or |
technical knowledge was regulated !
by the Legislature IN all organized |
society as QUO Of the police powers Of |
the state. The regulation OF tho prac'
| lice OF medicine could no more be- |
complained u by persous who desired
10 follow II than the regulation for the
practice OF law, teaching Of school, or
following the ayocaiiOn OF An Ell
gineer, pilot, OF any Other branch |
of industry where special tests
and examinations were required as
condition precedent TO the right 10
follow such profession or bus ness'
While rho language OF the act Whs
somewhat indehuito ~ 10 what shouIl
become VI the moneys pail IN a. Ices
TO ths medical board ior examination
aud certificates, bis Honor held lhal
IL was intended NJ u compensation Tor
the persOnal services Of the hoard IN
making such examination anu Issuing |
such certificates; and tnis being |
the Gaze, the board was Gu
titled 70 appropriate the money