The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-02-20
KELLOGG MAKES ANSWER
The Doctor Replies TO the Charges
Of the State Medical
Board
Reasons for Not Giving tho Jury
the Name Of tho Woman In
tho Case.
He Claims That He Was So upJustIy
Treated BY the Board That tie
Made No Defense.

.. W. kinaloF. counsel for Dr. Edwin 4.
Kellogg. hlsd an answer IN the district
court yesterday 70 the complaint Of thu
state board OF msdical examiners. II is 10
be used in the trial OF the doctors sppsAl
from the action Of the board Ia rsVoking
his Certificate 20 practice on the ground that
be had been gailty OF unprofossional CON
duct. The particular act complained Of
was tbs placing OF the hosdlsss body OF a
Z prematursly born infant in the furnace a.
tho Aasonie Temple. where the doctor had
bis Office AZ the ooronel's inquest tho doc
tor tostihsd that the infant had been dead
-four or tvs days before taken from the
inoihof. and that in doing so the head be-
came detached from the body. lie said the
woman asked not % have her name men
TONED II possible to avoid u. For that
reason be refused 90 answer when
asked the woman's name. but not for fear
Of discriminating himself lie said the
dea infant WIS only three months and one
week old. The board claimed II was seven
months old. The answer denies the
charge that the doctor has beon guilty
OF unprofesslonnl. dishonorabis or
immoral conduct; that tLo age OF the
unborn child was seven months,
or that he pat It in the furnace 90 conceal
its bitb. lie Gays he was willing. and 40
expressed himself. 20 eivs all the facts TO
ths co onei's iury and did 10. except 80 10
The name OF the mother. which he withheld
at her request. lie tiled 20 obtain her
consent 10 give her name. bnt she would
not Kermit him. The answer IA ther says
that Dr.. Moses Roekman appeared before
tha medical beer end testified that after
examining tbs BODY his opinion was that
the child wns BON alive. His attorney in
formed Lin that this evidence. If believed
by the coroner's jury. would lay the foun-
dot.on fos cha ge of murder and that un.
less no could gel the woman 70 aprear and
explain tho circumstances. lie might be
held on that cha &c. SO when he again
appeared before tho corouers Jury, acting
on the advice OF bis attorney. he declined
To answef the questions for the reason that
his HnsWe might he taken as testimony
against himself unless ho could procure the
presence OF tho woman. The Anawe goes
on TO cite that 10 was agreed 20 submit TO
Judge Hunt the question as TO whether the
loctur should be obliged to testify further,
but that the ia re 70 used TO heaf or pass
upon the matter in its then condition. At
a subsequent meeting Of the coroner's Jury,
tbs doctor said he was info med that the
woman had goue cyst, and he heard she
was IN Pennsy wants.
The answer continuing says that "at no
time hal he ever intended TO make any ad-
mission Of guilt OF any oGsnse whatever,
no were his Isfusals to answer sVer based
on CONSEQUENCES or belief that he had ever
been guilty OF any ohense whatever. and
the protection claimed by his attorney
would never have been claimed had 10 not
been for tho evidence of DIR. Roekman be
fore the oofoner's jury that tho child was
born alive, which evidence Is AveTTsd 30 be
unquaiihedly untrue and impossible; but IL |
was the uncertainty a. TO which evidences |
the coroner's jury would believe that led
him 10 re use 10 answer. The defendant
court that the name of the woman should /
be given, be - willing TO do so upon being /
notified, and Is ready and will /
ling to explain and fully state all of the /
facts in rs.ation to the matter in con-
troversT.
The reason why no explanation was
made before the board OF medical examiners
was that the name Waa not requested Of
himi that be was APP arsntly on trial before
a yre1udieed board, two Of whom had been
witnesses before the coroner's jury, and
when challenged refused TO withdraw from
the consideration of the case. and that
there was not legally constituted quorum
OF dieinterested members Of the board pres.
ent when his case was heard. 4 he case was
prosecuted before the board by an alto usy
employed and paid by them, who at the
same time acted aa counsel for the state
and Who was. As the board admitted by
their r1lings, an advisory mem ber Of ths
board. The board acted on his advice on
al questions brought before them, thereby
the bosfd both prosecutors and
Trial cou.t.
The injustice which the defendant suf-
Tered at thu hearing was so apparent that
no action was taken before tie LoArd 20
establish his defense. lie board conducted
The hearing In violation OF all RI Is OF ius-
lice and Of law ne he understooi them, and
10 defense that be could then oder would
have been availing to him befo thsm
His attorney then and there advised him to
ely upon bis appeal TO tue district court
'or justice"