The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-05-21
NEW MEDICAL STATUTE
ARGUMENT ON ITS VALIDITY BE-
FORE THE SUPREME COURT.
..Barratry'' Charged Against n Citizen
Various Matters in the LO-
cal Courts.

1
| argument in the case of the State of In
| diana on the relation of John A. Burroughs
| against John c. Webster, James NJ. Din
| min, William +. Colt, William A. Spurgeon.
| William +. Curryer and TIE State Board Of
| Medical Registration and Examination. 1t
| is case in which the court may pass upon
| the legality of the law creating the State
| Board of Medical Registration and Exami-
| nation, though it was not brought primarily
| for that purpose. The appellant is a mem
| Der of the firm of PEBBLES & Burroughs, Of
| this city, advertising physicians. At the
| time the act of 1897 creating the board,
went into effect, DR.. Burroughs was prac-
| ticing medicine in the State and he pre-
scented diplomas from two eclectic colleges,
| but was refused certificate for license
| and was informed that there were charges
| against him which he must answer before
| the board before he could get a license. The
| suit was brought to compel the board to
issue to DR.. Burroughs certificate for a
| license and writ of mandate was asked.
| The Circuit Court decided against Dr. Bur-
roughs.
The argument yesterday was conducted by
| Byron K Elliott and James w. Noel for
DIR. Burroughs and the board was repre-
sented by Merrill Moores, deputy attorney
general of the State. The appellants argued
that the act Of 1897 creates an imperative
duty upon the board to issue a certificate to
physician already practicing in the State
upon the presentation of his old license and
an affidavit to the effect that it was regu-
larry issued TO him under the old law The
statute provides for two classes those who
had licenses at the time the new law went
larIy issued to him under the old law The
former class was exempt from examination
by the board and it is claimed that DR..
Burroughs belonged to this class. The act
of 1897, it was argued, does not intend that
physician in regular practice under IL
cense issued under the act of 1885 shall dis
continue the practice of his profession until
charges of unfitness or immortality can be
investigated and an adjudication pronounced
thereon in the indefinite and uncertain
future. The act of 1897 makes no such pro-
vision.
The appellants argued that the board
could not have judicial powers; that the
statute provided that charges against an
applicant for certificate should be verified
TO the Circuit Court. The attempt Of the
BOARD 10 try charges was therefore improp-
er It's powers could not be both ministerial
and judicial. If the board had power to sit
as Judicial tribunal in a controversy in
volving the right of the applicant to prac-
tice medicine, the applicant would be EN-
titled TO notice and hearing and the
the statute does not provide for such notice
and the board cannot therefore be clothed
with judicial power
1t was further argued that the board
could not go back and investigate the
methods by which the applicant secured
his old license and further that the reator
mas vested right in his profession which
cannot be questioned except in a tribunal
of purely judicial character The board has
no judicial power and none can be con-
ferred upon it. If the questions ,nWolv vE
the realtors right to a certificate are Judi
clal the board cannot try them; if they are
them. -
In conclusion the attorneys for the ap-
peliant asked that the law be held consti-
tutlonal If there be reasonable grounds for
SO constituting 1t, but in order to sustain the
law 1t must be construed as giving the
board ministerial and not judicial powers
Inc statute is unconstitutional if a finding
that "a license has been obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation is made to refer to a
70 the one creating the board, and it would
be unconstitutional if construed that any
other tribunal than the Circuit Court may
determine the guilt innocence of an ap-
plicant of felony or immortality.
Attorney Moores in his argument in sup
port of the action of the board in refusing
10 grant DIR. burroughs a license stated the
reasons for the new law. One reason was
to protect the people of the State from
quacks and Inscriptions persons who were
Tally imposing upon them; from men who
were patrons of the diploma mills-the al
.eged medical colleges which sell dipomas
broadcast without regard to the quaifica-
lions of the purchaser. The law was in
tended to contine the practice of medicine
as far as possible, to men who are COM
petent, and the State could judge of the
competency by three methods Those should
be deemed competent who presented diplo-
mas from reputable colleges, those who had
been practicing for a number of years be-
fore the passage Of the law and those who
could pass a satisfactory examination be-
fore the board.
Mr.. Moores argued that the act was a
valid exercise of police power and constitu-
| tional. He referred to similar laws which
had been sustained by nearly every State
! in the Union and nearly all the civilized
countries of the world. He denied that
| special notice must be given an applicant
| that he was to be tried by the board. He
argued that the applicant was necessarily
| before the board from the time his applica-
| ton was filed until his case was disposed
| of, and special notice would be superfluous.
He denied that there was any vested right
| in the profession. "A license" said he, lis
permission to do that which is otherwise I'M
| lawful. 1t conferS no vested rights and is
| in no sense a contract or property 1t may
| be revoked by the State at any time and in
| any way the State may designate"
He declared that the board had a perfect
right to investigate the character and abil-
| ity of applicants, and in doing so it was
not assuming judicial powers to such an eX-
tent or in such sense may not be consti-
tutionally delegated to an administrative
board.