The Saint Paul globe., 1899-07-22

Judge Hines Decision Covers All
the Points In the Case Brought
by the State Medical Board to De-
termine the Construction of the
Law of IS97-The Trial a Test
Case of an AmicabIe Character,
In the test case brought against W.
T. Gassaway by the state medical board
to determine the construction of the
law of 1897, regulating the practice of
medicine, Judge Hine rendered a decision
yesterday holding the defendant to the
grand jury. The trial was of an AMIGA
BILE nature. In the decision Judge Htne
says:
complaint of Dr. j. B. Brimha1I with
having practiced medicine without a
license SO to do. and with having on
June 70, 1889, at the city of st. Paul for
Iee' prescribed for the use of John H
vincent certain medicine for the treat
suffering. ~
The facts as disclosed show that Vim
cent was suffering from rheumatism,
ana that he spoke to the defendant about
- ah9 the defendant gave him a prescrip-
ION q d, Ior medicine that he had filed at
drug store; that defendant told Vim
cent 1T was a medicine for curing rheu-
mat1sm, and told him how to use If and
~ hh9ncent paid him for it; that defendant
amie9lclne from the state board; that he
H1e6 with the secretary Of the board an
qSaE HqH5oavlt stating that prior to April e.
1889, at 81 Paul, from March l to April
l. IS9o' he practiced medicine
Ihls proceeding brings mainly its con-
81 efr4c6lon Ic1l OF certain clauses of the act
oI 1901 establishing the state board of
medical examiners as that act stands
amended by the law Of 1886
II IS claimed by the state that only
such sIch persons as have practfced prior to
the enactment of the 1887 act can be ad-
mltted to practice upon filing an affidavit:
this that II 6Re ne, words % prior to the passage of
tiils ti law IN the act of 1895 mean prior to
tHe IaW OF 1887 as so amended and speak
from the law of 1887. an
1t Is claimed by the state that numer-
ous % persons had been examined under the
acI @ OF 1S6l and rejected and the legtsla-
Iute . could not have intended to have ad-
~. GtI. tGu 81 them upon filing an affidavit I'm
ger ger the ] act OF 1888 three classes of persons
ere gre provided for, namely, those having
ulPlo1nas; those who had practiced fve
Years prior to Its passage, and all other
RRefSons Red ms tIo ana that class of persons who
IroIn 166n, Its provisions. Under the ACT of
1907 there is no exception in favor Of those
Ie persons who had been in practice five
ers WonI6 Rii9T 10. 10 1885 Those old practition-
SEo66eHse So6e by practicing under the act of
41ot without license, and it seems to ma
persons 'eTwIng nyeI11g me two acts it was these
Mynorn tyd the legislature had in contemniao
tbe 1Ii;i III as 10 whom 1t intended to extend
affide Wy iIeg9 re- OF practicing upon filing an
1+nii5 taii9' w. Inc legislature for a good and
1d Hand reason excepted those certain eariU lriU
Pcactlt1oners from the proyfsionS Of +b
enfitIa 0f Ga 1SSS but this exemption does not
SnCIlle persons of another class 70 o1aio
the exemption as a legal right 0if'ii1
- must be conceded that this dAfend-
cai; eiai,n5 Pffac{[1cing "a as he did and as he
the law IA of ms SO&1 &a1rldayit to have done while
80 ISW OF 1881 unamended was in force
was violating that law, and I capnot
conceive 1t possible that there was anw
ment 70 I'm IN nlnd in enacttng the amend
tI tLelS : 70 Iree men who were then vioIafinc
lie Iiie law ana allow them to use their o1UT
w. fEnoIIg oolng as basis and justifica tion
rGr rfIr,, IIecoming lawful practitioners pv SO
slInPIe sttE method as filing an afi3avit
settlng forth their own transeraseio1.I 1sI
T., Atls ms is precisely the condition of affairs
ac+ tlle nf 1eaa Heatter under consideration The
since It's enactment. The defe1da1+ bo5 90
oeen violating its provisions and his oIst-7
i1tli1deiI 5n c1eit,, comedies that fact. How can
ne claim immunity from its penalties
W1Ie still insisting on. his own Wron~9 60
II seems to me that it is not at eli
fSo+a1ned framed, construction co to hold that the
affidaIit oL Ine legislature was that the
SS1lIGaVlI StII authorized to be filed should set
Iorth the times and places where fbe
sioIant ana mad legally .practiced his profes
6TactfcnG g d sbn;I1a InIy SUCH as had so legally
ny that method, and from that date FOR
Ward intend to prescribe another method
affidavit. '' 0S ming
1t seems to me that within the scona
OF TINS statute all practitioners are re-
CURED to obtain a license. Different
MODES of procuring such license are nre
scrlbed, one of which is by affidavif as
IN the case at bar, but the mere fiIine oP
such affidavit unless followed bv Il
cense cannot be held to authorize anv
1SOu WnOeV6f he NAV ha n -
practice. P1'e7" ~
s,.IIl There are many people who could truth
d4lly ~ make as full an affidavit as that
OF the defendant in this case. from the
man or woman who advises his neigh
Dor or friend what to do for cold or
neadache to the person who claims nv
INVOCATION to cure disease or the person
VINO claims by some undisclosed concoc-
tlon TO relieve all ills or the person who
standing in a wagon on a street corner
IN the glare of the gasoline lamp and ac-
compan1ed by colored minstrel claims
TO remove eXcreSences or to perforrn
other operations. We then have the All
surd conclusion, if the defendants con-
tention is correct, that all persons prac-
tcaliy may make affidavit and practice
medicine, the incompetent and unfit per.
sons being free from supervision while
the capable, trained medical man is sub
1ect to strict discipline by the board
do not think such a contention can pre-
vail.