The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-11
It WINDS Up THE LIST
The Medical Bill Vetoed by the
Governor.
AIMED AT OSTEOPATHS
That Was the Contention of the Enemies
Of the Bul-The Supreme Court
Reporter Bill Received Ex-
ecutive Approval.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

| bills that came to the executive office
| from the state legislature. One was the
bill changing the law in regard to ap-
| peals from the state board of medical
| examiners, and the ether was the bill
abolishing the Office of supreme court
reporter. The former was vetoed and
the latter approved. The medical bill
as it has been called, was disapproved
because the executive found in it fea
lures that deprived the individual of
privileges as accorded by the constitu
ton. The object of the bill was to take
from an average jury the right to pass
upon the qualification of a candidate
for medical certificate who had failed
to pass the examination prescribed by
the state board of medical examiners.
The advocates of the bill claimed that
was a trifie paradoXical to empower a
jury of laymen with authority to pass
upon the fitness of candidate to prac-
tice medicine when such candidate has
been examined by board composed of
men Versed in medicine, and declared
unfit. The enemies of the bill claimed
it was aimed at the osteopaths Many
opponents of the bill are said to have
waited upon the governor in the last
few days and pointed out it's weak fea-
lures. The governors action in vetoing
the bill has aroused the ire of the medi-
cal profession. One of the members of
the medical board expressed himself
rather vigorously when apprised of the
governors action. The friends of the
osteopaths are correspondingly elated.
The governor gave the following reas-
ons for disappearing the measure that
is known to many as house bill No. 3S:
This bill denies the right of appeal
to any one examined by the board, and
who in the opinion of the medical board
is not entitled to practice. 1t is true.
the denial is limited to the question of
his fitness. But this is one of the prin-
cipaI questions in which the. applicant
is interested. Section 23 of article of
the constitution says: The right of
trial by jury shall be secured to all and
remain involable.'
This applies to all criminal or civil
matters of issue. 1t is urged that
jury of laymen can not pass on the
ability of physician: let us take it for
granted. Still the law could provide
for a jury of physicians or at least a
part of them to be of that profession.
This bill is dangerously near the line of
interfering with individual liberty and
denying the right the constitution gives.
l must therefore refuse my approval"
tor Stanton Of Cascade county, can en-
joy the distinction of being the last
measure passed by the Sixth Legislature,
upon which the governor acted. Late
this afternoon the governor approved
this bill. which abolishes the office of
supreme court reporter, and places the
duties of that position upon the JUS
tices writing the respective opinions In
consideration of the extra work each
justice is to receive s1.50O per annum
along with his regular salary This bill
evoked one of the most spirited debates
of the session in the house. Several of
the leading orators of the lower house
lined up for and against the measure.
It's enemies claimed it was designed to
increase the salary of the justices with
out affording the voters of the state
chance to express their will as should
be the case upon all constitutional
amendments, 1T being impossible to in
crease the salary of any state officer
without constitutional amendment.
The advocates of the bill contended
that the justices of the supreme court
were poorly paid and deserved the extra
compensation that the bill carried In
consideration of the criticisms that the
bill was unconstitutional the governor
in approving it set forth his reasons at
some length. The governor can find
nothing in the bill that makes it un-
constitutional. He says: Does senate
bill 80. providing that the judges CT the
supreme court shall report their own
decisions, and paying them therefor.
and abolishng the office of supreme
court reporter, conflict with our consti-
tuition?
Section 80, of article VIII, of the
constitution provides: The justices of
the supreme court and judges of the
district court shall each be paid quar-
terly by the state at a salary which
shall not be increased or diminished
during the term for which they have
been respectively elected. Unless other
wise provided by law the salary of the
justices of the supreme court shall be
$4,000 per annum each
ARTICLE VIII. section 35 of the con-
stitution, provides that no justice of the
supreme court shall hold any other pub
lie office while he remains in the office
to which he has been elected or ap-
pointed.
Article VIII, section 80. provides that
no justice of the supreme court shall
accept or receive any compensation,
fee, allowance, mileage, perquisite or
emolument for. or on account of his Of
flee in any form whatever, except the
salary provided by law"
Does this law imposing upon the
judges the duty of reporting their own
decisions. put upon them the functions
of any other Office, if so. then the act
is unconstitutional according to section
So, above quoted. The Office of su-
preme court justice is one created by
the constitution and its duties are ju-
dicial and they cannot be added to or
taken from by the legislature so as
to impose upon the court or its incum-
bent ministerial duties. If the mem
bers of the court should refuse to re-
port their decisions and prepare the
syllabi for publication as provided in
this act, no power could compel them
to do so or punish them for failure.
Preparing the syllabi and reporting the
decisions is not performin" the func-
tionS of any other or a new office. ttSte
eX parte Griffin, 11S Ind SD. If, then
they do not occupy any other office, the
bill is not obnoxious to section 35 OF
the constitution. Let US examine and