The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-07-21

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 decision
yesterday holding the defendant to the
grand jury. The trial was of an AMIGA
Die nature. In the decision Judge IIine
says:
co The defendant nc Mt is charged upon the
having having practiced medicine without a
license SO to do, and with having on
June 70, 1889, at the city of st. Paul for
fee, prescribed for the use of John II
vincent certain medicine for the traat
ment of a disease of which Vincent was
suffering. wa"
oa The facts as disclosed show that Vim
cent was suffering from rheumatism,
ana that he spoke to the defendant about
- !! any the oeIendant gave him a prescrip-
tioH Tor medicine that he had filed at
urug store; that defendant told Vim
cent 1t was medicine for curing rheu-
Lnatlsm, and told him how to use it. and
vincent YIN paid him for it; that defendant
mas never received a license to nracfice
medicine from the state board: that he
IlieG with the secretary of the board an
aiadavlt stating that prior to April %.
1000 a. ~. L duI, from March / To
l. 1879, he practiced medicine.
rms proceeding brings mainly its con-
s9ruc con OF certain clauses of the act
u 1881 establishing the state board Of
amended by the law of 1885
II is claimed by the state that on1v
S st1 persons as have practiced prior to
the enactment of the 1857 act can be ad
nnlltted to practice upon filing an afidaVit:
mat the words prior to the passage Of
ms thI law, in the act of 1885 mean prior to
from the law of 1887 ~ '''N
1t is claimed by the state that nuner-
Gus Gus persons sons had been examined under the
ture could not have intended to heVe ID
nltted them upon filing an affidavit. lin
uer the act of 1888 three classes of persons
Cin1d pooE!ued Tor, namely, those having
S ulplotnas; those who had practiced five
Years prior to its passage, and eli other
PPot HoIs ana that class of persons who
frol,, prfact1ced five years were excepted
1851 there is no exception in favor of thoea
PEI e sohs VINO had been in practice five
er esr Wd RTl9r to 1SS5 Those old practtion
IUoadeehse by practicing under the oct 81
t9ot without license and it seems To mo
IAN IhaS IN viewing the two acts it was these
whom tb eA9 7aaI,Iist from the act of 1888
80 GoIoi u me legislature had in contemp1ao
Al In ana as TO whom it intended to extend
a ~ f9 ap[!Vllege of practicing upon filing an
Vaiid , -: Inc legislature for good and
Qri
PractIt1oners from the provisions of +b
entitIa !ooo out this exemption does NOT
H. ei[ re persons OF another class to claim
LIZ exemption as legal right
1t must be conceded thai tbis doro,z
Csiaj ~, PI.acIIclng as he did and as he
the Ia IN II ms o5 9ffidavit to have done While
was violating that law. and 7 ooD,ooS.
conceive 1t possible that there was anW
rioe4tton In mind in enacting the amend.
the law ae e9 men VINO We're then violating
70
wrong doing as basis and iustifica tion
Tor becoming lawful practitioners nv, Ct
setting q for met4qd as filing an afldavit
ms is precisely the condition Of affairs
~ INC dnatter under consideration Tba
Sinoo oh &c; 1901 mas been continuously in force
oeen violating its provisions and HE oI.1~9
alad3yit comedies that fact. How can
NE GIa I'M, immunity from its penalties
WLlIe Stlll insisting on his own wrong9
1t seems to me that it is not OF e1i ,
STRAINED construction to hold +bo+ +b
t4t4elehtlon of the legislature was that the
9 fort authorized to be filed should set
a4 4 the times and places where the
an1ant had legally practiced his nrof tSe
n go @tl9 GHIy such as had so legally
PPIaf ftot should be entitled to continue
ny tnat method, and from that date for
Wdru intend to prescribe another method
% procuring a license, namely, by filing
1t seems to me that within the scona
OF TINS statute all practitioners are re-
CURED to obtain a license. Different
hoGes OF procuring such license are IRE
scrlbed. one of which is by AFFIDAVIT as
IN IN the case at bar, but the mere filing of
such afhdavit unless followed bV IL
cense cannot be held to authorize any
practice. P-0O7u "
The. There are many people who could truth
d9liy make as full an affidavit as that
OF the defendant in this case. from the
ma or woman who advises his neigh
Dor or friend what to do for cold or
headache to the person who claims h.
INVOCATION to cure disease or the person
VINO claims by some undisclosed concoc-
tIon to relieve all ills or the person who
standlng In wagon on a street corner
IN the glare of the gasoline lamp and az
eompanied by a colored minstrel claims
10 remove eXcresences or to perform
other operations. We then have the All
surd conclusion. if the defendants con-
tenuon is correct, that all persons prac-
ucally may make affidavit and practice
medicine med the incompetent and unfit per.
sons being free from supervision while
the capable, trained medical man is sub
?ect to strict discipline by the board.
do not think such contention can pre-
vail.