The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-25

public attention and discussion. Many
newspapers are still active in publishing
opinions for and against, and it is still
made the text of many newspaper editor
laIs- 80 lar as Chrlstian science itself Is
concerned, with some notable exceptions.
II cannot find fault with the average OF
newspaper m
! Among the many Interesting newspaper
results of this case, is a symposium pub
lished in the Sunday Chronicle of Chi
cage. OF Nov. -, 1893, under the heading
OF Briefs for and Against Christian
Seience-Its Advocates and Its Opponents
Talk"
LAWYERS OPINIONS.
Upon the question of legal responsibility.
a number of lawyers were interviewed,
1lrst of whom was Stephen "A. Douglas,
son of the celebrated statesman, Senator
Douglas of Illinois,. Mr.. Douglas said:
THE proposition appears TO me TO be a
very simple one, although l do not claim
to be = criminal lawyer. A man cannot
be prosecuted for what he did not DO.
There is no affirmative charge here. If
the indictment were brought il would
charge the Christian Scientist with fail
ing TO save the lie Of the patient, which
is a negative charge. Again, intent must
be shown, and there is no assumption that
these people intended to bring about the
death of Frederic. II would be the same
as though you 8 seen a man drowning
and a tried to save him according to
your lights, which might be to stand on
the docks and yell for help. If he drowned.
you could scarcely be held criminally re-
sponslhle Tor his death. These people
90 the best they can to save their p1tentS
according TO the forms OF their belief, anu
il would be hare to prove in a court of
law that q man or woman who sat by the
bedside Of a dying man and prayed for his
recOVery was responsible before the .-w
for his death. That is really what such
an Indictment would amount TO. Ine
question of duress, Of restraining a
patient and excluding regular physicians
against the will of the sick man, is an
entirely different one. There is no evil
dence, so far as / know, hat this was
done. and. on the contrary, Frederic APP
proved of the Christian Science treat
ment, and was in a measure a believer in
the theory
The next was Robert Redfeid, who was
for years connected with the city law de-
partment of Chicago. He said;
u nave not delyed very deeply. into
Christian Science, but in the strict Letter
of the law l fail to see how an exponent
of that faith could be held %cTirninaily re-
sponsible for what practically amounts 10
q negative act AS well might practicinS
physicians be held accountable Tor the
death OF patients. There is 10 law max
ing it a criminal offence 10 pray over a
sick man and urge him to do the same,
and if he dies while voluntarily following
out this practice no one is responsible, so
far as / can see. What the circumstances
in the Frederic case may be / cannot say.
as 1 have not looked into it; but il these
women who are under Indictment C1d
nothing except join with the patient in
prayer, l fail 10 see how they can be held
Crllllaahy liable
James Todd. who. as assistant states
attorney under Jacob j. Kern. had a WIDE
experience as a criminal lawyer, was also
Of the opinion that q prosecution Tor man
slaughter would not avail IN the case
quoted.
The only question in my mind" said
Mr. Todd, is. whether the doctors or
the Christian Scientists allow the greater
number of people 10 die. There is no
law 70 compel a man TO summon a
physician when he is sick. There is no
law which avs he snail summon a
doctor of any particular school,, whether
hCmoeOp2th. or an aliODath, or an OSte-
Opath or a Christian Scientist II Chris
tan Scientists could be prosecuted sue
cessfully for ailur TO save the lives of
the people they attempt 10 cure, so could
physicians. ! lave examined more tnan
eighty physicians OF the class generally
denOminated experts. on mental questions
and the causes OF death. and | nave
found there was no unanlmlIy on any
medicine are that far apart, now can Il
be expected that failure to say life can
be made a criminal responsibility?
The nub of the question, after all. how
ever, is that you cannot convict without
proving the intention, and intention can
not be inferred from a negative act.
Ever 70 convict . Christian Scientist of
being ar accessory would fah, since Il
must be shown that the defendant was
al accessory to the death by some act,
word, or token, whereas the Christian
0G4Eill4SI JULIUS dAA HIS VI IGA CiiNC6 fQAS
to p~rolonging or saving life, and if they
fail it is absurd to talk of prosecution
Half Il dozen other attorneys heid al
most precisely the same view, and none
was found who would say hat there vas
any possibility of bringing about 4 con-
VicJiCn n such a case, even were an IN
dictmeDt to be Ound.
Colonel Thomas i. Hartigan has recent
" investigated the matter relating to the
liability cTiminally Of Christian Scientists,
or faith curerS. in cases of death follow
%nr Aag .~ma-raA- IL hn. fnr-n1 En-nn
decisions of interest in this connection.
In one state the highest court has held
such practitioners having complied
with the registration law, can sue and
recover for the value of their services.
Arguing conversely. he asserts that they
cannot be held liable for failures 10 saw
any more than could physicians of
recognized schools Of medicine.
If q man can collect "a fee for serv-
ices" he said. then he is subject 70 the
rule of all others engaged in the same
profession. To = hin criminally
it must be shown that ne was
crlminally negligent IN applying his
knowledge and skill. Here is where
u a case would rail. Faith curerS of all
kinds bend all their energies 10 produce !
good results. They believe, or assert a
belief, in the power of divine heallng- I
-e1udiate medicines and the ordl-
nary methods of treatment, but zone
say that they intend TO injure the
patient.
THE Encyclopedia of American and
49, - A-
and Surgeons, contains a syllabus
Of the Maine doctrine. which sets at rest
the question so far as this enlightened
state is concerned. The case cited is that
Of Wheeler VS.. Sawyer. fifteenth Atlantic 4
page 81. The syllabus declares
the Maine law says that no person
who has not received a medical degree in
any public institution of the United
States or of Maine shall recover for his
services, unless prior to the treatment he
has obtained a certificate Of good moral
character from the municipal authorities
OF the town where he lives. II a Chris
tian Science healer has obtained such a
certificate of good moral character. he
can recover for his services
Now. if a man can sue and recover for
such services. it would seem that he
cannot be hello liable for failure any
more than could any other kind of
healer. 1t must be shown afirmatively
that he intended to compass the
heath or serious injury of. the victim. or
mis- gross and criminal carelessness .