The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-28

MORNING, OCTOBER. % |
| ton as to whether person engaged in
its practice came within the scope of stat
utes regulating the practice OF medicine
and surgery Several States held that
it did; others that it did not. In State
VS.. Mcknight, 131 n. c., III, this court
held that an osteopath did not come
within our statutes regulating the prac
| tice of medicine and surgery.
In McKnight's case, State VS.. Leffrlng
81 Ohio State, 80. 46 L. R. A., p. 1874, is
cited. Subsequent to the decision IN
Leffring's case the Legislature of Ohio
passed an act in which more comprc-
hensive definition of the practice of medi-
| cine was given This enactment was
passed upon by the Supreme Court of
that State in Gravetts case, 60 Ohio
State, 289: So l.. r. A, 791. This case is
relied upon in the brief of counsel for
the appellant to sustain the attack upon
the constitutionality of the law by the
General Assembly of North Carolina here
inbefore recited. 1t IS supbmitted that
this case establishes one proposition con-
tended for by the State, as the followin
citations will show: Where the
pursuit concerns in q direct manner the
public health and welfare, and is of sucn
a character as to require special course
OF study or training or experience to
qualify one to pursue euch occupation
with safety to the public interests. il is
within the competency of the General
Assembly to enact reasonable regulations
to protect the public against evils which
may result from incapaclty and igno-
rance. And the Legislature has ample
power to protect the public health and
welfare by providing that only the learned
may pursue 4 learned profession whose
activities so closely affect them
"The definition of what constitutes the
practice of medicine as defined in the act
OF 1903 embraces the osteopath, and the
mode or manner of determining his quail
fications to practice his profession is Q
question purely within the domain of leg
islation.
I'm the first place it will be observed
that by the terms of the statute 'appli-
csnts not belonging to the regular school
OF medicine shall not be required to stand
an examination except upon the branches
taught in their regular colleges The
statute then gives list of certain
branches applicable alike to all of tic
class of practitioners known as osteo-
paths. In the absence of anything appear
ing in the record to the contrary, it
must be assumed that the legislative
classification OF branches prescribed for
osteopths represents the curriculum which
obtains in their colleges. The mere sug-
gestion of counsel that such a course Of
study is unreasonable cannot avail. Ii
is submitted that the Legislature has
found as a fact that the branches men
toned in the statute are those taught in
the school of Osteopathy. There is Ger
tainly nothing unreasonable in requiring
the applicant to undergo an examination
upon the very studies taught in mis- own
institutions.
The statute applies alike to all persons
belonging to the same class, that is, to al
osteopaths. In such cases the Legisla-
ture is the sole judge of the classification
and the law is constitutional.
There is nothing in the statute which
indicates any intention on the part of the
Legislature to deprive any person of his
statute are clearly within the police pow
Ell and its purpose is to prevent the in
competent osteopath from practicing rs
profession. The contention of the de-
PENDANT that the act prescrbes all Others
than the adherents of the two schools
mentioned cannot be sustained. In East
man VS.. State, supra, it is said: 'WheG
intelligent and educated men differ in
Glot no
power to condemn the one or approve
the other, but it may require learning
and skill in the school OF medicine which
the physician processes to practice
The second ground upon which the
defendant bases his contention that the
act n unconstitutional is not tenable. The
Legislature has the power to determine
the composition of the board, and the
objection that the board is composed en-
tirely of allopaths cannot be sustained.
IN State VS.. Gravett, supra, the atten-
ton of the Supreme Court OF Ohio was
called to the fact that there is no mem
Der of the board representing the school
OF Osteopathy' In reply to this sugges-
ton the court said: 1t could not be
maintained, and we do not understand
counsel to contend, that the boar of med-
Cal tAdlIlludllOu lIIuSl pC ~ HUMOROUS -
body that it may have member o.
every existing or possible school, In Iowa
Medical Association VS. Schrader 81
Iowa, p. $50; 20 l.. r. A., at p. 1853, it Is
said: Much is said in argument about
the composition of the defendant board
as to the different schools of medicine,
but, as the statute does not require that
the different schools shall be represented
on the board, its composition cannot at
feet its jurisdiction or the legality OF
its acts in the respect under consldera-
ton
'''The statement in the brief of counsel
that the effect of the law is to create
monopoly for the a]lopaths' is without
foundation. As is said in Eastman
case: Tho State has an interest IN the
life and health of all its citizens, ana
the law under examination was framed
not to bestow favors upon particular
profession, but to discharge one OF the
highest duties of State, that OF protect
ing its citizens from injury and harm.