The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-17


tients might call in an NJ. d. So it is
the dollars the doctors are after! Shame
on such thought from such source!
1t is not for me to defend the medical
profession from this slur. The thousands
of lives of physicians sacrificed on the
altar of science refute it, where ever
cholera or small pox or yellow fever RACES
the fiercest there you will find physicians
in the vanguard of the fight: not the mis-
erable charlatans whose cause he esopuses
but that class he endeavors to hold up to
ridicule. Ali over the civilized world to-
day, they are laboring not to make more
business for themselves but to make less;
not to increase the ravages of diseases
but to diminish them.
He sarcastically asks if certain things
are wrong when done for fee or reward
why are they not wrong when done with
out fee or reward. No one knows the rea-
son better than the Chief Justice him
self He knows there is world of differ
ence between man protesting to cure all
diseases for fee or regard and the friendly
assistance one may render friend. If
the Legislature has prohibited the latter
also, the writer would have been the
first to get up and howl. Besides there is
| ing on business unless the money is in
sight But his satire reaches the climax
when he dramatically eXclaims, why the
act would even take in all the old wo-
men and herb doctors" God forbid!
What would become of our State with the
| old grannies and the herb doctors ex-
cluded. And he pathetically adds why
even an oculist or aurist or corn doc
tor would have to be licensed. What do
| you think of a man who puts on the
same level the man who treats the eye
or ear with the one who trims hard and
| soft corns? There are many learned phys
| clans in this State who would not dare to
treat such delicate organs as the eye or
| ear. but would send their patients to a
specialist and yet our Chief Justice ridi-
cules the idea of an oculist or aurist be-
| ing licensed.
Justice Clark says "this is a free coun-
/ try, ana any man has right to be treat
] ed by any system he chooses" Follow
ers of "a certain path believe that con-
sumption can be cured by discarding
clothes: that the effect of the sun on
the naked skin would effect cure. I
would like to ask the Chief Justice if I
try this experiment on some of my pa
tients here and the police run them in for
indecent exposure, if he will promise to
declare that part OF the police law un-
constitutional? But the richest morsel,
the priceless pearl of the whole decision
is this-if a man "get improper treatment
for children or other under his care where.
by they are injured, he is liable to pun
ishment, but whether it was proper treat
ment or not is a matter of fact to be set
tied by jury of his peers.' Shades of
Aesculaprius, protect and defend us.
Many moons will wax and wane ere the
last shaft Oh ridicule is shot at our Su-
preme Court 1or this unfortunate declara-
tion.
Ever since Corbett was knocked out
by blow on the solar pleXus, the solar
pleXus has been quite fad among charla-
tans of all kinds. Now suppose poor.
ignorant country man, the kind the Chief
Justice refers to in the decision, calls in
solar plexus fellow to see his sick child.
The solapatL tickles the aforesaid solar
plexus of the child, and the little one lays
over and dies: it is immaterial whether
it dies from disease or disgust, it is dead
The question arises whether or not the
treatment was proper and our Chief
Justice gravely asserts that twelve of his
peers, twelve unfortunates as ignorant as
himself, should decide Can not imagine
thousand different cases, where such a
course of procedure would make North
Carolina the butt and laughing stock of
the civilized world?
One more illustration. The decision
says there are many systems of medicine,
but only one system of law. The science
| of medicine is an experimental one while
the science of law is absolute If this be
true how is it court number two re-
verses court number one and court num-
Der three over-turns them both? If there
is but one system of law why does not
our Supreme Court stand in this matter
with the Supreme Courts of nearly every
other State in the Union. And he furth
er says any one is allowed to draw legal
instruments without being licensed. Very
true, but what good can a man do client
if he cannot go in Court and defend the
instrument? We have as one of our resi-
dents an eX-judge of Supreme Court in
Illinois. There is no question about his
experience or his learning, but it was
Chief Justice Clark himself who wrote
him that he would not be allowed to prac-
tice in court without an examination.
ed by lawyers 1t is almost as bad as a
doctor being examined by doctors. The
decision quotes the law in Lawton vs.
Steele. That opinion speaks ''of occupa-
tions harmless in themselves, and which
might be carried on without detriment to
the public interests
When we think of the ruin and the
havoc with which human life is threaten
ed under this decision, the incongruity OF
this quotation makes it too absurd Tor
comment But in spite of the learned
Justices labored argument and specious
pleading to put the quack in a favorable
light with the public, he finally has to
admit that it is within 'the scope of the
police power for the State to regulate
the practice of medicine and surgery
How then is the act unconstitutional?
Herein is mystery. He says 'the act
essay to change the meaning of words to
be found in every dictionary" Let us
see: The Century dictionary defines
medicine as anything that has curative