The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-10
The Supreme Court De-
cides in His Favor.
DECISION BY CLARK
II is an Elaborate Presentation of the
Facts and Conclusions Drawn
From Them, in Which JUS
tees Conner and Walker
Concur.

The following Is the decision of the SUI
preme Court, written by Judge Clark in
the case of the State against Biggs, the
osteopathist of Greensboro. Judge Clark
finds the defendant not guilty, reversing
the decision Of the lower court. Justice
Common and Walker concur in the result.
Here is the text of the decision:
The defendant is indicted on charge
that he did unlawfully and wilfully be-
gin, engage in and continue the practice
OF medicine and surgery and the branches
thereof for fee or reward without having
obtained license so to do from the board
of medical examiners of the State of
North Carolina Upon the facts found
the court was of opinion that the defend
ant was guilty. The defendant appealed
from the judgment imposed.
The special verdict found that the de-
PENDANT advertised himself as a mon
medical physician that he held himself
out to the public to cure diseases by
system of drugless healing, and treats
patients by said system without medicine,
advertises TO cure by natural methods,
without medicine or surgery The only
acts that he is found by the verdict to
have performed are that che administers
massage, baths and physical culture, man
ipuates the muscles, bones. spine and
solar plexus and kneads the muscles with
the fingers OF the hand. He writes no
prescriptions as to diet, but advises his
patients what to eat and what not to eat;
all the above treatment is administered
to the exclusion of drugs" 1t was ad-
mitted that the defendant was not licensed
by the State Medical Board, and he claims
no exemption under the provisions of the
act of 1903. as a nurse, midwife, nor as
one curing by prayer, and then there is
the important finding that 1.-The defend
ant charges fee or reward for his ser
vices and has treated patients by the
above treatment and received payment
therefor since the passage of chapter 697,
laws of 1903. ITO Define the Practice of
Medicine and Surgery
Section 1924 of the Code requires that
every person who applies for license to
practice medicine or surgery or any of
the branches thereof" shall stand an ex-
animation in anatomy, physiology, sur
gerry, pathology, medical hygiene, chem
istry, pharmacy, materia medica,
therapeutics, obstetrics and the practice
of medicine" There was added by chap
ter III, laws of 1885. the following pro-
vision: "And any person who shall be-
gin the practice of medicine or surgery
in this State for fee or reward, after
the passage Of this act, without first hav-
ing obtained license from said board of ex-
amners (meaning the State Board of
Medical Examiners shall not be entitled
to sue for or recover before any court any
medical bill for services rendered in the
practice of medicine or surgery or any Of
the branches thereof, but shall also be
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon con-
viction thereof shall be fined not less than
$25 nor more than one hundred dollars
or imprisoned at the discretion of the
court for each and every offense."
CONsTITUTIONALITY
The constitutionality of this last act
has been vigorously assailed in the courts
on the ground that every one had an
''inalienable right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness as our great decla-
ration phrases it. and that by that guar
antee it is the right of every one to earn
his livelihood by pursuing any calling or
vocation not unlawful, and that to place
his liberty to do so within the power of
a committee chosen by. those already
pursuing any given calling would be to
infringe upon section 7. article 1, of our
State Constitution. which forbids exclusive
privileges and emoluments to any set of
men and section 81 of the same article
which prohibits "monopolies and perpet
uities." OF late years there has been
added the argument that such act is also
obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment
to the constitution of the United States,
which prohibits any state Ito deny to
any person the equal protection of the
law"
There was undoubtedly great force in
the argument on that side. The law
making power slowly in this state and
in others. yielded to the view that 1t
could or should pass such acts. In
1879. chapter 25S. it first Incorporated
''The State Medical Society" and au-
thorized the above examination and pro-
hibited anyone to practice medicine or
surgery or prescribe for the cure of dis
seases for fee or reward without such
license. but was careful to add pro-
viso that no one who should practice
without such license should be guilty OF
a misdemeanor, the only penalty being
not recover his fees in the courts The
law remained thus till the above recited
act. passed in 1885 and which was made
prospective. The constitutionality of this
last statute was fully considered and
after a most able argument against 1t by
counsel was sustained by this court, but
not without great hesitation, and upon
the ground solely that the act was IAN
exercise of the police power for the pro-
lection of the public against incompaterts
and impostors, and in no sense the crea.
ton of monopoly or special privileges.
If the object of the act could be construed
as intended to give s. ecial and exclusive
privileges to a special body of men. and
not solely and in truth for the protection
of the public, the legislature was prohib-
tied by the constitution from enacting
it, nor could the legislature restrict the
cure of the body to the practice of "med
icine and surgery or establish any state