The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1909-11-13
Ny MANDAMUs PROCEEDING IN
COURT.

ON the sth day Of February, 1904.
filed ga the superior court OF King
county my affidavit and petition for
a writ 81 mnndamus, which would
90 heard b. the courtj compel the
Dental board 20 exercise legal dis
erection. instead OF the arbitrary, un-
restrained power which they Ola
then as now. exercise
4 charged that had successfully
passed the dental examination by
answering correctly all questions
that were given which related 20
dentistry. ! charged that the board
had untawfmiiy. framdulently and
wrongfuNY Withheld my license.
charged that tie Dental Board had
diareRn rded their duties as examin-
ers under the law % this state, and
that they had fraudulrntly refused
me mN license I charged that the
board had demanded that sign
their notorious code and contract.
and ! set the code and contract out
ia fuil IN my petition 10 the court.
When my case was first called for
trial. the late Judge Hatch, 81 clal-
lam county, was sitting IN King
county as special Judge, and ask
ed and was granted an order from
the court. TO Doe compiled with with
iu ten days which order required
the Dental Board to allow me to in
speci my examination papers tap-
sMers so the boa rd's questiOnsA. i
dentists IN Seattle. and when they
HAD examined my answers IN one
subject Histology and found my
answers substantially correct. the
Dental Boards lawyer refused to
further comply with the courts or
der and J have never been allowed
TO see my examination papers be-
cause the next DAY the honorable
Judge Rudkin tnuw a Judge ~ our
supreme courtl was sitting as Judge
In ~ fnfAwa Hatch ard Whan
my attorney fMr. Parkerl said TO
the court that the Dental Board
had refused 10 comply with the or
der OF Judge Hatch, Judge Rudkln
refused 10 require the Dental Board
TO comply with the order and re-
fused to allow me continuance.
Notwithstanding ! had relied ON the
order OF Judge Hatch 10 be allowed
TO see my papers, and thereby pro-
duce evidence TO prove my charges,
and / surely did not expect nay case
10 be tried until this courts order
was complied with. Judge Rurkin
ruled that the only question before
the court was, whether the board
refused to grant my license because
I refused TO sign their code and con-
tract. and said the court, The de-
ctsion Of the Dental BOARD Is final
and conclusive upon all other ques-
tious"
The fact that had passed. hut
had not been treated fairly; the
wrongful unlawful and fraudulent
acts of the board could not be
proved under the rule OF the court,
In fact the court ruling IN effect
ference whether ! passed this COM
binc's personal examination, or
whether was accorded equal
rights. nor whether the Dental
Board acted fraudulently and
wrougfully. the court was not con-
Cerued
The combines notorious code and
contract. which was then before the
Judge. sets forth that. "If ] Rdver-
lise cut prices. or guarantee dental
work the Dental BOARD win not is-
sue me a license, and that in consid-
Grafton OF my being even permitted
90 take their examination. l Will
practice under their private rules
and for any violation of their pri-
waite rules | Will submit 20 being
run out OF this state tby the
gang ~"
This contract and code states that
/ could not get my license unless |
agreed TO It's terms. and when the
Dental Combines code and contract
as well as the arbitrary acts Of the
Dental Combine, my only recourse
was an appeal direct TO the people,
pending my appeal TO the United
States supreme court,
1 am not condemning nor even
tho courts OF the state.
am working out the principle of pri-
vate rights Of professional men, in
conformity with the Declaration OF
Independence and the constitution OF
the United states and " I fail viii
probably he driven from the state
or be put In iail. but what Is tho
I would sooner be IN
Jail than 10 yield my liberty 10 he
play toy In the hands OF mere men
who are unrostrained by tho pow
crs OF the government or reason
based o. principle. men are men on
~ whom principle makes them men.
Ia my next article. which I viii
publish in next Saturdays Star, /
VIII take my readers TO our SUI
prone court aud present this same
case. and quote to you what our
higher court said concerning the
private rights Of dentists.
Edwin J, brown, n. ID. ;. T.. ~.
fl3 First Av., Union Block.
open evenings until a. m. and
Sundays until p. IN. for people who
work