The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1909-10-30
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE DENTAL COMBINE

preme court. speaking through Mr..
Justice Hadlcy. denied Smith re-
lief. as well az all OF US who we're
by law entitled TO our license. be.
cause Of our residence In this state
at the time the law was enacted
and our having complied with the
requirement OF the law. In this
case the court said:
The state may adopt a standard
for the test OF fitness TO engage in
the work OF what should be a learn.
ed profession. When that standard
10 adopted, those who assume 10 do
the work Of such profession must
prove their fitness by the test OF
such standard" II Is. indeed. diff
cult 20 ascertain the basis for this
line Of reasoning. because the state
OF Washington. by It's dental law.
does not prescribe any standard.
but allows the dental board TO adopt
its own standard. This decision OF
our supreme court. In State OK rel.
Smith VS.. Dental Examiners, 3lst
Washington. se4. has formed the
basis for denying dentists their con.
stitutional rights In this state. be-
cause the Law OF 1898 provided that
a person who studied under q pre-.
eeptor in this or any other state for
ten years, could take the dental ex.
animation prescribed by the law OF
1898 and get his license TO practice.
The decision ignored all who had
studied under preceptors for eight
years, and drove them from this
state II they desired 90 continue I'm
the practice Of their profession. In
this opinion the court said: 1T is
manifest that by 50 praeticlng den.
tistry. he (Smith) was violating the
terms OF the law OF 1898, since he
never passed an examination emit.
Ting him 20 be registered. and was
not qualified TO be even admitted 10
examination either by reason OF
holding a diploma from a dental col.
loge or OF having practiced the re-
quired time"
The above decision is excessive
In the extreme. because the law of
1898. section S082, Ballinger's Code.
provides. when defining the practice
of dentistry. that nothing In this
chapter contained shall be taken TO
apply to bona.fide students of den
tlstry or one In pursuit of clinical
advantages under the direct super.
vision OF a preceptor or licensed
dentist I'm this state"
Therefore. many who had been
lawfully studying dentistry under
the law OF 1893. for from five 10
eight years. were surely destroyed
by the mere stroke OF the pen, and
without reason and In violation OF
the constitution of the state OF
Washington and the constitution OF
the United States.
Under the law of 1898 II was law.
full TO study dentistry under a pre-.
ceptor. Under the law as II now Is
the study OF dentistry is prohibited
In this state, and even when a
Washington son leaves this state
TO study dentistry In a college. he
is criminal II he returns home and
works under preceptor during his
college vacation
In my next article | shall show
now ! was examined by the dental
board In 1908. After that you will
take a trip into court with me and
see how the private rights OF Amer
lean citizens are not protected by
our eourts--in other words, | am
going TO demonstrate that dentist
has no rights in Washington which
he can enforce, and which the Den.
tai Combine are bound (under and
by law to respect.
EDWIN j. BROWN.
7l3 First Ave, Union Block.
Open evenings until o'clock and
Sundays until for people who
| work