The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1911-03-04
The Story of washington's
Dental Conspiracy
Court Mistake No. 3

e That John smith case. recorded ia 81
wafh. go That I have been writing on.
affords opportunity fer much criticism
'esonse fnnnarasntal principles Of con-
stitnfipnHi law are wholly lacking. and
the judgment ~ the court IL based on
fAlse assumption and 10 not founded on
The las. and he facts as stated b. stipu-
istion. We lind IN the syllabus q this
cas- a. erroneous editorial which may
bs Responsible. Tor a chain ~ decisions,
which have deprive ed Dentists Of their
constitutional riFhf IN this state and
made u Imperative that ! should write
this series ~ sfticies on this chain OF
court nisiaheA And again ! say. ] am
net GeiuE this because ] like to. but be-
eAess am compelled to The editor
said.
SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"
Laws for the r-xuisfian Of the prae-
ticr Of Dentistry fail within the police
power Of the stale. and hence are not
unconstitutional ON the Erauad Of infrisg-
Ing the rights Of the individual"
We al know that simply because q
Law regulates The practice u Dentistry
u - NOT unconstitutional. but a law
which emily pfefsnds 20 regulate tho
praetirs % bcufiffry. while Ia fact 10
gives an absolute power and monopoly
% 1--WE men 70 regulate the practice of
Dentistry. and destroy the lives Of
other Dentists. and deprive their families
% their Support. and a law that does
The esnsrtuiianailfy % the Dental law
was NOT touched on IN the smith case.
yet II you look at the editors notes.
cor ruurf IL said TO have held the iaw
Unconstitutional. and the ease Is 50 cited
and quoted ia many later eases
In coming 10 the case proper our court
said. The sotr question involved In this
case Il whether appellant gsmithl IL en-
titled Ca be- Registered n Dental prae-
iiiiener In The state Of Washington" In
rH 4
showed and proved that John Smith had
lawfully studied and practiced Dentistry
under a prece rfor, unSer the law Of 1884.
Tor five years. 1 showed that the law OF
1901 prov ides for certificates for ali who
had studied and practiced under the Law
of 1893. because otherwise they could
not continue 90 study and practice. unless
they had the special grant OF nobility
themselves ala not have. John smith
had no diploma. and when the court de-
nied him his right under the laws Of 1888
and 1891. Tho state. through It's court.
was not regulating the practice % Dem
iisffas bat was prohibiting John smith
from studying and practicing Dentistry.
which was bis lawful and constitutional
right 60 30. Even tie danger TO health
or safety should not Justify the absolute
prohibition af useful industry or prae-
tice where the danger can he dealt with
by r~guiatipn. said the court In "treeus-
bare khr~nreich--so Ala. sss- and
Y
$751;" A profession may be regulated by
the state. bat regulation Is not prohibi-
tion. and the study OF Dentistry - pro-
hihitcd bs law IN Washington. ! again
quote the iancnage OF our supreme court
IN the Sn1ith case. THE stale may
adopt standard for the test Of fitness
10 engage Ina the work of what should
be a learned profession When that stand
ard j. adopted, those who assume 10 do
the werk 81 such profession must
prove their fitness by the test Of such
standard"
NIsrAsE No. s.
Our court assumes that the state OF
Washington has prescribed a standard
% qualification 81 Dentists. hut IL has
not. unless "A diploma from n Dental
college. the righffui possession Of the
same aud coed moral character COM
prisss the standard IN this state, because
that IL all that the state has prescribed.
yet the Dental Board OF this state ex-
smiucs Dentists IN spelling, writing. Ian
guaEe. scientific chemistry Of the highest
degree. anatomy that not specialist In
surgery, could pass upon. and members
Of this board boast that n Dentist
had access TO all the text books in a
city he could not la-r the examination
In fact an. state Dental Board pre-
scfibos the standard OF qualifications
Cor Dentists In Washington and surely tho
Dental Board j. the state SO far as
Dentist il concerned. and Court Mistake
to recognize this fact The Dental Board
exercises the legislative powers and ID
regulates the practice Of Dentistry 90 suit
the Dental Combine. instead Of such
power being exercised by the state
through its legislature,
In the case of Dent vs. state OF West
virginia, tho United states supreme court
said. "rhe nature ana extent Of quaiifi-
cations required must depend primarily
upon the Judgment Of the state a. To
their necessity" We now see that Il Is
not the Judgment Of this state that de-
termines qualifications for Dentists in
this state. hut the Judgment of the state
Dental Hoard Combine. l contend that
when the Dental business OF this state
was turned over 20 few selfish Den
lists q was mistake and had one.
This mistake continues through a chain
Of court decisions which seem 60 eNade
the issue presented yet In some decisions.
the principles OF constitutional law con-
tended for are admitted. yet an adverse
decision TO the principle is handed down
hy tho court
This article finishes John Smiths case.
Next week shall tell about Court Mis-
take No. l. under which 80 per cent OF
the Dentists IN the United states lost
their right 20 live in Washington.
EDWIN j, BROWN,
us Fret Ave.