The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1911-04-01
The Story Of WaShinglOn's
Dental Conspiracy
couBr MISTAKE NO T.


IN Last weeks artieie on Court Mis-
take No. told you that ths superis,
cpurt of Hiug County held.
l. That ~ could not aee the public
records Of The Dental Board. fny esan.
inatisB psprrsj.
H. That "fhe court would not 70
ints the question a. 70 Whistler had
a fair hearing Or anything else - that
Kind. that n was all concluded b the
asfisn Of the Beard itself
III. That "fse only question 70 be
considered by the ossrt was WHISTLER
or not the Dental Board refssed 60
grant me . license because q refused
10 sign the code aud contract"
when this eass was appealed 70 our
Supreme Court. the ruling Of the ios ~
court on me three questions absvs
eere relied 90 80 Constituting ground
fof reversing Judge nndkin. and re-
handing the ease FOR trial on &c merits
in the Superior Court ~ King County.
- that ! could st hearing This
a. state - rel nroan "a BOARD 81
Dental Examlners-1s Wash esq.,
When my case first came on for trial
in kluE County. Judge Hatch va fhs
AHNHftNMA aAI g. ana Me NNIFAIM an
order on the Dental Board requiring
them 20 permit me 20 examine fhefr
records fagesfiouH and answered.. Judge
Hatch cpntiuuea she case for ten DAYS
- a. 90 permit me 20 make the esumi-
nation % she boards records bot Fam
HiFsrnH, the Dental Boards lawyer re-
fused 20 allow me 20 review tlsir rer-
0fds. aud tao days later Judge Iudkln
vas thc presiding judge. and be- recessed
10 compel compliance vith bud 20
10
lfoecfd 90 trial a. once. when We e. ere
unprrEared because the order OF Judge
hatch had been ignored. and { was re-
lying On this evidence % prove my csss.
orr SUPREME COURT HELD
That The admission ~ such t@sti-
monY fpaslle recordsi would have con
ntlfutsd reversible error" Oar court
rened "a fhluh that ! wanted fi-ss
records ~ a. 20 review the disfraf l5u
~ fh~ Dental Board. but that Esa a
mistake. became paragraph u af my
complaint so forth a. follows.
That said examination. ~ sosdaei-
I'd by ssid Beard. w.s unauthorized
BY iaw, embracing ~ nJECr- and
at E-TIONS ubich WE'RE INNATE
Rial add IkRKLEyANT TO tho
rs1 80 Us y NS ma peSInsI rnsr ANp
at ALLEGATIONS or THE AFrII-
CANT q prartie. Dentistry and the sc-
tian Of fh~ aid Heard wa ARBITRARY
and WILT l. Ia granting or withdraw
tnE nrsn~es Go prartioe In this state. aud
Ia the ease Of this rclator MAS
wH0>Gft l."
Now. With this decision % our 81
pfeme court this Boards power b~cams
supreme and above all law when I
cguid not bring their public records
1.-The records of their pubiic artsi Into
court And what could ! have shoNn
~ their recardsg An listen 90 me-
could have proved ~ the Boards rec
ords that ] am marked passsi is che
actual practice Of Dentistry: that - to
say. had demonstrated nay ability az
a nentist 20 the Beard. and they
marked my examination 20 X
tFasHed
eouid have proved BY th~.e r.eorai
thar the examination given was not
presefibcd b iaE. and VAS therefore
iasiesE
could have proved what charged
that the examination Nae s-fraaslut~ut
inasaserisl. Irrelevant. arbatrar, and
vilifuiiy wrongfui." Just as M csna-
piaini charged
acted a. Private individuals and we're
ely and National Dental Association. lu-
stead 81 a legally constituted Board Of
the state % WashinEfon. and could
have aided the court 20 compel aha
honest performances o. official duts by
the Dental Board. and secured relief and
my censtif8fieumI right.