The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1911-02-25
The Story Of washingtOn's
Dental Conspiracy
Court at-raKr No

IN writing these Articles GA court mia
iahes. tho reader must bear 10 naffa that
ne writer's desire O. work out the
constitutional problem lneaissa. ana. In.
cideniai To- thas problem sock eanasitu.
tirnai protection and saifMfiou as axmtnst
itrss. ths Dental Combine aud second
me eonfts decisions under whieh thtp
ssnis, has hrited ~ their oppression
10 reurs mistake Ne showed how
lehn rfnlih vas dsprlfrd - his private
riEht ~ lraftisi causirucffou. which
Amounted 10 destructive prohibition az
Tar "a John smith was concerned
" - True that areat confusion prevails
iH court decisions ~ statute Lass rsua.
lAting the learned professions The lau-
fefs Of washington aaut las 90 pre-
tftt the ifgsi lfofeEsien. and she uhYsi-
clans ana dsntists want Iaas 70 protect
them. and IN iha state 81 w.snInsTor
that j. Inst those lass a. 10 their psar.
tiral Application and effect they protect
ne professional men instead u the PEG.
pie, ~hlie. in fact. th~ uniY theory uran
y hirh Laws 81 this character maY BE- en-
acted y that she puhlie health and ari.
tarc require protection aRaGuNt Immoral
and incompefaui porsana
Wa. Jahn smith tamp~sents
THE dental iaw of washington has no
Application 20 the public health o.
morals. and instead of providing = meth.
81 ~ esccftainine John smith's fitness
~ NHH"AtN' NNH ANHAfeetHns tEf las MAh
ara H. Intended 10 deprive him o. that
Tfsht IL our supreme court correct 10
the assumption that he had violated the
iev BY pfariiCine dentistry faf live years.
ny stipulation IN ~ Washington ts1. a
IL agreed that John smith vas AID had
been treating diseases and LESSONS o. the
human teeth and Jaws far five years Ia
this state, and doing whsu the
law ~ 1897 VAS passed lie bad served
80 months in hts trothnfa office tha
- flf "A s.f
tan permitted person 20 study dentistry
under prccsrtnf, and John smith was
lawfully prAetiving. Tho practice Of
dentistry - defined NJ treating diseases
and lrsions % The human teeth and Jaws
ani e is admitted that John Smith was
unlnE thla nut says the court
John smith was doinE what he calls
prsetieinE dentistry for five years. but
under bis Interpretation Of the law. one
who has heen engaged therein five days
l. entitled TO the same privilege. and thai.
too, without an, dental caiiexe or ether
training"
A straw man was introduced into this
John Smith case b. the court. and the
decision proceeds upon the theory Of de-
prieing John smith or five years' " his
LIES effort, simply because some one who
had only five days experience In dentist
~ might also Nant a license Hut how
about the dentist who had studied and
prscticed for nine years and could not
bc examined Tor one more year under the
day or tSp2g May We assume that Is
was unlawful 20 study dentistry under
the Law % 1884. when section 1873 Of
Illra Code provides
ssrhat said beard may tn,ust) admit
10 examination such other persons Of good
moral character a. shall give satisfactory
evidence of having been engaged In the
practice sf dentistry for 10 years prior
TO the date Of the application for exam
nation"
Aud section 1919. mrs Code. OF the
law OF 1893. defines the practice OF
dentistry md provides;
but nothing in this net contained shall
he taken To apply 60 bona fide students
Of dentistry, or one la pursuit of clinical
advantages, under the direct supervision
Of - prcccptor or licensed dentist In this
state"
John smith had been studying lawfully
for five years under the above provisions.
which. when taken together. legalised his
acts
Was John smith dentlssg who
knows whether John Smith was COM
pctent dcntiptG Does the stateG Does
the court knowg Ne. neither the state
nor tho court can possibly know, because
Smith was not even allowed to be eN-
nmincd. hut he had studied and prao-
ticed Tor GO monthe under "A preeeptor.
a. prescribed by law, yet, u he had
studied w n dental college Tor rs months
(alx months each year FOR three yearsl,
he could have been examined under
either tho law OF 1898 or 1901. You see.
the dental law of this state puts "A pre-
MUM on Ignorance ana oppression
Herein L. Court Mistake No. 9.
II IL assumed that It was unlawful 60
study dentistry under the law Of issa.
and that all who did so study were Grim
inaia under the law OF 1901, u they con-
finued 10 study, and that u was within
the legislative power to deprive dentists
OF tho estate ana private right In their
profession gained by five or ten years
Of study and labor. and the court as
sumes that John Smith did not learn
anything about dentistry IN five years
study and practice. The presumption OF
law Is that man VIII use his talents In
tho interest OF public health and morals.
and "a law which deprivcs man OF q
hearing In order 10 ascertain and deter
mine his qualifications goes beyond reRu-
lation and becomes a prohibition,
Next week | shall write on Court Mis-
take No. q.
EDWIN J. DROWN,
7ia First Az.