The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1911-03-11

How 80 per cent 81 the dentists In
The United States were denied their rfshs
10 live In Washington
Al dentists except those who are h.rs
aes nave no fighf 20 i've ia this state
unless the dental combine says a. bur
there are many dentists Who are barred
~ law You Sc. the dental com btne had
20 have protection from competition. and
We dental law now IN force Egvex the
com hine absolute power over ali sradu.fs
dentists prohibits the STUDY Of dentistry
IN this state. and does not even pernnis
iDsd.
In court mistake no said that IN.
decision In the John Smith case ala no,
Involve the eonstituiianAllty 81 IA. iam
yet the editors notes make that claim
The smith case WAS decided in Aprs.
1879. and the next raAe was the Thomp.
~. IN sAse. cited A. In re Thompson. as
Wash 717." In this Thompson cane thers
are two mistakes. h0th OF which A..
fatal 10 our liberties and the American
institutions Of justice ~ first quota
lion from this Thompson case shows thai
our court quotes the John Smith case ss
sostalninx the cunstitutionaIity Of the
dental Law. when, Ia fact tn. dental law
MAs only referred "a as coming within
TIE police power. and that dentistry IL
proper subject Tor state regulation
4hls right Of the state has never been
Questioned ~ me. in fact I always in
sisted that the state should have law.
regulating dentistry. but IN this state the
isN does not regulate dentistry or any-
thing. but gives tn. dental board power
70 40 as y pieases Let ~ quote from
The right TO pursue a lawful seeupa-
fion -. Of course. conc~ded. but there ar.
certain occupations. In themselves law
'ui. which are subject TO legislative re-
strictian and regulation for the pre~<rvs-
lion Of comfort, health and IIfe. II l.
now generally. II not nniser~aIiy. held
that the practice Of denflsfr, L. one Of
the occupations reasonably failing within
the Legislative right Of regulation. Thi.
court recently 30 held In state ex rel
smith W. Board Of Dental Examiners. 81
Wash. tpf, which WINS eas~ involving
the eon-titntionaiity Of the act In ques-
ton In this case"
But simply because Il Is a proper ex-
erelse or the legislative power to regu-
late dentistry, that Is no reason and does
not permit the state 10 prohibit the study
q dentistry under the preiense 81 reea-
iatiou.
our court then quotes section { Of the
dental law, which by it operation dele
gates naked grant OF arbitrary power
TO the dental board to examine dentists
In what they please, and prevents den
lists who are not graduates from some
college from even being examined at all.
and the court then proceeds 10 reason al
follows. -
The dental board IL authorized By thss
act TO examine all applicants for certsfJ-
Gates. To he eligible TO this exsminat ton
the applicant must possess a good moral
character and present diploma from
-otne dental college In good standing and
give evidence OF the lawful possession of
such diploma. aud 10 conduct the exam
nations upon subjects reasonably re-
quircd In that profession
Who knows that the dental board will
examine on subjects REASONABLE requfredy
The state Of Washington said to me
when came here 20 live
Now. DIR. Brown. the state does not
determine what shall be required Of den
tlsts. but the State of Washington allows
the dental board, which has made .
combine With the dental society. of which
they are members. TO decide what shall
he required OF dentists. and whether We
want dentists I'm this state or not. When
the dental board changes. the require
ments for Ambulance change. the dental
board decides what u reasonable. and
DIR. Brown, you may have to walt until
one Of the dentists already here dies be-
fore you can live here. your hair may
not be the right length or color TO suis
the dental beard. hut you must satisfy
them because the state gives the dental
board power to decide all these things.
and. DIR. Brown. you must make peace
with the combine before you can live
here"
Our court then proceeds to lay down
the rule that because a state may regu-
late the practice OF dentistry. VI may re-
quire an applicant TO possess diploma
before the applicant can take an exam
nation 10 prove his qualifications, which
qualifications are not prescribed by law.
Or. Thompson had studied dentistry
for three years. twelve months each year
in a dental office, under a preeeptor,
and had practiced ten years vet the law
does ->s permit him to be examined to
show q he is qualified. and you see.
do " OF. that tho state Is not resu-
latir ntistry, but DESTROYING dentists
In crest of the dental comhineg
per cent OF the dentists in the
u ates have no diplomas. ana
Law of 1901 was passed there
dentists on the state board
,ot have diplomas-Dr. Thun-
Rurkhart and DR. Maker--yet
c. MakG IL one Of the best
\ dentists In the state Of Washington. The
present dental law did not exclude all
non graduate dentists from the state.
only those who did not happen to have
certificates In 1901
Court mistake No. 4 is that. " dem
| list has diploma, he may live in this
state. F,,hether he knows anything about
DENTS, ~ not. II the board likes him.
but ~ NJ. ne best dentist In the world
he cannot live here unless he has di-
pioma. This makes dental education
commercial quantity. form without
substance qualifications Of dentists can
not be bought like cheese and dried her
ring but diplomas can be. and are. while
the best dentists In the United States
do not possess diplomas pray tell me
what is the necessity for a diploma since,
| III you have II, you must yet he examined
arbitrarily (The dental law OF this state
In intended TO shut out competition for
-. 49,. 4.