The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1921-04-09
live QUESTIONS
NJ DIR. EDWIN ,. BROWN
lOo Co1uu,k1a Street

IOV GOS0oobo Street
FIRST. have shown IN previous
state has not prescribed an examin-
alton for de ntists in the dental law.
Therefore. the dental board gives
Its personal examination, not ap-
and outside the domain OF law By
imposing its arbitrary will and gives
what IL calls Q dental examination.
hut no one knows mot even the
courD. whether IL Is an examination
In dentistry or astronomy, This APP
pears so plain that q blind man
should SEQ IL with his cane.
SECOND. ! have shown that the
dental board of 1908 adopted the
soee, ss eos. and pse si1se oSe-
diencs 20 its royal DEGREES before
one could even be examined in cub
lects arbitrarily prescribed by the
@ s1.1a d. Which sss, ey *. s.n,: samS:.
y had formed Ito protect the dear
Third. have shown that Z CON-
Piled with the letter and spirit Of
uaiiy obtain . passing grade in the
actual work OF dentistry, which
grade had been credited upon the
boards books in May. 1903. The only
fusing. to issue my license was my
refusal to sign its code agreement
and because of my refusal 10 sign
u. the board claimed that had
failed TO pass its arbitrary sxamtny
ation-unauthorixed by law.
APPEAL TO PUBLIC SENTIMENT
brought about an exposure %
the dental boards high handed
methods in Tacoma, 1908. This made
the board and society furious. Stool
pigeons. spies and cheap detectives
lHawkahawsl were thick around
but one course to pursue. which
vas to seek my salvation In the
courts and, failing in this. 80 to
public opinion for relief. The former
my. rescue with their patronsss.
which made It possible for mo 70
carry on the fight for human rights
and q government Of law until the
dental combine was publicly dis.
credited and financially bankrupt
DENTAL COMBINE IN COURT
In 1904 Instituted q mandamus
proceeding asking the court to COM
pei the dental board to issue my
license. l alleged that passed the
dental examination and answered
the questions correctly. notwith-
authorized by law.
I charged that the dental board
had wrongfully and uniawfuIly
withheld my license because I had
into its agreement Conspiracy.
l was prepared TO prove by the
dental boards records and Its own
code and agreement. that IL had
failed and refused to exercise . legal
! was prepared TO prove that I had
been graded as passed by the board
In the actual work of dentistry.
! was prepared TO prove that my
answers to their questions were
full and correct
My grades were In the boards
books. Its code and contract was
before the court. but the court re-
fused TO compel the board to bring
answers Into court. These papers
were public records. and IL 1t could
be shown by the records that my
answers were similar and as full.
complete and correct as others to
whom IL had issued q license, tho
facts could be determined, but with
out the boards records. the court
could not tell whether the examin-
BY this ruling OF tho court l was
deprived OF due process OF law"
first by the dental board. whose ex-
animation was unjust capriciouo
and arbitrary: second. because there
tent evidence upon which / could
prove the facts to the trial Judge
who alone was to determine the
RESPONSIVENESS and legality OF the
oar Supreme Court upheld the
lower court. which in turn had sus.
tanned the dental board in it's con-
spiracy Tin effecD. with the result
that a dentist has no rights In thia
state which the dental board Is
bound TO respect. The board pre-
scribes its own arbitrary examina-
ton. The qualification for dentists
in this state is In the head of the
dental board and no man could tell
what the qualification standard for
dentists In this state was in 1908
not even with an x-ray. because Of
so much bone.
The board itself arbitrarily passes
on the lawlcss examination Il pre-
scribes. and under the ruling of our
courts the examination questions
examination are the private prop
erty of the board. and our courts
refuse to be informed as to whe thep
a dentist Is examined in dentistry -
whether he Is examined to deter
mine how much bone he has in hlD
head.
In law and in fact the code ana
agreement the dental board had in
1908 convicts them. and for our
courts to ignore this truth did not
change this principle of law. How
WHAT tSe courts tna ssy shey mean mean
II would be worth while for any
lawyer to read the dental code and
agreement printed last week. also
read State ex rel. Brown VS.. Board
OF Dental Examiners. IS Washing
My next article win be the last
on the dental combine. In which +
shall deal with its activities At this
DIR. EDWIN ). BROWN