Evening star., 1922-08-26
SEEKS
STATUS IN COURT
Thomas Howerton Denies.
Violating u. S. Law in
"FriendIy Suit" Here.
D. C. IS PARTY IN ACTION
Judge Hardison Hears Complaint
Against Practitioner and Re-
serves Decision.


That the status of practitioners OF
osteopathy. and other professions
that have to do with the treatment
of the ills of the human body-its
anatomy-through massage and sim
liar methods outside of the recog-
nized medical and surgical schools
may be determined, a friendly suit
has been brought in the District
courts. This suit Is brought by the
District of Columbia against Thomas
J. Howerton. an osteopath, who has
been practfcing his profession in this
city for the past twelve years. The
information against Mr.. Howerton
charges him with violating an act of
Congress known as IAN act to regu-
late the practice of podiatry in the
District of Columbia
AT a special afternoon session of
the District of Columbia branch of
Police Court having jurisdiction in
such cases, Judge Hardison presiding.
yesterday. on the statement of facts,
as agreed upon by Assistant Corpora
ton Counsel Frank w. Madigan, rep
resenting the District of Columbia,
and Charles s. Baker. for the defend
ant, the case was argued and the
papers were taken by Judge Hardison
for consideration. He will later hand
down an opinion.
PrOvisiOns of Law.
The act of Congress. under which
the suit Is brought, provides that on
and after the date of the passage
OF the act, approved May %, 1918. it
shall be unlawful for any person, for
compensation, to practice podiatry in
the District of Columbia without first
successfully passing an examination
concerning his fitness as the health
oncer of the District of Columbia
may prescribe, who shall personally
conduct the examination. A clause
OF the act provides that none of the
provisions of this act shall apply to
regular practicing physicians or
surgeons nor shall it apply to
podiatrists who have been practicing
podiatry in the District of Columbia
for one year previous to the passage
OF the act" ''Podiatry" is defined as
chlropody. surgical, medical or me-
chanical treatment of any ailment of
the human foot, except the amputa-
tlon OF the foot or any of the toes,
and also. except the use of an anes-
thetic, other than local. The penalty
Is fine of not less than $50 nor more
than 800, or Imprisonment of not
less than thirty days nor more than
100 days, or both fine and imprison-
ment.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Mad
isan opened the argument, reading
the act under which the charge had
been made. holding that as there was
no act enabling, authorizing or rec
ognizing osteopathy or other similar
treatments, save that as provided for
In the act recognizing and authoriz-
nf @sot
practice of osteopathy, which in
cludes every part of the anatomy in
Its treatment, was illegal; that the
practice of osteopathy is, in sense
the practice of medicine and surgery
Mr.. Madigan pointed out that the
authorized and regulated by law. and
the practice of any other profess
sion, under any or whatever name it
may be called, if it has to do with
the treatment of the ills of the hu-
man body, is violation of the med
lcal and surgical practices laws. and
the health officer of the District of
Columbia is vested with the powers.
under the law, to suppress such
practice.
Attorney Baker in making his
argument admitted that there was no
any system of treatment for the
pains, aches and ills of the human
body except the law authorizing the
several standard and accepted schools
of medicine and surgery and the law
providing for the practice of podiatry,
that there was no enabling act for
the practice of osteopathy. that it was
not legally recognized by any legisla-
tion, nor was there any law forbid
ding its practice or regulating such
practice. For that reason. he argued,
Congress having failed to enact legis-
INk s-f
and similar professions
now popular and extensive. it was
not the intention of the law-making
powers to prohibit such practice
which is. he said. recognized and pro-
tected by legislation in practically all
Of the states, under the practices act
the old schools of medicine
and surgery
He pointed out that one could not.
by any long stretch of imagination.
make the practice of osteopathy the
practice of medicine or surgery for
the reason that the principal form of
treatment is massage, it being neither
medical nor surgical, nor mechanical.
Growth Of Osteopnthy.
Mr.. Baker said that the first col
lege of osteopathy was founded May
IL, 1892, at Kirksville. Mo-. and that
the practice of osteopathy since had
been growing by leaps and bounds all
over the country: that Mr.. Howerton.
The defendant. was graduate of that
college, and has been practicing his
in this city for the past
Twelve years, unmolested and with
success. He said that all the states
now recognize the profession of oste-
,pathy, most of them providing rigid
admitting to practice. a
condition the practitioners in Wash
ngton would welcome as test for
qualification.
The definition of osteopathy. as
given in the states that have enacted
avs for the regulation of osteopathy.
Mr.. Baker said. was: "Osteopathy is
he name of that system of the heal
ng art which places the chief en-
,hasis on the structural integrity of
he body mechanism as being the
most important single factor to main
ain the we'll l-being Of the organism in
lealth and disease"
The Medical Practice Act, 29 United
states Statutes at Large, 1913, passed
n 1896, makes no provision for the |
licensing Of osteopaths.
In concluding, Mr.. Baker held that |
hasmuch as the practice of osteopa-
hy was not authorized by law, the |
would be that Congress did not see !.
he necessity to prohibit its practice
" passing legislation authorizing and |!
egulating its practice. Inasmuch as !
he act of Congress authorizes the |
ractice of podiatry, that part of the |
below the ankle, said Mr.. |
baker. it does not seem reasonable |
hat Congress intended to prohibit an
steopath to treat that part of the |
above the ankle.