Case Name: Peterson, Respondent, vs. Widule, County Clerk, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1914-06-17
Citations: 157 Wis. 641
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peterson, Respondent, vs. Widule, County Clerk, Appellant.
Judges: Viwje, J. I concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 641–671

Head Matter:
Peterson, Respondent, vs. Widule, County Clerk, Appellant.
May 25 —
June 17, 1914.
Constitutional law: Regulation of marriage: Preventing transmission of disease: Construction of statutes: Classification: Statute applicable to males only: Examination of applicant for marriage license: “Recognized tests:’’ What included: Religious liberty: Due process of law: Trial by jury: Partial invalidity of statute.
1. The state may control and regulate by reasonable laws the marriage relation, and may prevent the contracting oí marriage by persons afflicted with loathsome-or hereditary diseases which are liable to be transmitted to the spouse or inherited by the offspring.
2. A constitutional law enacted by the legislature establishes public policy on the subjects covered by it, and that policy is not open to question by the courts.
3. The courts must sustain a law unless its unconstitutionality is beyond reasonable doubt.
4. If a law is open to two constructions, one of which will condemn it and the other save it from condemnation and accomplish the legislative purpose, it must be given the latter construction.
5. A law directed against males only, for the purpose of preventing the transmission of venereal diseases, is based upon a valid classification and is not discriminatory.
6. Sec. 2339m, Stats. 1913, requires every male applicant for a marriage license to be examined as to the'existence in him of “any venereal disease;” then makes unlawful the issuance of the license if he fails to present a physician’s certificate that he is free from “acquired venereal diseases” (the word “acquired” having been inserted by an amendment to the bill as first introduced) ; and then prescribes the form of such certificate, which form contains the statement that-the applicant is free from “ail venereal diseases.” Held, that the confusion in the language will not prevent the Court from giving effect to the clear intent of the legislature that the law should cover only acquired venereal diseases as that term is understood in medical science, and that the form of the certificate is to be construed as covering only such diseases.
7. It must be presumed that in enacting said statute the legislature bad a definite and certain end in view, that they did not intend to prohibit marriage, but intended rather to safeguard it by the use of practicable and reasonable means.
8. Within the meaning of sec. 2339m, Stats. 1913, “clinical tests” of a disease are those which may be observed by the bedside or upon the general examination of the patient, not depending upon the use of instruments, apparatus, or chemical examinations; and “laboratory tests” are those which call for proofs by means of instruments, apparatus, or chemical reactions.
9. In the provision of said sec. 2339m, Stats. 1913, requiring, as a prerequisite to the granting of the physician’s certificate, physical examination and “the application of the recognized clinical' and laboratory tests of scientific search,” the words “recognized tests” are construed as referring to the tests recognized and used by the examiners empowered to make them, i. e. licensed physicians who are thirty years of age, and not to include a test — known as the Wassermann test — which, as the legislature is presumed to have known, is highly technical, difficult, and expensive, can be made by very few of the general practitioners of the state, and cannot be made for the statutory fee of $3.
10. Said statute does not interfere in any respect with religious liberty.
11. The provisions in said statute for a trial before the county judge, without a jury, in case of a refusal of .the certificate of health, afford sufficient protection to the applicant and do not involve any denial of due process of law.
12. The fact that the fee of $3 fixed by the law for the examination is very meager is not a sufficient ground for holding the law unconstitutional.
13. If the penalties provided by sub. 6 of said sec. 2339m, Stats. 1913, are extreme, that fact does not invalidate the other parts of the statute, such penalties not being an indivisible portion of the law nor forming in any sense a compensation for the other clauses.
Mabshaix, and Vinje, JJ., dissent.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: F. O. Esohweileb, Circuit Judge.
Reversed.
Mandamus action. The petitioner applied to the defendant as county clerk for a marriage license, and received a blank form of certificate, such as is required by see. 2339m, Stats. He presented himself to four physicians for examination to determine whether he had a venereal disease, tendering each of them the statutory fee of $3. Each physician refused to make the examination because such fee was insufficient compensation for making the Wassermaim test for syphilis, which the physicians considered as necessary to he made before they could make the certificate. The petitioner thereupon renewed his application for a marriage license without a certificate, but was refused, and brought this action to compel the issuance of a license. Return was made to the alternative writ to the effect that the petitioner had not produced the required certificate. Testimony of ten physicians was taken, and the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
“1. That in medical science there are three diseases designated under the one head of venereal diseases, viz.: syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid;
“2. That the term ‘hereditary’ refers to such a disease received by the individual at the time of, or prior to birth;
“3. That ‘acquired’ is restricted to'such a disease starting in the individual after birth;
“4. That ‘clinical’ refers to what may be discovered by the observation of the physician from the body of the individual and without the use of instruments;
“5. That ‘laboratory tests’ are those requiring the use of instruments and certain methods of demonstrating the presence or absence of such diseases.
“6. That among such laboratory tests is the one known as the ‘Wassermann test;’ that it has been known to the medical world about seven years; is a standard, well recognized and very efficient test, and a great many of-such tests are being made by those familiar with the use thereof; that it will determine with practical certainty in from seventy to ninety per cent, of the cases tested, the existence of syphilis, and that it is necessary and proper in many cases where there are some clinical evidences.
“7. That a male person over eighteen years of age might be possessed of syphilis in a form transmissible to his wife or offspring without such condition being discovered by a 'clinical’ test.
“8. That in the event last mentioned the Wassermann test is- efficient, practical and necessary in order to determine as nearly as can be the presence or absence of venereal diseases.
“9. That the Wassermann test requires a special laboratory apparatus and equipment.
"10. That there are now, out of the over 8,000 physicians in the state of Wisconsin, not to exceed twenty-five, and among the over 300 in Milwaukee county not to exceed six, who are equipped and prepared for the Wassermann test.
“11. That the maximum fee of $3 prescribed in the chapter that a physician may charge and receive for such examination and certificate is unreasonably small for the making of the Wassermann test. This finding having been conceded by the counsel for the state and defendant, upon the trial.
“And as conclusion of law:
“That ch. 738 of the Laws of 1913, entitled 'An act to create section 2339m of the Statutes, relating to marriage and venereal diseases,’ is an unreasonable and material impairment of the inalienable right of fit and proper persons to enter into the marriage state and that it is in violation of the rights secured by section 1, article I, and section 18, article I, of the constitution of the state of Wisconsin and therefore void, and no defense to the defendant in his refusal to grant petitioner a marriage license, and that the petitioner is entitled to the peremptory writ of mandamus, as prayed in the petition, and judgment is ordered accordingly.”
Erom this judgment the county clerk appeals.
Sec. 2339m, Stats., is as follows:
“1. All male persons making application for license to marry shall at any time within fifteen days prior to such application, be examined as to the existence or nonexistence in such person of any venereal disease, and it shall be unlawful for the county clerk of any county to issue a license to marry to any person who fails to present and file with such county clerk a certificate setting forth that such person is free from acquired venereal diseases so nearly as can be determined by physical examination and by the application of the recognized clinical and laboratory tests of scientific search. Such certificate sliall be made by a licensed physician, shall be filed with the application for license to marry, and shall read as follows, to wit:
“I,. (name of physician), being a legally licensed physician, do certify that I have this .... day of ..i.., 19.., carefully and thoroughly examined. (name of person), having applied the recognized clinical and' laboratory tests of scientific search and find him to be free from all venereal diseases so nearly as can be determined. u
“ (Signature of physician)
“2. Such examiners shall be physicians duly licensed to practice in this state, shall be persons of good moral character and of scientific attainments and at least thirty years of age. The fee for such examination, to be paid by the applicant for examination before the certificate shall be granted, shall not exceed three dollars. The county physician of any county shall, upon request, make the necessary examination and issue such certificate, if the same can properly be issued, without charge to the applicant, if said applicant be indigent.
“3. Whenever there is a dispute or disagreement regarding the findings of any medical examiner, laboratory tests shall be made in the state laboratory of hygiene from material submitted by such examiner, and the findings of said laboratory shall be accepted as evidence of the presence or absence in the person examined of any venereal disease.
“4. In any case wherein the certificate of health required by subsection 1 of this section shall be refused and the applicant shall make and file with the county clerk of the proper county an affidavit setting forth the fact that such applicant has not had a fair and impartial examination and that he is entitled to such certificate of health, it shall be the duty of such county clerk to certify such proceedings, at once, to the county court of such county without formality or expense to such applicant. Such application shall be heard by a judge of said court, at the earliest time practicable, without a jury in court or in chambers, during the term or in vacation as the case may be. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given to such applicant by mail. A certified copy of an order of such judge upon his findings in such matter determining that such applicant is entitled to such certificate of health, presented and filed with such county clerk, shall have the same force and effect as such certificate and such county clerk shall thereupon issue a license to marry, to such applicant.
“5. Any person a resident of this state, who with intent to evade the provisions of this act shall go into another state and there have a marriage solemnized and who within one year from date of such marriage shall return and reside in this state, shall upon information or knowledge to the district attorney of any county be required by him to file with the county clerk of any county in which such person may be then a resident, a certificate of examination from such physician as set forth in this section. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year.
“6. Any county clerk who shall unlawfully issue a.license to marry to any person who fails to present and file the certificate provided by subsection 1 of this section, or any party or parties having knowledge of any matter relating or pertaining to the examination of any applicant for license to marry, who shall disclose the same, or any portion thereof, except as may be required by law, shall upon proof thereof be guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one year nor more than five years.
“7. Any physician who shall knowingly and wilfully make any false statement in the certificate provided for in subsection 1 of this section shall be guilty of perjury and upon conviction shall be punished as for perjury, and a conviction under this subsection shall revoke the license of such physician to practice in this state.”
For the appellant there was a brief by Bdw. G. Yocleey, district attorney, Henry 8. Sloan, assistant district attorney, as attorneys, and the Attorney General and Byron H. Bteb-bins, assistant attorney general, of counsel, and oral argument by the Attorney General, Mr. Btebbins, and Mr. Sloan.
For the respondent there was a brief by Bunleel, Bunge & McLogan, and oral argument by Carl Bunge and J. M. Mc-Logan.

Opinion:
Winslow, O. J.
The ease presents simply the question whether the so-ealled eugenics law is constitutional. It was held unconstitutional by the trial court because (1) it is an unreasonable restriction upon the inalienable right of marriage; (2) it impairs the inherent right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; (3) it interferes with religious freedom.
Before taking up for discussion the specific objections to the law, some general, fundamental propositions, which are not open to question, may profitably be stated.
The power of the state to control and regulate by reasonable laws the marriage relation, and to prevent the contracting of marriage by persons afflicted with loathsome or hereditary diseases, which are liable either to be transmitted to the spouse or inherited by the offspring, or both, must on principle be regarded as undeniable. To state this proposition is to establish it. Society has a right to protect itself from extinction and its members from a fate worse than death. If authority be needed to support this proposition, reference may be made to Ereund on Police Power, § 124, and cases there cited.
When the legislature passes a constitutional law, that law establishes public policy upon the subjects covered by it, and that policy is not open to question by the courts.
The courts must sustain a law unless its unconstitutionality be beyond reasonable doubt. If the law be ambiguous or open to two constructions, that construction which will save it from condemnation and accomplish the legislative purpose is always to be adopted in preference to a construction which makes it unconstitutional.
Neither the legislative idea nor the legislative purpose in the passage of the present law can be a matter of serious doubt. The idea plainly was that the transmission of the so-called venereal diseases by newly married men to their innocent wives was a tremendous evil, and the purpose just as plainly was to remedy that evil so far as possible by prevent ing tbe marriage of men wbo upon examination were found to possess snob diseases.
An argument is made tbat tbe law is void because tbe classification is unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory, in tbat it singles out men about to marry and mates a class of them, there being, as it is argued, no substantial differences wbicb suggest tbe propriety of different legislative treatment between men wbo are about to marry and women wbo are about to marry. Theoretically tbe argument is strong. Women wbo marry and transmit a loathsome disease to their husbands do just as much barm as men wbo transmit such a disease to their wives. If women were in fact doing this thing as frequently or anywhere nearly as frequently as men tbe argument could hardly be met. Tbe medical evidence in tbe case, however, corroborates what we suppose to be common knowledge, namely, tbat tbe great majority of women wbo marry are pure, while a considerable percentage of men have bad illicit sexual relations before marriage, and consequently tbat tbe number of cases where newly married men transmit a venereal disease to their wives is vastly greater than tbe number of cases where women transmit tbe disease to their newly married husbands. Classification is not to be condemned _ because there may be occasional instances in wbicb it does not fit tbe situation; it is proper if tbe great mass of situations to wbicb tbe law applies justify tbe formation of a class and tbe application of some special or different legislative provisions to. tbat class. Classification can rarely be mathematically exact. Tbe question is not whether in some individual instance there is any perceptible distinction, but "whether there are characteristics wbicb in a greater degree persist through tbe one class than in tbe other," and wbicb justify tbe different treatment. State v. Evans, 130 Wis. 381, 110 N. W. 241. Tbat there are such characteristics in tbe class of unmarried men is as certainly true as it is discreditable to tbe male sex.
It follows that legislation directed against males alone for tbe purpose of preventing the transmission of venereal diseases is clearly within the police power and just as clearly is not discriminatory. The only question to be considered is whether the law which attempts to accomplish the purpose is xmreasonable or unduly invades constitutional rights in its methods of enforcement.
In considering this question it will- be profitable in the beginning to determine what diseases the law covers. It will be noticed that the first subsection requires the prospective husband, within fifteen days previous to his application for license to marry, to be examined as to the existence in him of "any venereal disease." The law then makes it unlawful for the county clerk to issue a marriage license to such person if he fails to present a certificate setting forth that he is free from "acquired venereal diseases," and then prescribes the form of such certificate, which form contains the statement that the applicant is free from "all venereal diseases."
This seems quite confusing. According to the medical testimony and the dictionaries, there are three separate diseases (which, however, may coexist) generally known as "venereal diseases," viz. gonorrhea, chancroid (or local contagious ulcers), and syphilis. While some of the physicians say that syphilis is not a venereal disease in the scientific sense, especially when it is inherited or affects parts of the body other than the sexual organs, it. seems to be quite well agreed that it is a venereal disease in. the generally accepted use of that term, and hence is included within the provisions of the law in question. There is a distinct form of syphilis, however, termed inherited, which' is or may be present in the children of syphilitic parents, and so it is true that there are in fact two well recognized forms of syphilis, i. e. the acquired and the inherited, the acquired being understood in medicine as that form which "is obtained otherwise than by inheritance or during the process of birth." This distinction throws considerable light on the meaning of the law. The word "acquired" has, it seems, a meaning in medical science. Possibly it is not a technical word within the meaning of sub. 1 of sec. 4971, Stats., but certainly when it is deliberately used in a statute which deals with medical subjects it would seem that it must carry its accepted meaning in medical science. This conclusion becomes more satisfactory when the history of the law is examined. As first introduced in the senate (Bill No. 611 S.) it did not contain the word "acquired," but provided that the applicant must obtain and present to the county clerk a certificate that he is free from venereal diseases. In substance the first section then provided that an applicant for a marriage license must first be examined as to the existence or nonexistence of any venereal disease, obtain a certificate that such person is free from "venereal diseases as near as," etc., and that the form of the certificate must contain the words "free from all venereal diseases so nearly as can be determined." The bill received several amendments in the senate, among which was an amendment inserting the word "acquired." It would be idle to argue that this amendment was unimportant or immaterial. It must have had a serious and definite purpose. It unquestionably meant to eliminate from the operation of the act all forms of venereal diseases which were inherited and limit the examination and the certificate to those which were acquired.
The fact that the wording of the certificate was not changed at the same time is unfortunate, but not necessarily fatal to the legislative purpose. When, as here, that purpose is made clear by the history of the bill, confusion and even contradiction in language will not hinder the court from giving effect to that purpose. We deem it clear that the act as passed was intended to cover only acquired venereal diseases as understood ip. medical science, and that the form of physician's certificate in the act is to be construed as covering only such diseases.
The principal objection made to the act and the objection which the circuit judge found to be fatal is the objection that it requires in every case the use of a very delicate and expensive blood test, known as the Wassermann test, before the certificate required can be signed. It is claimed, and rightly, claimed, under the evidence that this test is a highly technical test, requiring special training and the use of complex laboratory equipment not possessed by more than twenty-five practitioners in the state; that no physician could make such a test for the statutory fee of $3 or anywhere near that sum, on account of the time, technical knowledge, and equipment required; and that to require a physician to make the test for that fee would be an unreasonable requirement. All this was substantially conceded by the state in the present case, and the concession seems to have been advisedly made. If the law in fact requires the Wassermann test to be made in case of every applicant for a marriage license, the argument is very strong that it requires .the absolutely unreasonable. But does it require that test ? The very facts relied on by the petitioner tending to show the technical, delicate, and expensive character of the test and that the great body of the practitioners of the state cannot make it, raises a more or less robust doubt as to the legislative intent to require .the use of that test. The more difficult and -expensive that test is shown to be, the more serious becomes the doubt. Now it must of course be assumed that the legislature had general knowledge of the delicacy, difficulty, and expensiveness of the Wassermann test, as well as of the fact that very few of the general practitioners of the state could make it. The bill was very thoroughly debated in both houses, met strenuous opposition, was the subject of numerous amendments, upon some of which disagreements arose between .the houses which were only settled by committees of conference, and it seems quite certain that the provisions of the bill must have been well understood. It must be assumed also that the legislature had a definite and certain end in view, tliat they did not intend to place a prohibition on marriage, but intended rather to safeguard it by the use of practicable and reasonable means.
With these presumptions in mind it seems very hard to reach the conclusion that they intended that the Wassermann test should be a prerequisite to the granting of every certificate, for this would mean a practical embargo on marriage. Nor do we think that the language of the act necessarily forces us to this conclusion. The act requires physical examination and "the application of the recognized clinical and laboratory tests of scientific search."
As to the meaning of the terms "clinical and laboratory tests," we adopt the definitions given by one of the physicians who testified for the petitioner. He says:
"The term 'clinical' is a term which is dependent upon the meaning of the word 'clinic.' Clinos or clinurn in Latin means a bed, and the clinical tests of any disease are those that may be observed by the bedside or when the patient is in the office. Scientific and laboratory tests are tests of anything that may come under the purview or the examination of a scientific man which call for proofs by means of instruments, apparatus, or chemical reactions, which are incapable of imagination or sentiment. All the things that can be discovered at the bedside or upon the general examination of a patient when none of the tests that are dependent upon the use of instruments, apparatus or chemical examinations that are incapable of being influenced by imagination or sentiment are one thing and deal entirely with the imagination or opinion of the examiner. Those that are laboratory tests are such as bring out absolute and unquestionable proofs which are incapable of being influenced by sentiment or imagination."
It seems also that a clinical examination takes into consideration such parts of the history of the case as are credible and not probably lies on the part of the patient, and covers as well the objective symptoms which/ as said by one of the physicians, are protéan thousands in form. The term "physical examination" explains itself. It includes, of course, a careful examination of the whole body, especially the sexual organs and the joints. As to the laboratory tests, it appears from the evidence of the physicians that in the case of gonorrhea there is a test called the Gram stain which is universally used and considered practically conclusive, certainly so when the objective symptoms are present. In the case of chancre or the primary stage of syphilis there is an examination of the discharges from the primary sore for treponema pallida with the Dorfield illuminator and the several so-called stains. In the secondary and tertiary stages of -syphilis there is the Wassermann test and another called the Luetin test, sometimes called the Noguchi test, which is applied to the skin of patients suspected of syphilis. One physician calls these the only common tests, although another is named as experimentally used to some extent, called the Lange gold chloride test.
It is not claimed in this ease that the Luetin test is included within the statutory command, although it seems to he a recognized test. Strict logic would seem to require the administration of the Luetin test if it requires the Wassermann test.
On this question as to whether the words "recognized laboratory tests" include all the tests which are in common use, some help may perhaps he obtained from the legislative history of the bill. As introduced the bill provided for the appointment by the board of health of special examiners not exceeding ten in each county (except Milwaukee, where the maximum was fixed at twenty-five). These examiners were to be licensed physicians of good moral character and scientific attainments, at least thirty years of age. Evidently it was contemplated that the examiners, as compared with the great body of the profession, should be experts, and, as the bill at that time provided for an examination covering inherited syphilis as well as acquired, it may be admitted as probable that it was in contemplation of its authors that all the known tests should be applied. The legislature, how ever, made two radical changes in the hill, both of which seem very significant on this question: first, they took out of its purview inherited syphilis, thus removing a very large field of eases in which the Wassermann test is specially valuable, if not practically indispensable, and removed the feature requiring the appointment of examiners. By this last change the legislature empowered every licensed physician over thirty years of age in the state to make the examination when called upon to do so by a male applicant for marriage. We say this because we must regard every licensed physician as presumptively a person of good moral character and scientific attainments. The board of medical examiners has no authority to license those who do not possess these qualities. Secs. 14356, 1436e, Stats.
Now the legislature did not say "all of the recognized tests," but simply "the recognized tests." Of course these latter words frequently and perhaps logically mean all, but do they as used in this law ? Here is a case where the legislature must be presumed to know that only an occasional medical practitioner can make the Wassermann test, and yet provides for the application of the recognized tests by every practitioner over thirty years of age. When we consider this fact in connection with the other fact that there are recognized laboratory tests, to wit, the stains which can be made by all physicians with a well equipped laboratory, it seems quite impossible to believe that the Wassermann test was considered a sine qua non.
As has been before said, if the act is capable of two constructions, one of which will condemn it and the other save it from condemnation, we must give it the latter construction. Now we have in this case the following circumstances which are entitled to be considered in arriving at the intention of the legislature in using the words "recognized tests:"
First, inherited syphilis is not within the purview of the law; second, all gonorrhea can be absolutely detected by the physical examination and by the laboratory microscopical or Gram stain test, which can he applied by any physician with a well equipped laboratory; third, chancre or syphilis in its primary stage is easily discernible by physical examination; fourth, syphilis in its secondary stages is very easy of diagnosis by reason of the physical symptoms, the enlargement of glands, eruptions on the shin, and other changes; fifth, syphilis, after the secondary stage has passed, has either accomplished the ruin of the health, so that there is little or no possibility of marriage, or else has been so far cured as to be practically nontransmissible; sixth, the great majority of the cases of venereal disease (estimated by one physician at eighty per cent.) are cases of gonorrhea, leaving but twenty per cent, for cases of syphilis; seventh, the cases where the Wassermann test is really necessary for the detection of the disease are practically either cases of inherited syphilis or cases in which the disease has been so far controlled that physical manifestations are wanting and there is very small danger of transmission. The Wassermann test can be made absolutely of no avail by the patient himself, either by the so-called salvarsan treatment, or by the use of whisky for twenty-four hours before the blood is taken from the person.
In view of all these facts and in view of the fact that the legislature wished to reach practical and possible results, it seems unreasonable to suppose that they intended to prescribe tests which the great majority of the official examiners were not able to make. We prefer to construe the words "recognized tests" as intended to refer to the tests recognized and used by the people who were to make them. This construction sustains the law, makes it r'easonable, accomplishes its evident purpose, and provides for a guard to marriage fully as effective in the vast majority of cases as the application of the Wassermann test.
We have not been able to appreciate the force of the contention that the law interferes in any respect with religious liberty. We know of no cbnrcli which desires its ministers to profane tbe marriage tie by uniting a man afflicted with a loathsome disease to ah innocent woman.
In case of refusal of the certificate the law does not provide for a jury trial of the question, but only for a trial before the county judge, and it has been suggested rather than argued that this is a denial of due process of law. We find nothing in the objection. If it be, as we hold, within the police power to prohibit a marriage until the fact of the absence of venereal diseases. in the male is ascertained, the power to determine that fact must be vested in some competent body or person, and the exercise of the police power does not wait upon the slow processes of jury trials. It might be; argued with much force that a law which should attempt to make the right to marry absolutely and solely dependent on the determination of a single individual, even though a physician and an expert, would be unreasonable. In view of that possibility doubtless the provisions of sub. 4 were in-' serted in the present law, and we perceive no good reason for holding that they do not afford sufficient protection to the applicant. If the state can refuse to permit the diseased to marry, it must, of course, provide a means of ascertaining the fact, and if it provide a means which can reasonably be expected under all ordinary circumstances to ascertain the fact in accordance with truth, that must be sufficient. In our judgment the law before us provides such a means.
It is said that the fee provided by the law is entirely insufficient, even if the Wassermann test be not required. Upon this question there is a difference of opinion among the physicians. We incline to the opinion that the fee is a very meager one. We should not, however, feel justified in holding the law unconstitutional on this ground. The penalties provided by sub. 6 of the law are said to be extreme. This may he so. We do not feel required to pass on that .question in this case. In any event, we cannot suppose that these penalties are an indivisible portion of the law, or form in any sense a compensation for the other clanses.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded with directions to quash the alternative writ.