A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association.
- Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Chicago.
- Date:
- [1911]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
38/94 page 30
![Two of the Justices, however, dissented from the majority opin- ion on the ground, in part, that the act was nnconstitutional. The grounds for the dissenting Justices' arguments were that the statute was unreasonable and discriminating, in tliat it made only graduates of medical colleges and physicians who had prac- ticed for five years and were practicing at the time the act took effect qualified to practice medicine and surgery in the state. The dissenting Justices' criticism Avould not apply to the act which is now (1911) in force in Michigan. On the contrary, the present act is exactly the kind of regulation that they advocate, in giving the right to take an examination to those wishing to practice medicine and surgery in Michigan. That Mr. Justice Campbell would not have opposed the present Medical Act, but would on the contrary have given it his hearty support, is evident from his remarks on page 33: . Our laws have always allowed practitioners to follow their own systems, and where they have given preferences it has been in such a way that all persons could obtain the same rights upon an examination * * * without distinction of previous education in or out of colleges of medicine. If the skill and knowledge existed it was not material where they came from, and experience in a medical college only counted as so much time in apprenticeship. Had such an examination been made indispensable, which it was not, it [the act] would have been free entirelv from legal inequalities, and open to all alike. Mr. Justice Morse expresses the same idea on page 40: I do not deny the right of the Legislature to provide a competent board who shall examine and pass upon the quali- fications of all applicants who desire to enter upon the practice of medicine, and to prescribe that only those who shall pass a competent examination shall be entitled to practice in this State; but I deny the right of the Legislature to exact that none but college graduates shall practice law or medicine. In Dent v. West Virginia (1889), 139 U. S., 114; 33 L. ed., 633; 9 Sup. Ct. Eep., 331, the Supreme Court of United States had under consideration a statute similar in many respects to the ]\Iichigan Medical Act. It M^as contended that it was unconstitu- tional in that it conflicted with the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property Avithout due process of law. The statute was declared constitutional. Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, said (pages 635 and 636, 33 L. ed.) :](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21171609_0038.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
