Commonwealth v. Clymer

• Citation: 217 Pa. 302,66 A. 560
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CLYMER.
• Decision Date: 01 April 1907
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

66 A. 560
217 Pa. 302

COMMONWEALTH
v.
CLYMER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 1, 1907.

Appeal from Superior Court.

R. S. Clymer was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.

The opinion of the Superior Court (Rice, P. J.) was as follows:

"It is argued that the act of May 18, 1893 (P. L. 94), is unconstitutional, because the subject of legislation is not clearly expressed in the title. The particular objection is that the title gives no notice of the provision, contained in the fourteenth section, making a violation of any of the provisions of the act, especially those relating to practicing medicine or surgery without license and registration, a misdemeanor punishable by fine. Inasmuch as the subject of legislation, as expressed in the title, is the examination and licensing of practitioners of medicine and surgery, and the further regulation of the practice of medicine and surgery, any one would naturally suppose, from reading the title, that the act not only provided for the licensing of such practitioners, but declared the consequences of practicing without complying with its provisions. 'For,' as Blackstone says, 'it is but lost labor to say, "do this, or avoid that," unless we also declare, "this shall be the consequence of your noncompliance." We must therefore observe that the main strength and force of law consists in the penalty annexed to it.' 1 Bl. Com. 57. It is not to be supposed that this would be omitted from such legislation as is described in this title, and any one reading it would be led to look into the body of the act to see what consequences it attaches, penal or otherwise, to noncompliance with its provisions. The fact that a title as broad as this does not expressly declare that a violation of the provisions of the act is made a penal offense is not a valid objection. This has been decided in numerous cases wherein the precise question has been duly considered; and Mansfield's Case, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 224, which is cited by the appellant's counsel as authority for a different conclusion, is not in conflict with them, as an examination of Judge Porter's opinion will show. Amongst these cases are Commonwealth v. Sellers, 130 Pa. 32, 18 Atl. 541, 542; Commonwealth v. Silverman, 138 Pa. 642, 21 Atl. 13; Commonwealth v. Muir, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 578; Id., 180

66 A. 561

Pa. 47, 36 Atl. 413; Commonwealth v. Moore, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 162; Commonwealth v. Jones, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 362; Commonwealth v...