Dantzler v. Callison, No. 17200

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtT. B. GRENEKER; STUKES
Citation94 S.E.2d 177,230 S.C. 75
PartiesDr. M. S. DANTZLER, Individually and as President of the South Carolina Naturopathic Physicians Association, et al., Plaintiffs, v. T. C. CALLISON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendant.
Decision Date20 August 1956
Docket NumberNo. 17200

Page 177

94 S.E.2d 177
230 S.C. 75
Dr. M. S. DANTZLER, Individually and as President of the
South Carolina Naturopathic Physicians
Association, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
T. C. CALLISON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendant.
No. 17200.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug. 20, 1956.
Appeal Dismissed Dec. 10, 1956.
See 77 S.Ct. 263.

[230 S.C. 79] Price & Poag, Greenville, for plaintiffs.

T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen., James S. Verner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Page 184

T. B. GRENEKER, Acting Associate Justice.

This action was brought in the original jurisdiction of this Court, and as the pleadings will be printed, we only state very briefly the allegations thereof.

The plaintiffs allege that the individual plaintiffs are all licensed naturopathic physicians and were admitted to practice in compliance with the law prior to June 1946, and that the last ten practitioners admitted in the State were admitted under the amended act of 1949. During the 1956 Session of the General Assembly of South Carolina, the following act was adopted:

'Section 1. Sections 56-901 through 56-919, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, are hereby repealed.

'Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person whether heretofore licensed or not under the laws of this or any other state to practice naturopathy in this State; Provided, however, that any person now authorized to practice naturopathy in South Carolina who is a graduate of an accredited college for pre-medical training and who has, in addition thereto, graduated from a medical college recognized at the time of his graduation by the state in which it was located, and who has heretofore for a period in excess of five years engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of South Carolina under the supervision of a licensed medical doctor by special request or by special permission of the State Board of Medical Examiners, or agents thereof, shall be examined by the [230 S.C. 88] State Board of Medical Examiners on the same basis as other applicants to the Board are examined, and upon the making of a passing grade on this examination, shall be licensed to practice medicine in this State.' 49 St. at Large, p. 1624.

Section 3 provides for the punishment of the violation of the Act. Section 4 provides that all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent therewith were repealed.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to their rights and contend that the Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of and Constitution of the United States by depriving them of their property and property rights without due process of law and denies them the equal protection of the law; is arbitrary and discriminatory in that it singles out naturopathy, one of the arts of healing, and abolishes its practice. They further allege that the Act is in violation of Article 1, § 5; Article 1, § 17; and Article 3, § 17, of the Constitution of South Carolina in that it deprives them of their property and property rights without due process of law; denies them equal protection; is arbitrary and discriminatory; and that the Act relates to more than one subject which is not expressed in the title. It is further contended that the plaintiffs entered the practice of naturopathy as a means of a livelihood; they have invested much time and great sums of money; and that naturopathy has been recognized by the General Assembly of South Carolina since 1920; and it is finally contended that the Act is prohibitory and asks that it be declared null and void.

The answer admits that the individual plaintiffs have been practicing naturopathy since their admission and admits the passage of the Act, however, it denies that the Act is in violation of either the State or Federal Constitutions. It is also admitted that by the Act the practice of naturopathy, as a separate cult, is prohibited; and that it makes unlawful certain acts by the plaintiffs, otherwise lawful, but lawful only to those coming under the provisions of the law. Defendant [230 S.C. 89] contends that the purpose of the Act is to protect the public health and welfare and is a valid exercise of the police power of the State, and denies that it is either arbitrary or discriminatory.

We think it may be fairly stated that the questions involved are:

Page 185

(A) Is the title of the act defective so as to render it unconstitutional in view of Section 17 of Article 3 of the South Carolina Constitution?

(B) Is the Act violative of either the Federal or State Constitutions?

(C) May the State, under the police power, so regulate?

The title of the Act in question is as follows:

'An Act To Repeal Sections 56-901 Through 56-919, Code Of Laws Of South Carolina, 1952, Relating To The Practice Of Naturopathy; To Make It Unlawful For Certain Persons To Practice Naturopathy In This State; And To Provide Penalties For Violating The Provisions Of This Act.'

Section 17, Article 3 of the South Carolina Constitution reads as follows:

'Every Act or Resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'

The purpose of this section is to prevent deception of the public and to prevent insertion of matters not germane to the general subject. Furman v. Willimon, 106 S.C. 159, 90 S.E. 700; Miles Laboratories v. Seignious, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 549.

This section is to be construed with great liberality. Gasque v. Nates, 191 S.C. 271, 2 S.E.2d 36.

The requirement should not be enforced in any narrow or technical spirit. It was adopted to prevent certain abuses and it should be reasonably and liberally construed on the one hand so as to guard against these abuses, and on the other hand so as not to embarrass or obstruct[230 S.C. 90] needed legislation. Alley v. Daniel, 153 S.C. 217, 150 S.E. 691.

There is no doubt in the mind of this Court as to the validity of the title of the Act, but even if there were some doubt, a statute should be upheld if possible, doubtful cases being resolved in its favor. Alley v. Daniel, supra.

The plaintiffs certainly knew the purpose of the Act, for when the bill was before the General Assembly, according to their brief, they say: 'We appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Medical Committee and filed a printed brief along the lines followed herein.'

Plaintiffs rely upon Ex parte Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. (Nettles v. People's Bank of Darlington), 160 S.C. 104, 158 S.E. 214, however, we think this authority affords the plaintiffs no comfort as a study of that decision will reveal the difference between that and the instant case.

The purpose of this provision is to prevent 'log-rolling legislation'; to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the title gave no indication, and which may be, therefore, overlooked and unintentionally adopted; and to apprise the people of the subject of the legislation in order that they may have opportunity of being heard, if they so desire. McCollum v. Snipes, 213 S.C. 254, 49 S.E.2d 12, and many other authorities therein cited.

What subject, if we may ask, is embraced in the Act which is not referred to in the title or not germane to the purposes of the Act?...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs, No. 26209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 2006
    ...medical professionals such as physicians, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, physical therapists, and psychologists. In Dantzler v. Callison, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177 (1956), this Court upheld the constitutionality of a law making it illegal to practice naturopathy by anyone who failed to mee......
  • England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Exam., No. 16920.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 23, 1959
    ...v. Lee Optical Company, 1955, 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563, reversing, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 128; Dantzler v. Callison, 1956, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177, dismissed per curiam for want of a substantial federal question, 1956, 352 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 263, 1 L.Ed. 2d 235; and Hitchcock ......
  • Sims v. Tinney, Civ. A. No. 77-908.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 16, 1977
    ...of South Carolina and of other states have taken the same position as that of the United States Supreme Court. In Dantzler v. Callison, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177 (1956), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a South Carolina statute which made it unlawful for persons to practice na......
  • Hawkins v. Moss, No. 73-1601
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 18, 1974
    ...which had 'vested' under the Rule as it existed when he applied for and was denied exemption. Cf., however, Dantzler v. Callison (1956) 230 S.C. 75, 94-95, 94 S.E.2d 177, app. dismissed 325 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 263, 1 L.Ed.2d 235; State v. Austin (1956) 246 Minn. 514, 75 N.W.2d 780, 784. In D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs, No. 26209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 2006
    ...medical professionals such as physicians, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, physical therapists, and psychologists. In Dantzler v. Callison, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177 (1956), this Court upheld the constitutionality of a law making it illegal to practice naturopathy by anyone who failed to mee......
  • England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Exam., No. 16920.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 23, 1959
    ...v. Lee Optical Company, 1955, 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563, reversing, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 128; Dantzler v. Callison, 1956, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177, dismissed per curiam for want of a substantial federal question, 1956, 352 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 263, 1 L.Ed. 2d 235; and Hitchcock ......
  • Sims v. Tinney, Civ. A. No. 77-908.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 16, 1977
    ...of South Carolina and of other states have taken the same position as that of the United States Supreme Court. In Dantzler v. Callison, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177 (1956), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a South Carolina statute which made it unlawful for persons to practice na......
  • Hawkins v. Moss, No. 73-1601
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 18, 1974
    ...which had 'vested' under the Rule as it existed when he applied for and was denied exemption. Cf., however, Dantzler v. Callison (1956) 230 S.C. 75, 94-95, 94 S.E.2d 177, app. dismissed 325 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 263, 1 L.Ed.2d 235; State v. Austin (1956) 246 Minn. 514, 75 N.W.2d 780, 784. In D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT