Gosnell v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 392
• Parties: GOSNELL <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 392

GOSNELL

v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 9, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county; G. S. CUNNINGHAM, Judge.

J. V. Bourland, for appellant. M. E. Atkinson, Atty. Gen., and T. D. Crawford, for appellee.

HUGHES, J.

Upon an indictment under the act of the general assembly of 1887, (page 259,) regulating the practice of dentistry in this state, appellant was convicted and fined, and appealed to this court. The proof showed that he was a resident of the state, and had been, and was at the date of the passage of the act, practising dentistry in Franklin county; and that he failed to procure a certificate from the board of dental examiners authorizing him to practice the same, in accordance with section 5 of said act, within three months after the passage of the same; and that he practiced dentistry on the 10th of April, 1888. The act was approved 4th of April, 1887. The board was appointed the 6th day of May, 1887, and organized the 28th of said month. After the first meeting, there was no other meeting of the board before the finding of the indictment. By resolution at their first meeting, the board fixed their annual meetings at such time and place as the State Dental Association might hold its annual meetings. The substance of a resolution passed by the board at its first meeting, calling on all dentists to come forward and register, was published in the Arkansas Gazette. On the 14th of July, 1887, appellant applied by letter to the secretary of the board to register, and was informed that the time had expired for registration, and that he would have to come before the board and be examined. He afterwards applied to be registered as of July 14, 1887, and was not permitted to register. It is contended that the act deprived appellant of a right to follow a lawful occupation; that it is unreasonable, unwise, and unconstitutional. Whatever may be thought of the hardships the act might work, it was not impossible for the appellant to have complied with section 5 thereof, which provided that "every person engaged in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery within this state at the time of the passage of this act shall, within three months thereafter, cause his or her name and residence and place of business to be registered with said board of examiners, upon which said board shall issue to such person a certificate, duly signed by a majority of the members of said board, and which certificate shall entitle the person to whom it is issued to all the rights and privileges set forth in section 1 of this act." It is not to be presumed that the board would not have acted upon the registration of the name of the applicant. Had it failed to act, it might have been compelled to do so by mandamus. A number of states have acts regulating the practice of dentistry and medicine, with provisions similar to the act we are considering, and yet we have found no case in which any of these acts have been declared unconstitutional. On the contrary, they have been repeatedly held to be constitutional by the highest courts. Indiana has a "dentistry act" very similar to this, except that the applicant must show that his diploma is from a college of good repute, or that he has continuously practiced since 29th May, 1879, or he must be examined by the board See Acts 1887, p. 58. The board is required to meet annually at the time and place fixed for the meeting of the Indiana State Dental Association, or oftener, at the call of any three members of said dental association. The validity of the legislation was called in question in Wilkins v. State, 16 N. E. Rep. 193, upon grounds other than those urged here; but the same reasoning applies. The court say: "The legislative judgment that the welfare of the public requires that those practicing the dental profession shall possess the necessary skill and learning, and shall obtain a certificate, is probably conclusive; but, if it were not, the court must take judicial knowledge that it is a profession requiring skill. The fact that the dentist employs his professional skill upon an important part of the human body is, of course, known to every one, and cannot be unknown to the courts. As this is...