Gothard v. People

• Decision Date: 07 December 1903
• Citation: 74 P. 890,32 Colo. 11
• Parties: GOTHARD v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

74 P. 890

32 Colo. 11

GOTHARD v. PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December 7, 1903

Error to District Court, El Paso County; William P. Seeds, Judge.

S. B Gothard was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license, and he brings error. Affirmed.

C. H Brierley, for plaintiff in error.

N. C Miller, Atty. Gen. (Henry J. Hersey and I. B. Melville, of counsel), for the People.

CAMPBELL C.J.

The plaintiff in error, as defendant below, was found guilty of practicing dentistry without first having obtained a license therefor, which is made unlawful by a statute enacted in 1897, entitled 'An act to regulate the practice of dentistry and dental surgery in the state of Colorado,' etc. Sess. Laws 1897, p. 144, c. 43. From the sentence pronounced against him, defendant has brought the case here, and the only error assigned is that the act is unconstitutional, first, because its title does not show the substance of the body of the act, or that a penalty is provided for its violation; second, that it is class legislation, and therefore inhibited by section 25 of article 5 of our Constitution. Section 1 of the statute declares that it shall be unlawful for any person to practice dentistry or dental surgery in the state of Colorado unless he shall first have obtained a license for such purpose as therein prescribed. Section 2 authorizes the appointment of a state board of dental examiners, upon which the power is conferred and the duty imposed of executing its provisions. Section 4 declares that any person desiring to practice dentistry in this state shall first submit to an examination before the state board of dental examiners, touching his qualifications and such applicant shall, with his application for examination, submit to the board, as a prerequisite to such examination, a diploma of graduation of some reputable dental college, school, or university, duly authenticated by the laws of this state or some other of the United States. Section 5 says that persons who are in possession of such diplomas, upon deposit of the examination fee, shall be examined by the board at such times and under such rules as the board may prescribe, and all persons who are found qualified after such examination shall be registered in a record book, and receive a license from the board to practice dentistry in this state. Section 7 relates to the penalty for a violation of the provisions of the act.

1. No argument is necessary to show the entire lack of merit in the first specification of error. The title, as hereinbefore set out, sufficiently indicates the substance of the act, its extent and scope, and embraces in its purview every provision thereof, and is broad enough to cover a penalty for its violation. Section 21 of article 5 of the Constitution requires that the subject of an act shall be single, which must be clearly expressed in its title. That has been done here. The authorities cited by counsel in support of their contention are not in point.

2. The second assignment is based upon the proposition that because power is given by the statute to the state board to restrict the practice of dentistry to persons holding a diploma from a dental school, college, or university of the class designated, without respect to the ability of the applicant to pass such an examination as may be conducted by the board itself, an unwarranted discrimination is thereby made in favor of those holding a diploma, against those who do not in favor of one class...