State v. Board of Dental Examiners

• Decision Date: 02 April 1903
• Citation: 31 Wash. 492,72 P. 110
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SMITH v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

72 P. 110

31 Wash. 492

STATE ex rel. SMITH v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 2, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Mandamus by the state, on relation of J. W. Smith, against the board of dental examiners, and the members thereof, to compel defendants to register relator as a licensed dental practitioner. From an order denying the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Ballinger, Ronald & Battle, E. H. Guie, and J. W Robinson, for appellant.

Piles Donworth & Howe, for respondents.

HADLEY J.

The relator applied to the superior court for a writ of mandate directed to the board of dental examiners of the state of Washington, and to respondents as members constituting said board. At the hearing the following stipulation was filed, as embodying the essential facts involved: 'It is hereby stipulated and agreed that J. W. Smith, the applicant herein for five years last past, but no longer, has been, and at the time of the passage by the Legislature, at its regular session, of an act to amend sections 4, 6, 8, and 11 of chapter 55, pp. 90-93, of the Session Laws of 1893, approved by the Governor March 18, 1901 (Sess. Laws 1901, p. 314, c 152), was, for a fee, treating diseases or lesions of the human teeth and jaws, and correcting malpositions thereof, but that said Smith is not a graduate of a dental college, nor is he a holder of any diploma of any dental college, nor has he ever attended a course of lectures of any dental college, nor has he ever held any such diploma; that he has never passed any examination for admission to practice dentistry in the state of Washington or elsewhere; that he has never been licensed as a dentist or been registered as such under the provisions of an act of the Legislature of the state of Washington entitled 'An act to regulate the practice of dentistry in the state of Washington, and declaring an emergency,' approved March 8, 1893, or under any other act.' Upon the above facts the court denied the writ of mandate, entered judgment that relator shall take nothing, and awarded costs to respondents. The relator has appealed.

The sole question involved in this case is whether appellant is entitled to be registered as a dental practitioner in the state of Washington. Chapter 55, p. 88 et seq., Sess. Laws 1893, contains an act regulating the practice of dentistry in this state. Section 4 of that act provides that any person who desires to begin the practice of dentistry after the passage of the act shall file his name and application for examination with the secretary of the board of dental examiners, pay the required fee, and present himself before the board for examination at the next regular meeting of that body. It is further provided that no person shall be eligible for such examination unless he shall be of good moral character, and shall present to the board his diploma from some dental college in good standing, with satisfactory evidence of his rightful possession of the same. But by a special proviso of the section, persons may be admitted to examination who shall give satisfactory evidence of having been engaged in the practice of dentistry 10 years prior to the date of application for examination. Section 8 of the act provides a penalty, by way of fine or imprisonment, for the violation of the terms of the statute. The stipulation above set out shows that appellant has never had a diploma from a dental college, and had practiced dentistry for five years, and no more, before his application for registration was made. It is manifest that by so practicing dentistry he was violating the terms of the law of 1893, since he never passed an examination entitling him to be registered, and was not qualified to be even admitted to examination, either by reason of holding a diploma from a dental college, or of having practiced the required time. The law of 1893 was amended in 1901. The amending act is found in chapter 152, p. 314, Sess. Laws 1901. Section 1 of the amending act is an amendment to the above- mentioned section 4, p. 90, of the act of 1893. The essential features of the former section are repeated in the amending section, with the exception that the proviso in the former section which admits to examination those who have practiced dentistry for 10 years is omitted, and the following proviso appears in the amended section: 'Provided, this section shall not apply to persons engaged in the practice of dentistry at the time of the passage of this act who are bona fide citizens of the state of Washington.' After the above statute went into effect, appellant applied to the board of dental examiners to be registered and licensed as a practicing dentist, and claimed his right thereto under the quoted proviso above. He claims that, as a citizen of the state engaged in the practice of dentistry at the time of the passage of the act, he is exempt from all the requirements as to examination, and is at once entitled to registration. Appellant had been engaged five years in what he calls the practice of dentistry, but, under his interpretation of the law, one who had been engaged therein but five days is entitled to the same privilege, and that, too, without regard to any dental college or other training. Can it be possible that the Legislature intended such an unreasonable and seemingly absurd result? For years the policy of the state, prior to the passage of this act, had been to require all persons engaging in the practice of dentistry to pass an examination before the dental board of examiners; and, for one to even be admitted to such examination, he must have been either a dental college graduate or a practitioner for 10 years. Yet appellant's contention here would permit one who happened to be a bona fide citizen of the state when the act of 1901 was passed to practice dentistry, although he may have been without learning, experience, or skill in the profession. It is true, if such were clearly the legislative intent, it would have to be so held, however unwise such a regulation might be deemed to be. Let us endeavor to discover the legislative meaning. When the act...