State v. Creditor

• Decision Date: 03 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Kan. 565,24 P. 346
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. E. H. CREDITOR
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

24 P. 346

44 Kan. 565

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. E. H. CREDITOR

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 3, 1890

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court.

AT the January term, 1890, E. H. Creditor was convicted of a violation of the law in relation to the practice of dentistry. He appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Dale & Wall, for appellant.

L. B Kellogg, attorney general, for The State.

JOHNSTON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

E. H. Creditor was convicted in the district court of Sedgwick county for practicing dental surgery without authority, and in violation of the provisions of chapter 123 of the Laws of 1885, entitled "An act to regulate the practice of dentistry, and punish violators thereof." He appeals, and challenges the validity of the statute. The act provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to practice dentistry or dental surgery without having a diploma from some reputable dental college, school, or university department, in which there was at the time the diploma was issued annually delivered a full course of lectures and instruction in dentistry or dental surgery. It enacts that the requirement of a diploma shall not apply to those engaged in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery within the state at the time of the passage of the act. A board of examiners is created, who are granted authority to issue certificates to persons engaged in the practice of dentistry at the time of the passage of the act, and to decide upon the validity of such diplomas as may be presented for registration. All persons engaged in the practice of dentistry within the state at the time of the passage of the act are required to register their names and place of business with the board of examiners within six months, and when that is done the board is authorized to issue to such persons certificates authorizing them to continue the practice. All persons desiring to begin the practice after the passage of the act are required to present to the board of examiners a diploma or a duly-authenticated copy of the same, which, if found by the board to be valid, is accepted, and the person holding the diploma is granted a certificate authorizing him to practice. A charge of three dollars is made for the certificates issued to persons practicing in the state at the time the act is passed, and for the certificates issued to persons commencing to practice after the passage of the act a charge of ten dollars is imposed. It is finally provided that any person who engages in the practice of dentistry in violation of the provisions of the act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in a sum not less than $ 10 nor more than $ 100.

The appellant contends that the act is repugnant to § 2 of article 4 of the federal constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," and is also in conflict with § 1 of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States which provides that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The power of the legislature to regulate the practice of medicine, dentistry, or surgery, is undoubted; it is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the health and the promotion of the comfort and welfare of the people. It may provide that only those possessing skill and learned in these professions shall be permitted to practice; may prescribe the nature and extent of the qualifications required, and the rules for ascertaining and determining whether those proposing to practice come up to the statutory standard. If the regulations and conditions are adopted in good faith, and they operate equally upon all who may desire to practice, and who possess the required qualifications, and if they are adapted to the legislative purpose of promoting the health and welfare of the people by excluding from the practice those who are ignorant and incapable, then the fact that the conditions may be rigorous, impolitic and unjust will not render the legislation invalid. The authorities uniformly support the exercise of this power by the state, and statutes similar to the one under consideration have been repeatedly sustained. (Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114; The State v. Vandersluis, Minn., 42 Minn. 129, 43 N.W. 789; Hewitt v. Charier, 16 Pick. 789; Eastman v. The State, 109 Ind. 278; The People v. Phippin, Mich., 70 Mich. 6, 37 N.W. 888; Richardson v. The State, 47 Ark. 562; Ex parte Spinney, 10 Nev. 323; Harding v. The People, 10 Colo. 387, 15 P. 727; Antle v. The State, 6 Tex. Ct. App. 202; Musser v. Chase , 29 Ohio St. 577; Thompson v. Hazen, 25 Me. 104; The State v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123; The State v. Med. Ex. Board, 32 Minn. 324.) Although not specifically declared in the act, the manifest purpose of the legislature was to exclude from a...