State v. Lawson

• Citation: 82 P. 750,40 Wash. 455
• Parties: STATE v. LAWSON.
• Decision Date: 07 November 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

82 P. 750

40 Wash. 455

STATE v. LAWSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 7, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

O. V Lawson was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.

Allen Allen & Stratton and Geo. M. Sinclair, for appellant.

Kenneth Mackintosh, Anthony M. Arntson, and Walker & Munn, for the State.

RUDKIN J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury finding defendant guilty of practicing medicine without a license. The first act of the state Legislature regulating the practice of medicine will be found in Laws 1889-90, p 114. The act consists of 11 sections, including an emergency clause. In 1901 an amendatory act was passed, entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery in the state of Washington, and to license physicians and surgeons; to punish all people violating the provisions of this act, and to repeal all laws in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency,' approved April 10, 1890.' Laws 1901, p. 47, c. 42. The later act amended sections 3, 7, and 8 of the former, setting forth at length the three sections as amended.

The first contention of appellant is that there is no law in this state authorizing the licensing of persons to practice medicine and surgery; that the act of 1890 was entirely superseded by the amendatory act of 1901. The basis of this contention, as we understand it, is this: The amendatory act of 1901 does not set forth at full length the sections of the original act which were not amended, and it is claimed that this is required by article 2, § 37, of the state Constitution, which reads: 'No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth at full length.' Whatever support this contention may find in the earlier decisions of the courts of Louisiana and Indiana, it is no longer considered as sound. Speaking of this constitutional provision, Judge Cooley says: 'It has been deemed important, in some of the states, to provide by their Constitutions, that 'no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title; but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth and published at full length.' Upon this provision an important query arises. Does it mean that the act or section revised or amended shall be set forth and published at full length as it stood before or does it mean only that it shall be set forth and published at full length as amended or revised? Upon this question perhaps a consideration of the purpose of the provision may throw some light. 'The mischief designed to be remedied was the enactment of amendatory statutes in terms so blind that the legislators themselves were sometimes deceived in regard to their effects, and the public, from the difficulty in making th necessary examination and comparison, failed to become apprised of the changes made in the laws. An amendatory act which purported only to insert certain words, or to substitute one phrase for another in an act or section which was only referred to, but not published, was well calculated to mislead the careless as to its effect, and was, perhaps, sometimes drawn in that form for the express purpose. Endless confusion was thus introduced into the law, and the Constitution wisely prohibited such legislation.' If this is a correct view of the purpose of the provision, it does not seem to be at all important to its accomplishment that the old law should be republished, if the law as amended is given in full, with such reference to the old law as will show for what...