State v. Vandersluis

• Decision Date: 30 November 1889
• Citation: 42 Minn. 129
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> GEERT A. VANDERSLUIS.

42 Minn. 129

STATE OF MINNESOTAvs.

GEERT A. VANDERSLUIS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 30, 1889.

Defendant was prosecuted in the municipal court of St. Paul on a complaint charging him with practising dentistry by treating the teeth of one Brannon, in that city, on September 2, 1889, without having complied with the statutory requirements. It was admitted that the facts were as stated in the complaint, and also that at the time of the offence charged the defendant was a bona fide student of dentistry, pursuing clinical advantages under the direct supervision of a preceptor and licensed dentist in that city, and had, as such student, so practised dentistry in the office of such preceptor ever since July 6, 1887, and that he treated Brannon in such office as such student; that he has been continuously engaged in the study and practice of dentistry since September 11, 1884, during which period he was, for a year and nine months, a student with certain dentists named, in St. Paul, and under their direct supervision as preceptors, and from September, 1886, to April, 1887, he was a student

at the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, at Philadelphia, a dental college of the first rank; that after leaving such college he practised dentistry in his own office in Illinois for three months, and then was engaged as a student in the pursuit of clinical advantages in the office of a dentist in Minneapolis, and under his direct supervision as preceptor. It was further admitted that defendant possesses the requisite learning and experience to perform all operations performed by dentists, etc., and was so competent, learned and experienced on September 1, 1889, and at the date of passage of Laws 1889, c. 19, and that he has for more than three years last past been dependent on his practice as a dentist for his livelihood except while in the dental college; that he is 21 years of age, is a native of this state, and has always resided here except while temporarily absent at the dental college and while practising in Illinois. On these facts the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $25 or be committed to the workhouse for 30 days, from which judgment he appeals.

Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for appellant.

M. E. Clapp, Attorney General, J. J. Egan, M. D. Munn, and Selden Bacon, for the State.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

That the legislature may prescribe such reasonable conditions upon the right to practise medicine or law as will exclude from the practice those who are unfitted for it, is so well settled by decisions of the courts as to be no longer an open question. The power rests on the right to protect the public against the injurious consequences likely to result from allowing persons to practise those professions who do not possess the special qualifications essential to enable the practitioner to practise the profession with safety to those who employ him. The same reasons apply with equal force to the profession of dentistry, which is but a branch of the medical profession. That, in the exercise of that power, the legislature may require, as a condition of the right to practise, that the person shall procure a license; may designate some officer or board to issue the license, and to determine whether an applicant possesses the qualifications required to entitle him to it; and may prescribe, so far as can be done by a general law, what qualifications shall be required, and how the possession of them by the applicant shall be ascertained, — necessarily follows from the power itself. It is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine those things. The only limit to the legislative power in prescribing conditions to the right to practise in a profession is that they shall be reasonable. Whether they are reasonable, — that is, whether the legislature has gone beyond the proper limits of its power, — the courts must judge. By the term "reasonable" we do not mean expedient, nor do we mean that the conditions must be such as the court would impose if it were called on to prescribe what should be the conditions. They are to be deemed reasonable where, although perhaps not the wisest and best that might be adopted, they are fit and appropriate to the end in view, to wit, the protection of the public, and are manifestly adopted in good faith for that purpose. If a condition should be clearly arbitrary and capricious; if no reason with reference to the end in view could be assigned for it; and, especially, if it appeared that it must have been adopted for some other purpose, — such for instance, as to favor or benefit some persons or class of persons, — it certainly would not be reasonable, and would be beyond the power of the legislature to impose.

In 1885 the legislature passed an act to regulate the practice of dentistry. Chapter 199, Laws 1885. This act continued in force until it was superseded and repealed by chapter 19, Laws 1889. The latter act is assailed as unconstitutional. Though the act of 1885 is not called in question, we think it well to refer to some of its provisions. Section 1 made it unlawful for any person not at the passage of the act engaged in the practice of dentistry in the state to commence such practice without a certificate as in the act provided. Section 5 provided for the certificate, which was to be issued by the board of examiners provided for in the act, upon a satisfactory examination. Section 4 made it the duty of every person at the time engaged in the practice of dentistry in the state to, within six months after the passage of the act, cause his name and residence or place of business to be registered with the board, in a book to be kept by it for that purpose, and provided that every person so registered as a practitioner of dentistry might continue to practise as such. Chapter 19, Laws 1889, § 1, provides that from and after September 1, 1889, it shall be unlawful for any person to practise dentistry in the state, unless he shall first have obtained a certificate of registration, and filed the same, or a certified copy thereof, with the clerk of the district court of the county of his...