Williams v. People

• Decision Date: 12 May 1887
• Citation: Williams v. People, 121 Ill. 84, 11 N.E. 881 (Ill. 1887)
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

121 Ill. 84

11 N.E. 881

WILLIAMS

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 12, 1887.

Error to criminal court, Cook county.

Barnum, Rubens & Ames, for Williams, plaintiff in error.

John M. Hamilton, for the People, appellee.

SHELDON, J.

In this casethe plaintiff in error, George J. Williams, was indicted, tried for, and convicted of the offense of violating the provisions of the act in force July 1, 1877, (Laws 1877, p. 154;Starr &C. St. 1602,) being ‘An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Illinois,’ by practicing medicine without having any of the qualifications required by that act.A fine of $200 was assessed by the court.

It is insisted that the act under which the conviction was had is unconstitutional.We do not understand the act to be challenged in this respect in the regard of its feature of prescribing qualifications for the practice of medicine.It is the common exercise of legislative power to prescribe regulations for securing the admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill; and nowhere is this undoubtedly valid exercise of the police power of the state more wise and salutary, and more imperiously called for, than in the case of the practice of medicine.It concerns the preservation of the health and the lives of the people.But the constitutional objection which is urged against the act is that it is special legislation, contrary to article 4, § 22, of the state constitution, which provides that ‘the general assembly shall not pass local or special laws granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever.’The special feature which is claimed is the proviso to the act, which is: ‘Provided, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to those that have been practicing medicine ten years within this state.’This proviso does not confer upon the 10-year practitioners any special privilege immunity, or franchise.It does not confer upon them anything; it leaves them as they are.But it is said the act is one to regulate the practice of medicine, and that it subjects to regulation only a class, to-wit, graduates with diplomas, and applicants for a certificate of examination, while the 10-year practitioners are not subjected to any regulation at all, by anything in the act.

It becomes proper to look and see what the provisions of the act are.The first clause of the act is as follows: ‘Every person practicing medicine, in any of its departments, shall possess the qualifications required by this act.’All the other provisions of the act, as we view them, only respect such qualifications, with the exception of one section, which requires any itinerant vendor of any drug or nostrum ointment to pay a license of $100 a month.It was in the province of the legislature to prescribe what should be the qualifications for the practice of medicine, and what the mode in which they should be determined.The act provides, as to a graduate in medicine with a diploma, that he may practice upon his diploma, it being verified as pointed out by the act.In regard to others, it is provided they shall undergo an examination before the state board, or board of examiners, and may practice upon the certificate of the board.As respects the proviso, we regard it in the light of but prescribinga qualification that 10 years' practice within the state should constitute a qualification for practicing medicine.

It is virtually conceded in the argument of appellant's counsel that the general assembly might make the qualification of 10 years' practice prior to the act equal to the qualification of a diploma or of a certificate of examination, and that the proviso might have been...